HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity/County Planning Board Minutes 09.12.1991 I.AU I~£1.-YI~LL. DWSTO hi £
CITY-COUNTY I I_ANNING BOAI D
LALIR£L, kIONTAN& ~9044
Sept. 12, 1991
The City-County Planning Board meeting of September'12,
was brought to order at 7:05 p.m. with the following members
present:
1991,
Gerald Shay, Member at Larg, Acting Chairman
Larry Thomas, City Rep.
Joseph M. Bradley, City Rep.
Donna Kilpatrick, City Rep.
Lonnie Kellogg, City Rep.
Jim Ziegler, County Rep.
Donald Gudgell, County Rep.
Clarence Foos,.County Rep.
Billie Lou Lance, County Rep.
Members absent:
John H. Smith, City Rep.
Russell Bray, County Rep.
Others present:
Cal Cumin, City Planner
Cheryll Lund, City Secretary
Wanda Barclay, 501 12th St. W.
Phyllis Prindle, 2707 Custer, Billings
Alvin & Bette Kappel, 1220 4th Ave.
Waldemar Jeroma, 1226 5th Aye.
Carol & Don Miller, 1215 5th Ave.
Mark MacGrady, 613 2nd Ave.
Kurt Diegel, 3808 Slalom #357, Billings
Mrs. & Mrs. Andrew Jamieson, Roberts, Mt.
L.D. Collins, 401 Cottonwood
Connie & Dennis Klein, 1238 4th Avenue
Jennifer Feldhaus, Laurel Outlook
Robert Sanderson, 1001 S. 24th St. W., Billings
Jane Fischer, 1345 W. 12th St.
Cynthia Cellmer, 1919 E. Maryland
Motion by Donna Kilpatrick, seconded by Billie Lou Lance, to
approve the minutes of the August 8, 1991 minutes. Motion carrie~.
Motion by Billie Lou Lance, seconded by Donna Kilpatrick to
pay the administrative services bill for $400 (August and September).
Motion carried.
Home Occupation- Wanda Barclay, 501W. 12th
Wanda Barclay of 501 W. 12th St. has applied for a Home Occupation
to make dried flower wreaths. She fashions the wreath out of old
barbed wire and puts dried flowers and a porcelein replica of a
cow skull. She has an authorized "Made in Montana" label on the
wreath. She plans to sell the wreaths in Cooke City, and various
other towns throughout Montana. She does all work at her home,
O extra traffic, no employees an~~
but has no sales at her home,
does not generate any extra garbage (She has her own 90- gallon
garbage can).
Motion by Billie Lou Lance, to apDrove the application, subject
to no traffic, no employees and no extra garbage. Motion was
seconded by Lonnie Kellogg. Motion carried.
Asphalt Supply- Special Review (tabled from last month)
Asphalt Supply has applied to put a storage tank in at their
business. Last month several items were not available that will
add some insight to this application.
The Engineering report that was done in 1986 was discussed. Jim
Worthington read the report and says the conditions that existed
at that time is what the report is written about. They are
applying for a different type of product, but at that time had
some remedies that they proposed and that some of those had been
done to help eliminate odors and smoke.
Joe asks that in reading the report is what they are proposing to
take out going to solve the odor problem. Jim states that yes,
they are using a different product than what was in the report.
The material that caused the odor and smoke at that time was known
to be in production at the plant.
The specific product was Naptha. When they combined that with the
other materials the flash point was lower than the other materials
they were using, causing evaporation and generating smoke and odor.
The last paragraph on the report explains it. The latex was causing
the smoke and odor.
Cal states that they are not proposing to eliminate the latex.
is an intrical part of their operation now, and at the time the
report was written. . .
It
Kurt Diegel, of Asphalt Supply, states that the odor came from the
loading of the Naptha product onto the trucks. But, they no longer
use the Naptha.
Joe wonders why the report does not take note of Naptha.
Kurt Diegel would like to point out that since not using the Naptha
the odor has not been as bad. That was pointed out in last month's
meeting by Ron Marshall.
Donna says that that no one is concerned of the product, just that
the odor coming out of the Plant is offensive to the neighbors.
Donna also states that she feels the complaints
people are tired of complaining when nothing is
has received complaints very recently.
have stopped because
being done. She
Joe states that the Police Department has had 5 complaints in 1991.
The earliest one was on July 31st. He would like to point out that
it was after we started publish~D~ for this Special Review th3t these
complaints were received. Ther~ re non~ before t? t time.
~ge 2
City-County Planning Board meeting of Sept. 12,
1991
(see list of complaints attached)
Kurt Diegel states that it is kind of strange that these complaints were
received after the Public Hearing notice was published.
He also states that the mist eliminator runs 24 hours a day and
is never turned off.
A- letter from the Air Quality Burea was presented to the Board.
It states that they have not received any complaints since 1986.
The lawsuit pending between Yellowstone County and Asphalt Supply
was dismissed last March by the Judge. They had sent a notice to
the County Attorney's office wondering whether further action was
going to be taken, and the County Attorney's office did not respond,
so the Judge dismissed the case. So, the suite is not pending.
There are no other suites pending, but that's not to say that a
new one cannot be started today because of the nuisance of odor.
An Asphalt Supply rep. states that they do not want the odor
problems either and they have done everything to eliminate it.
With asphalt there will be an odor.
Kurt Diegel states that they are willing to take the Naptha tank
out entirely if the City wants. There are 2 tanks that will be
removed.
Question on whether or not Naptha could be brought in in a truck.
Yes, it could, but it will not be. They have eliminated all Naptha
production.
Complaint on trucks driving on the sidewalk to turn left out of
the Plant. There was a complaint on that today. (see attached
complaint).
Joe wonders whether they could turn right, and then go around the
block. This would put them into the residential area more than
if they turned left. Or, have them turn right and find a spot to
turn around. It is felt that a right turn would be worse because
it would put them more into the residential area.
Suggestion of putting concrete bumpers on the side of the street ~
to make it so no left turns would be possible.
Kurt Diegel states that if the tanks are removed (Naptha tanks)
that would eliminate turning problems because it would give the
much more room to make their turn.
trucks
Gerald Shay
the turn as
on people's
also states that the drivers could make as much of
possible, and back the truck up to eliminate driving
private property.
The noise complaint from radio's being played loudly needs ~o be
addressed.
Joe says we don't have to allow this non-conforming use. They have
said that if we allow this storage tank, they will take out the
Naptha tanks. They are offering a trade.
Larry Thomas thinks that if you allow them to expand you are adding
to the problems that already exist. They will continue to be a
problem if we allow this.
Gerald Shay states that an Asphalt tank will always smell.
There have been approximately 3 odor complaints this year. Naptha
has not been used for over a year.
Joe states that when the plume of smoke settles over the south end
of town, you can smell it. It's not the rotten egg smell it was
in the past, but there is an odor. It is an asphalt smell.
They also state that they will
proposed tank is for storage.
if that is true or not.
not be making more asphalt, but the
He wonders how we will ever know
Joe feels that it would be an advantage to get on their license
application that they are not ever going to use Naptha. By
granting this request, this could be written down and if they
ever do make Naptha we would have something on them.
Joe feels that the odor isn't as bad since the Naptha has not been
used. Several residents told us that at last month's meeting.
Joe thinks that the complaints on trucks and loud radios should be
addressed, and can be by sending the Police on these calls and
having them give out tickets. He feels that we should have the
Mayor encourage the Police to do so.
Cal is concerned about the issue of preventing a business'
from its normal growth in operation. His recommendation is that
this request to put this storage tank in be approved subject to
the requirement that Naptha no longer be used at asphalt supply
and that the two Naptha tanks be removed. Volume of asphalt will
have to remain the same and that they widen their gate to help
accomodate the truck traffic. Also, they need to meet all fire
codes regarding buildings and diking.
Curt Diegel states that the asphalt volume will not be increased.
They are not looking to expand.
Motion by Joe Bradley too approve the application for a new
storage tank subject to 1) Naptha no longer be used at the Plant
2) the two Naptha tanks be removed 3) Volume of production is to
remain the same 4) the gate be widened to help facilitate truck
traffic and 5) The new tank meet all fire codes, to including
diking. Motion was seconded by Donna Kilpatrick. More discussion
followed.
..~3
zty- County Planning Board meeting of Sept. 12, 1991
A question is raised as to how the volume of asphalt produced
can be monitored.
Cal feels that if this becomes an issue down the road, there are
ways of finding out volume figures.
The question is called for at this time. Five votes for
approval are cast by Joe Bradley, Billie Lou Lance, Lonnie Kellogg,
Don Gudgell and Jim Ziegler. No votes are cast by Donna Kilpatrick,
Larry Thomas and Clarence Foos. Motion carries~5--3.
. Motion by.Joe Bradley, seconded by Bil!ie Lou Lance, to
recommend to the Planning Board that they hold a second Public
Hearing. Motion carried 8--0.
Home Occupation- Connie Klein- Day Care Center
Connie Klein spoke concerning why she was asked to come to the
meeting? She is under the impression that she was here for a Home
Occupation and was not told about any Public Hearing.
Joe states that what she filled out was for a Special Review.
Connie states No, it was a Home Occupation.
Joe states that the letter he sent her indicated she had to go
through a Special Review process to have a Day Care Center in her
residential home.
Connie states that she is not a Day Care Center, she is a Day Care
Group Home.
According to City Ordinances, Joe states that she is a Day Care
Center because she has over 7 children. The State says she is a
Day Care Group Home, but we are dealing with City Ordinance NOT
what the State says.
Joe states that we use different terminology than the State, and
she is here because of City Ordinance which requires a special
review for a Day Care Center in a residential area. Please don't
get the two confused.
A Day Care Center consists of 7 or more kids. Connie is wondering
how the City knew how many kids she has?
Joe states that Connie told him she is licensed for up to 12 kids.
Joe would like Connie to tell the Committee just what her operation
consists of.
She is wondering about the wording of the Public Hearing notice.
She is not a Day Care Center.
Connie states that the City has been on her case about this since
June 1st. She states that no one showed up at the July meeting,
except for her. She was told by the City Treasurer to show up and
was very put out that no one else showed up. Then she was told
to come to the August meeting, and then received a phone call from
the City Treasurer that the Council wasn't going to do anything
about babysitters at this time. She feels harrassed, and she is
worried over the fact that she might not have a job after this is
all over. She brought along 2 parents that are also worried about
not having a place to take their kids if she is shut down.
She babysits from 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. and has 12-16 kids depending
on the overlap of school kids. The kids are dropped off at various
times and also picked up at various times.
She is licensed by the State for a total of 18 kids'- maximum.
The reason for the Special review is to find out what kind of an
impact the Day Care Center will have on the neighborhood.
Cynthia Cellmer, 1919 E. Maryland, has 3 kids that range in the
ages from infant to 4 years old. Connie is a good babysitter, and
her kids are well taken care of. She has no problem with the amount
of kids Connie watches. Both her and her husband work and she has
to have.day care.
Jane Fischer, 1345 W. 12th Avenue, wants to know why Connie has
been singled out on this issue? If we don't allow Connie to watch
her kids she would be perfectly willing to bring them to our (Planning
board members) houses to be watched.
9pponents
Alvin Kappel, 1220 4th Avenue, says the point isn't the babysitting,
because Connie has done it for years. The point is the License.
He feels that if we allow one business license to be issued, what
would stop a convenience center from coming into the residential
areas. The value of their homes is going to go down because of
this. He chose the area because of the restrictions (covenants).
Cal questioned whether he objected to the fact of the children at
Connie's house.
He said yes, he does object. He said there has been some problems,
but that they have been taken care of. He has a problem with the
formalization of a business license.
Betty Kappel, 1220 4th Avenue, states that someone had to start this
whole mess by complaining about her operation. She doesn't know
anything about how Connie runs it, but she is not content with it
in her residential area.
She says that at times Connie's kids have annoyed her (with noise),
but it hasn't been that bad.
Page 4
City-County Planning Board meeting of Sept. 12, 1991
Don Miller, 1215 5th Avenue, is strongly opposed to this. He
feels that this is the premier subdivision in Laurel. Many
people have put their life savings into their homes and property.
He feels that there is a need for babysitters~ and he appreciates
their entrepreneurship in this venture. But, he feels that they
should rent a building in a commercial area and have the business.
Their operation creates noise and alot of traffic. He feels it
is ultimately going to hit the residents in their back pockets and
he is not going to sit still for it.
Mrs. Jeroma, 1226 4th Avenue, doesn't object to what Connie is
doing to make a living. But, when they bought their property they
were told it was strictly residential. The covenants in the
subdivision are strict, and that is why they chose to live in
that area. They paid a premium price for th~ lot. Their home
is their largest single investment and she thinks that because of
this Day Care Center the value of their home is going to go down.
They can't afford to have a loss on their home. This is.her main
concern about getting licensed businesses in this area. Even
Connie's home is beautiful and well kept. Who is going to make up
for the loss that they will take?
Question on restrictions in that area. Is it a matter of
record?
She said that the covenants are a matter of public record.
Mr. Miller states that this operation is not allowed in the zoning
restrictions and should be stopped.
Cal states that our zoning laws do not prohibit this type of an
operation, but it must go through a Special Review process. Mr.
Miller is going by covenants and covenants are not enforced by the
City of Laurel.
Question on who enforces the convenants. Joe states that when you
buy property with covenants on it, you are entering into a contract
with your neighbors and if they violate that contract you take them
to court. The City handles only the zoning, not the subdivision
covenants. Covenants are a civil matter.
Joe states that its not the government that enforces the covenants,
it is the private individual's duty to do so.
A question is raised on how the City can issue a business license'
in a residential area. Joe states that our Ordinances provide
for certain kinds of businesses to go in if the City can determine
that they do not effect the residential area. There are certain
things that are absolutely not allowed in a residential area. We
can (the City ) stop those types of businesses. Uses such as
a music teacher, artists and seamstresses shouldn't bother anyone.
Bette Kappel states that Connie's operation doesn't bother her, but
what happens when her next door neighbor puts in a Day care center.
That will bother her.
She states she doesn't hear the kids, but does not want a Day care
center located next to her!
Four letters of protest were received by the City of Laurel.
Don & Carol Miller of 1215 5th Avenue; Mrs. Jeroma of 1226 4th
Avenue; Mr. & Mrs. Hoiland of 401W. 13th; and Mr. and Mrs. Olson
of 1225 5th Avenue. (see attached). Joe reads them into the
record.
Proponents
Cynthia Cellmer. She is assuming that someone turned Connie in
for babysitting with out a license or this hearing would never of
taken place. She knows of several people that are babysitting in
Laurel. without a license. She also does not want to take her kids
to a Day Care Center in a commercial building. She wants her kids
to be in a home atmosphere. If Connie's business does close, 23
kids will be going to other homes. The noise of the kids should not
be a consideration. When kids get off of school they make noise.
Most of Connie's kids are in the house. About U-turns and extra
traffic in the street, she is sorry. She lives by a busy street
where cars drive by all of the time, squeal tires, etc. This will
happen if there is a day care center or not. Connie is a good
babysitter and her children love it at Connie's house. She is
also assuming that from 8 am to 9 pm there is not a noise restriction
in town.
Joe states that there is a noise nuisance law.
in the a.m. hours.
It is different
Cynthia states that at 3 a.m. Connie does not have anyone at her
house. She also states that there a~e many kids in the area that
generate alot of noise in the after school hours. There is a
Park where they play soccer, baseball and etc.. and kids playing
make noise. The noise is not coming just from Connie's house.
She feels that the Board should just give Connie her license and
let everyone go home.
Cal would like to clarify something. This hearing is not over
issuing Connie a business license. This is regarding a zoning
violation. Her operation in this neighborhood is in violation of
zoning codes. In order for her to be there, she needs to go through
this Special Review process which she has never done. This has
nothing to do with business licenses.
Connie wonders why she wasn't told of this process 6 year's ago
when she started babysitting. She is also wondering why letters
weren't sent until after this hearing process began. Why were
these people notified to come. She would of come tO the meeting
last month without letters being sent.
Connie would like it to go on record that the only neighbors that
are attending tonight live 3-4 houses away and are not complaining
about noise, but about a business license being issued. The only
noise complaint received is from her immediate neighbor, and she
wants to make sure that the City Council knows that.
Page 5
City-County Planning Board meeting of Sept.
12, 1991
Mrs. Jeroma of ~226 5th Avenue, states that if Connie gets her
license and other people do the same thing, there will be more
traffic to the area. She is concerned that once you start giving
licenses,you cannot discriminate against others and you will be
issuing licenses all over town. There is alot of money in babysitting,
and its nice that people can babysit and stay home. But, this is
a residential area. She understands the mothers that have Connie
babysit, and Connie is a good babysitter. But, that has nothing
to do with this. This is about the zoning. She feels that if these
ladies were wearing her shoes, and possibly going to lose 10-15,000
dollars on their homes, they would feel differently.
Cynthia Cellmer comments that she can't believe that there is not
any other home occupations in Murray Subdivision. There must be
an accountant, dried flower lady, or someone in the area that has
been issued a home occupation.
Cal states that the issue is zoning, not home occupations.
Motion by Joe Bradley, seconded by Donna Kilpatrick, to
close the Public Hearing. Motion carried 8--0.
One more question is raised as to whether Connie has any employees?
Connie says she has one lady come in if she has over 9 kids.
A statement is then made that if she has employees then she is a
business. (Mr. Don Miller raised the question)
Joe states that under state law Family Day Care homes and Group
Day Ca~e homes are considered residential uses of property for
zones,., so we can't zone them out. However we can put reasonable
conditions on these homes. A family day care home is from 3-6
children. Group day care home is from 7~12 children. Anything
more than 12 is a Day care center under State law. According to
state !law we have to allow Day care homes as a residential use of
property, but we do not have to allow Day/care centers of more
than 1~2 children. I
Conni~ would be considered a day care cen~er.
ConniE clarifies that between the hours of 7:30 and 8:30 she is
licens%d for up to 16. At 8:30 she loses
from 8~:30 to 4:30 she is not permitted to
Connie said that she could live with havirg no more than 12 kids
at a time.
Joe states that the people that were here
about %he children or the noise. The onl}
excess traffic and devaluation of their p~
to Connie that she talk to her patrons an(
not make u-turns in front of her house.
her school kids and
have more than 12 kids.
tonight did not complain
complaint they had was
operty. We can suggest
ask them to please
Motion by Joe Bradley, seconded by Billie Lou Lance;
that we recommend approval for Connie Kleins Special Review
application for a maximum of 16 kids.
Cal recommends approval subject to the 16 maximum kids. He also
feels that the traffic should be addressed by adding a no U-turn
sign in front of her house.
Connie comments that the street in front of her house is half
city and half county.
He also feels that only a few people showed up tonight and all of
the neighbors within 300' were notified. So, evidently it is not
a problem for the neighbors that were notifed. And, he feels that
the only issues that need to be addressed are traffic and noise
from children.
Motion by Joe Bradley, that we recommend to the Council that
they approve Connie Kleins application for Special Review for up
to 16 kids, maximum. Motion was seconded by Billie Lou Lance.
Motion carried 8--0.
Motion by Joe Bradley, seconded by Don Gudgell, that we also
recommend that the City Council hold a second public hearing.
Motion carried 8--0.
Connie stresses that she wants it to be on the record that the
people complaining tonight were not complaining about noise. She
feels that they could possibly come to the Public Hearing before
the Council and change their comments to the fact that the noise
bothers them.
Minor Plat- Hageman Subdivision
After discussion a motion was made by Joe Bradley, seconded by
Billie Lou Lance, to recommend approval (see attached conditions).
Motion carried 8--0.
Minor Plat- DeCarlo Subdivision
After discussion, a motion was made by Joe Bradley, seconded by
Donna Kilpatrick that they recommend to the City Council that this
be approved (see attached conditions). Motion carried 8--0~
Motion by Joe Bradley, seconded by Jim Ziegler to approve
the bill for $3,375.00 for Cal Cumins services. Motion carried.
8--0.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:05 p.m.
Respectfully submittedl
Cheryll Lund, Secretary
c
LAUREL-YELLOWSTONE
CITY-COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
LAUREL, MONTANA 59044
WHEREAS, an application for Special Review
was filed with the City of Laurel by Connie Klein on
the 20th day of August 19 91, being designated
as file No. 91-06
WHEREAS, the application's having been refered for hearing
to the Laurel City County Planning Board pursuant to L.M.C.
Section 17.16.010 ;
WHEREAS, after due and legal notice of the said application
and of the date and time for hearing thereon was given pursuant
to law, hearing on the same was held before the Board at its
regular meeting on the 12th day of , 199J;
WHEREAS, after full consideration of the same by the Board
at the said meeting, it was moved by _ Joe Bradley, _ ,
seconded by Billie Lou Lance , to recommend approval of the said
application, and the motion was passed/iftfie_4Jtx1d by a vote of
_ 8 in favor and 0 opposed (state law requring
that the concurrence of at least six Board members is required
to pass any motion).
THEREFORE, the Laurel City County Planning Board hereby
recommends to the Laurel City Council as follows:
THAT APPLICATION NO. 91-06 BE:
GRANTED, subject to the following special conditions:
That a maximum of 16 children be on premises at one time.
DENIED
Dated this 12th day of Septembpr 199
C?
Chairman
•
G
P.O. BOX 10
PHONE: 628$791
City of Laurel
LAUREL, MONTANA 59044 PLANNING
DEPARTMENT
September 13, 1991
Mayor and City Council
City of Laurel, Montana 59044
Dear Mayor and City Council:
At its regularly scheduled public meeting of September
12th3 19913 this Board moved to recommend approval of the
following preliminary plats subject to the conditions
noted:
E
•
1. Amended Plat of Lot 1, Block 11-A, of Amended Plat
of Hageman Subdivision, 3rd Filing subject to:
a. provision of an eight-foot utility easement
along the north and west sides of the subdivision;
b. provision for sidewalk construction in the
Subdivision Improvements Agreement at the time building
permit is issued; and
c. amending the existing waiver of improvements
protest to include street maintenance district.
2. Amended Plat of Lot 4, DeCarlo Subdivision, 2nd
Filing subject to:
a. approval by the State Department of Health and
Environmental Sciences;
b. provision of eight-foot utility easement along
Fairway View Drive;
C. provision of the Restrictive Covenants in
filable form; and
d. provision of waiver of protest against improvements.
City of Laurel is an EEO Employer
M
If you have any questions, please contact me.
Sinc ly,
Cal Cumin, A CP
Planning Director
CC:ljn
cc: Bob Sanderson
Phyllis Prindle
0
0
CITY OF LAUREL
r
2.
3.
4.
s.
6.
7.
a.
t
Date - 3(--} - I
HOME OCCUPATION REQUEST FORM
Name
Pc 13 ax 3 6 '-1
Address _ ? L(J
G (f
Phone
Descri tion of proposed home occupation:
Please answer the following questions by indicating yes or no. If your
response is yes, please explain.
Will any person other than a member of the iimediate family occupying
the dwelling be employed, except domestic help? h -0
Will any stock in trade be displayed or sold upon the premises?
Will the character of the principal building be altered from that of.a
dwelling?
Will any illuminated signs be used? n -
Information: Law dictates that no sign other than one giving the name
and occupation, and not more than one square foot in area be displayed.
Will more than 25 percent of the area of one story of the building be
devoted to the home occupation??Q
Will any equipment be used in the home occupation which creates noise,
vibration, glare, fumes, odors, or electrical interference?
Will any equipment or process be used which creates visual or audible
interference in any radio or television receivers off the premises?
Attach a list of the the names and addresses of all adjacent
.-property residents within one-hundred (100) feet of the subject
property of this application. Have these adjacent residents
been notified of the planned Home Occupation and, if so, how?
Information
ome Occupations arp deemed to be
r7 7t /!c41"t
both site specific and owner specific
04!
' CITY OF LAUREL HOME ACCUPATION REQUEST FORM
Page 2
thus, the use of a portion of a structure as a home occupation will not
permit a subsequent owner an automatic home occupation designation.
Procedure
1. Complete home occupation request form and submit it to the
City seven (7) working days prior to a regularly scheduled
meeting of the Planning Board.
2- The Planning Board will consider the request at their regu-
larly scheduled meeting. Attendance at this meeting is
required by the applicant or his/her representative.
3. The Planning Board will make a recommendation to the City
Council that the specific request for a home occupation
designation be granted or denied.
4. The City Council will consider the Planning Board's recom-
mendation concerning the specific home occupation designation
and approve or deny it at their next regularly scheduled
meeting. Attendance by the applicant or his/her represent-
ative is required at this meeting.
Sketct,
1 •
In the space below, please provide a rough sketch with basic dimen-
sions showing the location of your business in your home in relation
to the other areas in your home. Include any storage area the
business may require.
l
t •
i
I
Jl?
J ? J
I
LAUREL-YELLOWSTO N E
CITY-COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
LAUREL. MONTANA 69044
WHEREAS, an Application for Home Occupation was filed
with the City by Wanda Barclay on the 30th day
of Au ust 19,.9and a copy of the Application
is attached hereto:
WHEREAS, the matter having come before the Laurel City-County
Planning Board for recommendation;
WHEREAS, the Planning Board, after full consideration of the
•
Application at its regular meeting of Sept. 12, 1991 , it was
moved by Billie Lou Lance seconded by Lonnie KellQga _ that
the Planning Board recommend to-the City Council that the
Application be granted/dcadW, and the said motion was passed/
?XIM by a vote of 8
in favor and 0 opposed
(MCA Section 76-1-304) requiring the concurrence of at least
six Board members to take any official action.)
Therefore, the Laurel City Council is hereby informed that
the Planning Board recommends that the Application for Home
Occupation by Wanda B rcla be:
c? Granted, subject to the following special conditions:
No extra traffic, no employees.
Denied.
Dated this 1"'?f/I -day of 19 C?/
17J
/ ENERGY AN ENVIRONMENTAL
QQ?? MEASUREMENN,
•
/00
IPhone [602] 749-2167 ¦ 3925 Placita de la Escarpa ¦ Tucson, AZ 85715
June 26, 1986
Mr. Joe Bradley
Bradley Law Offices
P.O. Box 1047
Laurel, montane 59044
Dear Mr. Bradley,
As a result of my recent inspection of the Asphalt Supply
Services, Inc. facility in Laurel, Montana, I am outlining
my findings as they pertain to the generation of air borne
adore in the plant vicinity.
The plant generates both fumes and odors from two sources:
1) Asphalt Storage Tank Stack
2) Mixing/loading Storage Tank Stack
The materials used in the process include an asphaltic
material (AS-10) and a Latex (Downright (12) HH-100L). The
. AC-10 is heated and stored for subsequent mixing with the
Latex material and loadout into tank trucks. Odor is
generated primarily as the product of heating (-385 degrees
F) of the AC-10. The resultant fumes (both separately and
as mixed with the Latex) are visible and odorous.
The company has installed a low efficiency fume (aerosol)
separator on the asphalt storage tank vent duct stack
facility, and a mist eliminator/carbon absorber on the
mix/loading operations. The storage tank fume aerosol
eliminator is only partially successful in that a plume is
still visible from the stack. The mist eliminator/carbon
absorber does seem to remove the aerosols but is not
successful as an odor control. As a result odors are being
emitted from both sources.
The substance of the odor is basically asphaltic fume
(organics) and styrene/batadienes polymer vapors (note
attached mine safety data sheet - Dow chemical). The
boiling point of the Dow materials is „212 degrees F.
Mixing AC-10 at "385 degrees F with the Latex product
results in the vaporization of soma of the Latex
constituents thereby enhancing the odor situation.
c
q
'A
?r
4&
P ?
Mr. Joe Bradley
June 26, 1986
Page 2
Fumes (aerosols) are in part now controlled via the mist
eliminators, however odors are essentially uncontrolled. The
company has utilized a small activated carbon absorber after one
mist eliminator with limited success. In order to eliminate odors
It will be necessary to deploy additional control equipment. We
recommend the following strategy;
`Bench testing' of both gas streams
determine the ability of activated
continuously remove odors. The results
will determine if carbon is a viable app;
successful, the cost of the final system.
design test effort would be in the range
01,500.
An order to
carbon to
of this test
roach and, if
Cost of this
of `x1,000 -
If the tests indicate activated carbon adsorption is not an
acceptable option alternatives include thermal combustion and
oxidative scrubbing. These options are however, more expensive.
The scrubber option will also create liquid waste streams.
F9ViQBPn+t IYQB
Carbon adsorbex
Scrubber
Incinerator
$221t9l GQat IM MaLtg 92E828Z
Estimate
010,000 - 020,000
0 7,500 - 015,000
015,000 - 020,000
Capitol costs are dependent on more specific design information.
Operating costs for the carbon absorbers and scrubber are dependent
on the results of the `bench' tests.. Incinerator operating costs
would not require preliminary testing and are estimated at,
depending on operating time requirements, 0500-01500 per month.
In summary the plant emits organic odors caused primarily by
thermal vaporization of asphaltic and `latex' constituents.
Current controls are partially successful for aerosol removal but
do not control odors. Odor control recommendations include carbon
adsorption, oxidative scrubbing and thermal oxidation in order of
ascending cost. It is recommended to `bench test' the viability of
carbon adsorption. If carbon adsorption is not successful thermal
incineration will solve the odor but may prove economically
unacceptable. Oxidative scrubbing is not recommended due to the
production of liquid waste streams. Final control system costs are
dependent on more detailed plant and `bench test' data.
Sincerely,
Ed Wadington
President
DOW CHEMICAL U.S.A.
April 24, 1986 WILLARD H. DOW CENTER
MIDLAND. MICHIGAN 48674
ASPHALT SUPPLY & SERVICE INC 0247890
509 RAILROAD WAY
LAUREL MT -59044
Sir/Madam:
Enclosed are Material Safety Data Sheet(s) which provide information on
products which you have purchased from us in the recent past. Since you
may redirect the products to more than one place within your location,
please make sure this information is available to all persons handling
and/or using the product.
These Material Safety Data Sheet(s) have either been revised since you
last received them or are for products which you recently purchased.
Please consider them as the current copy to replace any previous version
you may have received. -
The distribution of these sheets is part of a continuing program of
providing information and updating our customers. The regulations pro-
mulgated by OSHA for Hazard Communication, 29 CFR 1910.1200, as well as
several state and local laws and regulations, have been considered in
preparing these Material Safety Data Sheet(s).
Thank you for your help.
a.IJj'-0 *-
A.T. Talcott
Manager, Product Safety Compliance
Quality Assurance Department
bb
Enclosures
aC' 'atiF!-
i??
AN OPERATING UNIT OF THE DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY tha????;?
.Ar Al Lklw
icy
MATERIAL SAFETY DATA SHEET
--------------------------------------------------
Dow Chemical U.S.A. Midland, MI 48674 Emergency Phone: 517-636-4400
Product Code: 01626 Page: 1
PRODUCT NAME: DOWNRIGHT (R) HM-100L LATEX
Effective Date: 03/14/86 Date Printed: 04/24/86 MSDS:001849
1. INGREDIENTS:
Styrene/butadiene polymer CAS# 09003`55-8
in water emulsion 100%
Substances listed in the Ingredients Section are those identified
as being present at a-concentration of 1% or greater, or 0.1% if
the substance is on the list of potential carcinogens cited in
OSHA Hazard Communication Standard. Where proprietary ingredient
shows, the identity of this substance may be made available as
provided in 29 CFR 1910.12000).
2. PHYSICAL DATA:
BOILING POINT: 212F, IOOC
VAP PRESS: Not applic.
VAP DENSITY: Not applic.
SOL. IN WATER: Emulsion
SP. GRAVITY: 9.3-9.7
APPEARANCE: Milky white liquid emulsion.
ODOR: Slight ammonia.
3. FIRE AND EXPLOSION HAZARD DATA:
FLASH POINT: Not applicable
METHOD USED: Not applicable
FLAMMABLE LIMITS
LFL: Not applic.
UFL: Not applic.
EXTINGUISHING MEDIA: Water fog - dried resin only.
Noncombustible liquid.
FIRE I EXPLOSION HAZARDS AND FIRE-FIGHTING EQUIPMENT: Burning
(Continued on Page 2)
(R) Indicates a trademark of The Dow Chemical Company
I
I
t. "
MATERIAL SAFETY DATA SHEET
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dow Chemical U.S.A. Midland, MI 48674 Emergency Phone: 517-536-4400
Product Code: 01626 Page: 2
PRODUCT NAME: DOWNRIGHT (R) HM-100L LATEX
Effective Date: 03/14/86 Date Printed: 04/24/86 't1SDS:001849
3. FIRE AND EXPLOSION HAZARD DATA: (CONTINUED)
dry resin emits dense, black smoke. As emulsion, material is
not flammable, however, the dried resin is flammable similar to
wood.
FIRE-FIGHTING EQUIPMENT: Use positive-pressure. self-contained
breathing apparatus.
4. REACTIVITY DATA:
STABILITY: (CONDITIONS'TO AVOID) Non-reactive. May coagulate
if frozen at 32F, OC. Dried resin is combustible.
INCOMPATIBILITY: ,(SPECIFIC MATERIALS TO AVOID) Addition of
chemicals may cause coagulation.
HAZARDOUS DECOMPOSITION PRODUCTS: Produces dense, black smoke if
burned.
HAZARDOUS POLYMERIZATION: None known.
5. ENVIRONMENTAL AND DISPOSAL INFORMATION:
ACTION TO TAKE FOR SPILL /LEAKS: Exercise care to avoid
unnecessary exposure and contact. Will color streams and
rivers to a milky white. Has practically no biological oxygen
demand but will settle out and form sludge or film. May plug
up sanitary sewers.
DISPOSAL METHOD: Divert to pond and let dry. Bury or burn solid
wastes. Flush sewers with large amounts of water. Flush area
with water immediately..
E
(Continued on Page 3)
(R) Indicates a trademark of The Dow Chemical Company
r
MATERIAL SAFETY DATA SHEET
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dow Chemical U.S.A. Midland, MI 48674 Emergency Phone: 517.636-4400
Product Code: 01626 Page: 3
PRODUCT NAME: DOWNRIGHT (R) HM-1001 LATEX
Effective Date: 03/14/86 Date Printed: 04/24/86 11505:001849
6. HEALTH HAZARD DATA:
EYE: May cause slight transient (temporary) eye irritation and
very slight transient (temporary) corneal injury, healing
within 24 hours.
SKIN CONTACT: Prolonged or repeated exposure may cause skin
irritation. Material may stick to skin causing irritation
upon removal.
SKIN ABSORPTION: A single prolonged exposure is not likely to
result in the material being absorbed through skin in harmful
amounts. The dermal LD50 has not been determined.
INGESTION: Single dose oral toxicity is low. The oral LD50 for
rats is X5000 mg/kg.
INHALATION: No relevant information found.
SYSTEMIC & OTHER EFFECTS: No relevant information found.
7. FIRST AID:
EYES: Irrigate immediately with water for at least 5 minutes.
SKIN: Wash off in flowing water or shower.
INGESTION: Induce vomiting if large amounts are ingested.
Consult medical.
INHALATION: Remove to fresh air if effects occur. Consult a
physician.
NOTE TO PHYSICIAN: Na specific antidote. Supportive care.
Treatment based on judgment of the physician in response to
reactions of the patient.
0
(Continued on Page 4)
(R) Indicates a trademark of The Dow Chemical Company
- MATERIAL S AFETY DATA SHEET
---------------------------------------------
Dow Chemical U.S.A. Midland, MI 48674 Emergency Phone: 517-636-4400
Product Code: 016.26 Page: 4
PRODUCT NAME: DOWNRIGHT (R) HM-100L LATEX
Effective Date: 03/14/86 Date Printed: 04/24/86 MSDS:001849
8. HANDLING PRECAUTIONS:
EXPOSURE GUIDELINE(S): None established.
VENTILATION: Good general ventilation should be sufficient for
most conditions.
RESPIRATORY PROTECTION: In misty atmospheres, use an approved
mist respirator.
SKIN PROTECTION: For brief contact, no precautions other than
clean body-covering clothing should be needed. Use impervious
gloves when prolonged or frequently repeated contact could
occur.
EYE PROTECTION: Use safety glasses.
9. ADDITIONAL I14FORMATION:
SPECIAL PRECAUTIONS TO BE TAKEN IN HANDLING AND STORAGE: Store
at temperatures between 40F and 90F. 4-32C. Material may
develop bacteria odor on long storage. No safety problems
known. Practice reasonable care to avoid repeated, prolonged
skin contact.
MSDS STATUS: Revised 1.
(R) Indicates a trademark of The Dow Chemical Company
The Information Herein Is Given In Good Faith, But No Warranty,
Express Or Implied, Is Made. Consult The Dow Chemical Company
C? For Further Information.
ow
COMP. C&O*
ADDRES PHONE NO.
a ?
LOC. F OFF. DATE OF OFF.
TIME OF FF. N TURE OF OFF.
OFF. RECEIVING RPT. DAT F RPT. TIME OF RPT.
a4y
C1'-
r ?-
Laurel Police Department ?/- 3 3 Pf
)MP
S
OC. OF OFF.
yyggg 1Ti
T ?? ? ??yy<. ail
-.type. ?.4 _ l
k f
r n'
7,4t 7i
.; 1
r ?..r
4 y/• 3b'
Laurel Police Department 33.3
o f .
C&
00 U- PHONE NO.
?I I -P DATE OF OFF.
WE OF OFF. /
OFFS RECEIVING R TP
(CIRCUMSTANCES:
Ocl e
Handled by;
NATURE OF OFF. r
u. (r?
DATE OF RPT.
C
TIME OF RPT.
r 7
roved b?
??
Laurel Police Department 91-w 3
Laurel Police Department 9/-3730
•
E
COMP. C&O#
ApDRESS PHONE NO., /
LOC. OF OFF. DATE OF OFF.
TIME OF OFF. NATURE F OFF.
LI T
OFF. RECEIVING RPT.
M` DATE OF RPT.
09 All TIME OF RPT.
CIRCUMSTANCES:
()Ayt
?r ?? , -? b
1 ?- -??
Handled b : Approved by:
0
COMP. ?y ff C & O #
ADDRESS `1???f
IV l I cs{ I ?J? PHONES NO.
q
LOC. OF OFF.
li,: PP c -k P/or/?4 DATE OF OFF.
TIME OF OFF. NATURE OF OFF. 1 f
OFF. RECEIVING RPT.
M ail` DATE OF RPT.
10%1V TIME OF RPT.
c9o
CIRCUMSTANCES: 11
1, L
f a'L ' i
(() rde,?. ' r () c, o . CcX??
A ga 6 1 . C(
?qjar Al C4
e c+ r
l da,
4 /L
Handled b Approved b :
Laurel Police Department 9/-3 Pooo'o
0 0 0
LAUREL-YELLOWSTONE
CITY-COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
LAUREL, MONTANA 68044
WHEREAS, an application for Special Review
was filed with the City of Laurel by As halt Su 1 , on
the _j_e day of Jul 1991 , being designated
as file No. 91-05 ;
WHEREAS, the application's having been refered for hearing
to the Laurel City County Planning Board pursuant to L.M.C.
Section 17 8 0 ;
WHEREAS, after due and legal notice of the said application
and of the date and time for hearing thereon was given pursuant
to law, hearing on the same was held before the Board at its
regular meeting on the 8th day of August , 1991 ;& 9-12-91.
WHEREAS, after full consideration of the same by the Board
at the said meeting, it was moved by Joe Bradley 11
seconded by Donna Kilpatrick, to recommend approval of the said
application, and the motion was passed/ftla[ackkd by a vote of
5 in favor and 3 opposed (state law requring
that the concurrence of at least six Board members is required
to pass any motion).
THEREFORE, the Laurel City County Planning Board hereby
recommends to the Laurel City Council as follows:
THAT APPLICATION NO. 91-05 BE:
GRANTED, subject to the following special conditions:
1) No Naptha be made or used at the Plant 2) Two Naptha
tanks be removed 3) Volume of production is to remain the same
4) The gate be widened to help facilitate truck traffic 5)
The new proposed tank is to meet all fire codes, including diking
of entire plant.
Also, a motion was passed to recommend Council hold 2nd Public Hearing.
DENIED
Dated this 12th day of September
, 199 1
Chairman
• 401 W. 13th Street
Laurel, MT 59044
September 6, 1991
Laurel-Yellowstone City-County Planning Board
P. O. Box 10
Laurel, MT 59044
This letter is in response to the Notice of Public Hearing, dated August 19, 1991, for the purpose of a Special
Review on September 12, 1991, to allow a Day Care Center in our Residential Zone at the address of 1238
Fourth Avenue, Laurel, directly across 13th St. from us. I fully intended to attend this hearing in person and
voice my protest, but have been called out of town due to family illness, so I am writing this letter instead.
May I say at the outset that I have nothing against Connie and Butch Klein; they have been good neighbors.
This protest has nothing to do with them personally. I am protesting the principal of having a business
located In our residential area. Why even have a residential area if you're going to allow businesses to
operate within them? I fully realize that this day care has been there for several years already, and prior to
that time, she operated a beauty parlor out of the house. I am not one to "make waves"; and since Connie's
father was Chief of Police at the time she started these businesses, I assumed she had found a legal way
to operate in a residential zone, so I never said anything.
At that time, both my husband and I were working full-time so we were not around much during the day to
hear the noise and commotion caused by the presence of so many children. However, when my husband
was forced to quit work due to illness, and lay at home ill and dying, the noise from across the street during
the day was extremely disconcerting to him, when he needed to rest. Shortly after his death, I returned to
work full-time, and the matter was again removed from my mind since I was not home during the day to
. hear the commotion.
Since that time, I have remarried and my husband and I are now retired and consequently are home most
of the time. It is extremely annoying to have traffic outside our house beginning at 6 am, most of which is
due to the day care, and most of which makes U-turns in front of our house, making it sound like they are
turning Into our driveway. Between the traffic, the cardoors slamming, and the noise of the children, there
is no peace for the greater part of the day, well into the dinner hour. If we wanted to listen to that many
children (I have counted as many as 23 at a time) screaming and yelling all day, we would have built across
the street from a school. But we chose to build in what was _ gpgosed to remain a quiet residential area.
Suppose we decide to sell our house within the next few years -- having a day care across the street is
definitely going to depreciate the value of the house and perhaps even prevent its sale - no one in their right
mind would buy there once they heard the noise they would have to put up with daily.
Please put my husband and I on record as protesting the day care center, or any other type of business,
operating in our residential zone. I have heard it said that day care is not a business, but it doesn't take
much math to figure out the gross income of even $2/hr., 10 hrs./day for 20 kids, or even 10 kids -- that
is a business, and with very little overhead. I have never approved of its presence there, but no one ever
asked my opinion. Now that I have been asked, I would be remiss in my duty if I did not voice my
objection. If we allow one business, it would be extremely difficult to deny another, and another, and
another... Residential zones are exactly that, places for residences. Businesses should operate in a
commercial zone - simple as that.
Sincerely,
Maynard & Jean Holland
August 28, 1951
RE: hots 1, 2, & 3 Mathis Subdivision
Laurel Planning board
John Hawley Smith, Pres.
This is to confirm that we as property owners, at
1225 5th Avenue in Laurel, are against allowing the
business of a Day Care Center at 1238 4th Avenue.
We feel that by allowing this one business to
operate in the residential area we would be open
for others in the future.
We feel that having a licensed business in our area
would greatly lower the value of our property.
We all bought our homes in this subdivision with
the understanding that there would not be any business
property in this area.
Robert W. Olson
' A'.-+',`-717 >n. ? Al
e en M. Olson
1225 5th Avenue
r
City County
P.O. Box 10
Laurel, MT
Attention:
August 26, 1991
Planning Board
59044
John Hawley Smith, President
In regards to the hearing to allow a Day Care Center to operate in
the residential area of Mathis Subdivision, Block 6, Lots 1, 2, &
3 located at 1238 4th Avenue in Laurel. Both my wife and I, owners
of property being affected, wish this statement to be formally
entered in the review process.
We are TOTALLY OPPOSED to such a proposal and have based our
opposition on the following criteria:
1. ECONOMICS--The single largest investment we have is our home.
We are prepared to defend and protect this investment from
any and all attempts which would reduce its value such as the
proposed zone change.
2. QUALITY OF LIFE--The residential area in question is one of
best in Laurel. Residents built and invested in the
Subdivision because of the strict codes that are now being
challenged. There was limited traffic and noise in the area.
Since the illegal opening of the Day Care Center, traffic
into the area begins as early as 6:30 a.m. Laurel has many
shift workers which require people to sleep during the day.
The noise from the Center, during the warm weather months,
can be heard at our home located nearly a block from the
Center.
We are pleased to learn that his matter is finally being reviewed
by the City County Planning Board. However, we are very concerned
that it has taken the City of Laurel such a considerable length of
time to recognize or even attempt to enforce this violation of our
Zoning Ordinance.
It is apparent that the City and the owners of the Day Care Center
J
have jointly thumbed their noses at the residents of the area in
question. For some reason the City of Laurel has turned a blind
eye to the illegal operation of this Center. We for one are
certainly going to be more vigilant in the future to be sure this
sort of inappropriate behavior will not occur again.
Donald D. Miller Carol Miller
1215 5th
Laurel
4P
El
i
/
.
L
--?-
7: % ) ?l 7
- -• - ..-:?i:C ?? 'Z.? '1?? '_t 7 '-f?'-' fit-.L fdZ?-'. l..?CL. Y,::Z._..__I ----?? ^'cf'
0
V
_d d
d D (? Cr CCU,
..?....._.....?---
?i
f -
d __?
? •
v
i
L 0/0
l
r `? ? ` ---cam-L / ?-•C` ..t, ?y , ?. t!_ _ ? _ /? -.+ r
ez Z4
V ,
4 L 4
Y
-- ------ -----
L 44
?•' - J -
•f" ? ??L ?L ?- l?r ??Z Cz{? C/ ? 2<'.? ,(-i!- ..??=_?' __..???=,_ '`- C 2.?r?c•G?
,^ .
ILI,
Ail
' t
y
n ;
V411,
r
-77
.,4