Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity/County Planning Board Minutes 01.03.2013 MINUTES LAUREL CITY - COUNTY PLANNING BOARD January 3, 2013 6:00 pm COUNCIL CHAMBERS MEMBERS PRESENT: Kathy Siegrist, Chairman Dick Fritzler, County Rep. Dan Koch, City Rep. Lee Richardson, Co. Rep. John VanAken, County Rep. Hazel Klein, City Rep. Greg Nelson, City Rep. Don Brown, City Rep. Dennis Eaton, City Rep. (arrived at 6:20 pm) OTHERS PRESENT: Monica Plecker, City Planner Cheryll Lund, City Secretary Mike Nys Allison Nys 1 other CaII to order: The meeting was called to order at 6:00 pm by Chairman Siegrist. Roll CaII: Members present were: Koch, Fritzler, Richardson, Brown, VanAken, Klein, Nelson & Siegrist. (Eaton was not present for the roll call) Public Comment on non - agenda topics: No public comment. A motion was made by John VanAken to place an item b on the agenda in the Miscellaneous section for the election of Chairman and Vice Chairman. The motion was seconded by Dan Koch and passed by a vote of 7 — 0. Approval of minutes from November 2, 1012 meeting: Motion by Dan Koch to accept the minutes as written. The motion was seconded by Don Brown and carried by a vote of 7 -0. New Business: Public Hearing for Nys Variance Chairman Siegrist read the Public Hearing procedure and opened the public hearing at 6:05 pm. Monica Plecker stated that Mike and Allison Nys submitted an application for a variance requesting their property located at 110 4 Avenue, also known as East Laurel Original Town Site, S09, T02, R24E, Block 5, Lots 5 -6 to be built upon and exceed the maximum lot coverage. The property is currently zoned Residential 6000. 1 Monica read the Staff Findings into the record. LAUREL CITY - COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT — January 3, 2013 TO: Laurel City- County Planning Board FROM: Monica Plecker, City Planner RE: Variance for 110 4th Avenue Mike and Allison Nys submitted an application for a variance requesting their property located at 110 4th Avenue, also known as East Laurel Original Town site, S09, T02, R24E, Block 5, Lots 5 -6 to be built upon and exceed the maximum lot coverage. The property is currently zoned Residential -6000. At this time Monica referenced the letter from applicants Mike and Allison Nys as to why they are seeking a variance along with a sketch of the property and the planned addition along with the square footage numbers and a bird's eye view of the property as it is now. STAFF FINDINGS: 1. The property owner has submitted a variance asking "to exceed the lot coverage allowed for properties zoned R6000." The property owner plans to construct a 532 sq. ft. addition which would equate to 35.95 percent lot coverage. 2. Lots zoned Residential — 6000 have maximum lot coverage of 30% according to LMC 17.16.020. 3. The property totals 8,600 sq. ft. allowing for 2,580 sq. ft. to be constructed 4. Structures currently onsite total 2,600 sq. ft. a. House —1,371 sq. ft. b. Enclosed Porch —112 sq. ft. c. Open Porch —165 sq. ft d. Garage —160 sq. ft. e. Carport — 660 sq. ft. (Mobile Structure) f. Shed —132 sq. ft. 5. If the proposed addition is constructed the total lot coverage will be 3,020 sq. ft. or 35.95% 6. The property is currently located on the National Register of Historic Places. The designation does not hinder the construction of an addition. 7. The attached exhibits are copies of the variance application request, dimension drawing, and a letter from Mike and Allison Nys explaining the need for the variance. 8. As per the requirements of LMC 17.72.070, a public hearing on the matter shall be held before the zoning commission before being heard by the Laurel City Council. As per B. of the section, public notice was published in the Laurel Outlook and adjacent property owners were notified by certified mail more than 15 days prior to the public hearing. 2 ZONING COMMISSION CONSIDERATIONS AND RECOMMENDATION: The Zoning Commission shall review and make determinations on the following chapters and sections of the Laurel Municipal Code (LMC): 1. According to Chapter 17.60.020 of the LMC the Zoning Commission may not recommend granting a land use variance: 1. Unless the denial would constitute an unnecessary and unjust invasion of the right of property; 2. Unless the grant relates to a condition or situation special and peculiar to the applicant; 3. Unless the basis is something more than mere financial loss to the owner; 4. Unless the hardship was created by someone other than the owner; 5. Unless the variance would be within the spirit, intent, purpose, and general plan of this title; 6. Unless the variance would not affect adversely or injure or result in injustice to others; and 7. Ordinarily unless the applicant owned the property prior to the enactment of this title or amendment. 2. As per LMC 17.72.060 the Zoning Commission shall make a recommendation to the City Council to: 1. Deny the application for amendment to the official map; 2. Grant action on the application for a period not to exceed thirty days; 3. Delay action on the application for a period not to exceed thirty days; 4. Give reasons for the recommendation. STAFF SUGGESTED CONDITIONS: If the Planning Board recommends approval of the land use variance, the following conditions are suggested: 1. The variance shall be good for 3 years from approval on unimproved property. 2. The applicant shall apply for a building permit. 3. Property shall be kept free of noxious weeds. 4. All storm water must be kept on site. Monica stated that this issue has come before the board on 2 other occasions: The Eastlick variance in 2005 asking for lot coverage to be expanded to 33% and the Stabelfeldt variance asking to place a carport which would have expanded their lot coverage to 40 %. Both of the variances were denied. 3 Proponents: Mike and Allison Nys, 110 4 Avenue, Laurel, Montana. Mike spoke. He stated that most people that live in Laurel remember this home and are drawn to the fact that it is a historical home. He stated that the listing of the house on the National Historic Home Registry was something that the previous owner Blaine Dantic did on his own. When Mike contacted the National Historic Home Registry he was told that technically the home could be torn down and the Nys could do whatever they wanted on the property even with the historical designation. What Mike and Allison are trying to accomplish is to move to Laurel as Allison is the new Principal at Graff Elementary school. At this time they share time between Lockwood and Laurel as they have a young son in the Lockwood school district. The house is in serious need of work even though it looks good from the outside. They will need to invest a significant amount of money into the house to make it safe. At this time there is knob and tube wiring still active in the house. If they are going to make this significant investment into the home they will need the requested variance so they can add space and make the home large enough for their family. They want to keep the historical look of the house and building the addition adds to the roofline and pushes it back into their yard about 15 feet. When the average citizen walks by it will still look historical from the front but on the inside it will be in much better condition. They are hoping to improve the property beyond its current condition and at the same time add a little space to make it more comfortable for their family while keeping it as historically looking as possible. They plan to use the addition as bedroom space. At this time the rooms in the home are very small and there is no dining area or kitchen. The plan is to remove the back enclosed porch and build a 16' X 32' addition. The plan is to keep the front porch as is and repair it as needed. Mike stated that the carport located on the back of the property is not designated as a historical building. The bunk house and carriage house, along with the original house are the only buildings designated as historical. They plan to be in Laurel long term. Mike was born and raised in Billings and Allison is from Shepherd. They have owned the property for approximately 2 months. Board member Dan Koch asked Monica why carports are designated as a mobile structure. Monica stated that on the Yellowstone County tax details all carports are considered mobile structures because by building definition they can be easily moved or removed. Monica went on to say that in the year since she has been City Planner they have had 2 situations of owners asking for concession on maximum lot coverage. Both have had carports 4 (mobile structures) that could be removed thus eliminating the need for a variance. She does realize that the Nys situation could be deemed different because of the possible historical value of the carport. Kathy Siegrist stated that if the carport were torn down there would be no need for a variance. Allison Nys stated that they don't want to tear down any of the buildings on the property but eventually they would like to put up a garage in the place of the carport. She also pointed out that the carport although a part of the original property was not deemed as historical. Only the house, carriage house and bunk house are on the historical register. Chairman Siegrist asked 3 times if there were any proponents supporting the variance that would like to testify. There were none. Opponents: Chairman Siegrist asked 3 times if there were any opponents opposing the variance that would like to testify. There were none. Seeing no more public comment Chairman Siegrist closed the public hearing at 6:30 pm. Board Discussion: The board discussed the following issues during their discussion: • By granting this variance it will set a precedent • There have been other requests like this that have been denied • Because it is a historical home should it be given special consideration? • They bought the home knowing the lot and house were small • The home will be more of an asset to the community once it is made safe and livable • If the carport were removed the variance would not be needed • Could a special condition be put onto the request so that once the carport is removed and a garage is built it has to then revert back to the 30% coverage? • They could tear down the bunk house and carriage house and make the house livable and have a garage in the future but then the historical designation may go away • There have been 2 other families asked to remove their carports in the past 2 years because it put them over their maximum lot coverage • The lots are small in this part of town • There are 7 governing rules in L.M.C. 17.60.020 have to be followed in order to justify allowing this variance At this time the Board went through the L.M.C. Chapter 17.60.020 numbers 1 through 7. 1. Does not apply 5 2. Can a smaller lot size be considered a special or peculiar situation? Does the historical designation of the home make it a special or peculiar situation? 3. Does not apply 4. Is there a hardship caused by old governing rules versus modern times? 5. Does not apply 6. Does not apply 7. Does not apply Monica read her 4 conditions that should be considered IF the Board chooses to grant the variance. Rule # 4 regarding stormwater is addressed and is a big consideration because the more a lot is covered the more stormwater drainage has to be accounted for. A motion was made by Lee Richardson to accept and approve the variance as the Nys want to build. The motion died for lack of a second. A motion was by Dan Koch to approve the variance request with the City Planners 4 conditions: 1. The variance shall be good for 3 years from approval on unimproved property. 2. The applicant shall apply for a building permit. 3. Property shall be kept free of noxious weeds. 4. All storm water must be kept on site; and, 5. The carport will be removed within 3 years to bring the lot coverage back to the 30% maximum. The motion was seconded by Greg Nelson. Discussion. Dennis Eaton stated that in order to improve the older part of town they might have to give some concession to some of the issues that have come up. Mike Nys stated that to be perfectly honest if the three year condition is included they probably wouldn't build the addition because then in 3 years they might not get the garage they needed and investment wise it wouldn't make sense. Without allowing them the addition the house would stay as is and they would rent it out. He respects and appreciates all of the discussion from the board. At this time the question was asked. After a tie vote of 4 — 4 Chairman Siegrist voted Nay and the motion failed by a vote of 4 — 5. A motion was made by Dick Fritzler to approve the variance request with the City Planners four (4) conditions. 1. The variance shall be good for 3 years from approval on unimproved property. 6 2. The applicant shall apply for a building permit. 3. Property shall be kept free of noxious weeds. 4. All storm water must be kept on site The motion was seconded by Dan Koch. After a tie vote of 4 — 4 Chairman Siegrist voted Nay and the motion failed by a vote of 4 — 5. Discussion. A motion to rescind the failed second motion with the amendment that the 3 year time condition on the carport be removed was made by Hazel Klein. 1. The variance shall be good for 3 years from approval on unimproved property. 2. The applicant shall apply for a building permit. 3. Property shall be kept free of noxious weeds. 4. All storm water must be kept on site 5. Once the carport is torn down the lot coverage will be brought back into compliance with L.M.C. 17.60.020. The motion was seconded by Dennis Eaton. The motion passed by a vote of 8 -0. Old Business: Zoning Compliance Permit This will be talked about at the February 7, 2013 meeting. Miscellaneous: a. Potential Next meeting February 7, 2013. There are no applications to be reviewed but Monica suggested that there be a meeting on February 7, 2013 to discuss the possibility of implementing Historical Preservation rules and regulations. b. Chairman and Vice Chairman Election A motion was made by Dick Fritzler to nominate Kathy Siegrist for Chairman. The motion was seconded by Don Koch and the Motion passed by a vote of 8 - 0. A motion was made by Dick Fritzler to nominate Greg Nelson for Vice - Chairman. Motion was seconded by Dan Koch. Motion was passed by a vote of 8 — 0. The meeting was adjourned at 8:05 pm. Respectfully submitted, Cheryll' Lund, Secretary 7