HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity/County Planning Board Minutes 06.06.2013 MINUTES
LAUREL CITY - COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
June 6, 2013 6:00 pm
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MEMBERS PRESENT: Kathy Siegrist, Chairman
Dan Koch, City Rep.
Dick Fritzler, County Rep.
Judy Goldsby, County Rep.
Lee Richardson, County Rep.
Don Brown, City Rep.
Hazel Klein, City Rep.
Greg Nelson, City Rep. (arrived at 7:05 pm)
OTHERS PRESENT: Monica Plecker, City Planner
Cheryll Lund, Secretary
Dan & Rochelle Foos, 1415 Ridge Dr., Laurel
Rita Mus, 610 Cottonwood, Laurel
Duane Guenthner, 412 Birch, Laurel
Richard Klose, 511 Cottonwood, Laurel
CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Kathy Siegrist called the meeting to order at 6:05 pm.
ROLL CALL: A roll call was taken. Members present were Koch, Fritzler, Goldsby, Richardson, Brown,
Klein and Siegrist. Nelson arrived at 7:05 pm.
PUBLIC INPUT:
Citizens may address the Board regarding any item of City business not on the agenda. The duration for
an individual speaking under Public Input is limited to three minutes. While all comments are welcome,
the Board will not take action on any item not on the agenda.
There was no public present.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM PREVIOUS MEETING: A motion was made by Judy Goldsby and
seconded by Dan Koch to approve the minutes of the May 2, 2013 meeting. The motion carried by a
vote of 6 — 0.
NEW BUSINESS: Public Hearing to hear a variance request for East Main Development, 815 E. Main
Street. Request to waive setback requirement on property with legal description of Nutting
Subdivision, 510, TO2 S, R24E, Block 20, Lot 1A, AMND (1 -30 also here) (99) All VAC 20 foot alley.
Chairman Siegrist read the Public Hearing Procedures to the Audience and Board.
The public hearing was opened at 6:05 pm.
Monica stated that the property is zoned Community Commercial which allows for 50% of the property
to be built on. It is across the street from Central Business District zoning which allows for 100% lot
coverage.
1
Monica read the Staff Findings into the report.
STAFF FINDINGS
1. The applicant is requesting the setback requirements identified in LMC 17.20.020 be waived.
2. The property is zoned Community Commercial which states minimum yard requirements are 20'
in the front and 10' on the side adjacent to streets.
3. There is currently a structure located along the north edge of the property which exceeds
setbacks identified in LMC 17.20.020. The structure was built prior to the enactment of zoning
regulations. Reconstruction would require compliance with the current zoning regulations
4. A map identifying the property, the letter of application and drawing of the proposed building
construction has been attached.
5. 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.
Zoning Commission Considerations and Recommendation:
1. According to Chapter 17.60.020 of the LMC the Zoning Commission may not recommend
granting a and 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 (30) days;
3. Delay action on the application for a period not to exceed thirty (30) 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.
2
3. Property shall be kept free of noxious weeds.
4. All storm water must be kept on site.
Monica stated that Dan Foos submitted a letter outlining his reasons why he is requesting the variance
and a map of the proposed project. He is asking that the setback requirement be waved so he rebuild
on the same foot print of the existing building.
APPLICANT:
Dan Foos of 1415 Ridge Drive addressed the Planning Board with his variance request. He stated the
reason he is requesting the variance is because the apartment buildings that are on his property right
now are in sad shape and they need to be dealt with. Because the lot is tapered toward the east end of
the property and being an odd shape it decreases the usable space. If he can build within the 10 foot
setback it will make a difference as to what he can build. The property has streets on three sides and a
vacated alley on the west property line.
Lee Richardson asked how the property will be accessed. He is concerned that people will have to back
out onto the street when leaving the property.
Dan Foos stated that the property will be accessed on both the north and south sides. Public Works
Director Kurt Markegard told Dan that once they pave the street on the north side of the building it
becomes a sidewalk and customers will have to park along the street.
Chairman Siegrist stated that there is no building plans as of yet. Plans will be made if the variance is
approved and all the codes will have to be met.
Monica clarified when a building permit is applied for a plan is brought in and at that time all issues
relating to codes are addressed before a building permit is issued.
Dan Koch asked where the property line is between the Kwik Stop and Mabel's Restaurant building and
how that would the access.
Monica stated that she will address Dan Koch's question after the public hearing.
PROPONENTS:
At this time Chairman Siegrist asked if there were other proponents wishing to testify. There were
none.
OPPONENTS:
Duane Guenthner from 412 Birch Avenue stated that his garage is located along the alley. Quite a few
years ago he came to the City and requested a permit for a new garage to be built on the back property
line. He was told by the City Engineer that the new garage would have to be built 2 feet off the back
property line. He feels that everyone should have to abide by the same rules and therefore opposes this
variance.
3
Chairman Siegrist asked three times if there were any opponents wishing to speak. There were none.
Chairman Siegrist closed the public hearing at 6:20 pm.
Monica addressed questions that came up during the public hearing.
Mabel's is a totally separate property and is not affected by this variance request because the request is
asking for relief of setbacks on the property lines that are adjacent to streets.
Monica stated that issues like this have come up in the past and she wanted to remind the board that
each variance request should be considered on its own merit. There are several things that can
contribute to why a decision can be made. One thing to consider is that this variance is for commercial
property and not residential as was brought up during the public hearing.
Monica stated that a question on how the property will be accessed will be addressed during the
building permit process and should not be a consideration for determining whether or not the variance
should or should not be approved.
A motion was made by Dick Fritzler and seconded by Judy Goldsby to approve the variance.
Board Discussion:
Hazel Klein stated that in LMC 17.60.020 - # 1 "Unless the denial would constitute an unnecessary and
unjust invasion of the right of property" can be a justifiable consideration of approval of the variance.
She goes to say that it is an odd shaped property and it does create a peculiar situation and in that
respect the board should give special consideration to. Would the board like to see the old building
crumble to the ground or would we like to see it built back new. Codes are in place for people to abide
by but when you get a peculiar piece of property like this you can give it special consideration with
conditions as necessary.
Dick Fritzler stated that the board seems to be in agreement that they would like to see the old buildings
disappear. He asked if the City has ordinances in place regarding getting rid of unsightly buildings by
condemning them.
Monica stated that the City does have a process to condemn buildings however it is not something the
city actively seeks to do. She reminds the board of the old asphalt plant on W. Railroad that the city
condemned. There are also several properties on Main Street considered "blight" but the city
sometimes finds its hands to be tied when it comes to the condemnation process.
Hazel Klein stated that in looking at this situation it is not similar to the residential garage that was
brought up by opponent Duane Guenthner. But she can compare it to an odd situation a few years back
where a fire destroyed an apartment complex and the owner requested a variance to build a new
apartment. The board granted approval of the variance and the owner built a new apartment building
that made the once bad situation into a positive effect for both the owner and citizens of Laurel.
At this time Monica read a letter of opposition from Curt Bradley whose address is 811 E. 4th Street into
the record as exhibit A (see attached). Mr. Bradley is concerned about where the city chose to locate
the garbage cans behind the Kwik Stop which causes the garbage to blow out of the cans into his and his
4
neighbors' yards and the garbage trucks causes' major damage to the city street where the cans are
picked up.
Monica stated that this letter is not relevant to the variance request but she will pass it along to Public
Works Director Kurt Markegard for his consideration.
Hazel Klein also feels the garbage can issue is not relevant to whether or not the variance should be
considered as it relates to the street and not the variance requested.
Chairman Siegrist asked Monica if this variance would be required if the zoning of the property was
Central Business District and not Community Commercial.
Monica stated that if this building was in Central Business District zoning the property could be built out
to 100% lot coverage. Dan is only asking to be able to rebuild on the same footprint as the buildings are
now. That can only be done if the variance is granted to waive the required 10 foot setback.
Dan Koch asked whether or not there is an alley or access road between the Kwik Stop property and
Mabel's property.
Monica stated that there is a 20 foot alley that has been abandoned but is an issue that will be dealt
with during the building permit process.
A motion was made by Hazel Klein to amend the motion for approval to include the four staff
suggestions:
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; and,
4) All storm water must be kept on site.
The amended motion was seconded by Judy Goldsby and passed by a motion of 6 -0.
At this time the original motion to approve the variance as requested was called for and passed by a
motion of 6 -0.
Public Hearing — Variance request by United Steel Workers 11-443 to reconstruct a non - conforming
use on their property at 1006 E. 6 Street.
Monica stated that the United Steel Workers have requested a variance on their property described as
Nutting Subdivision, S10, T02, R24E, Block 6, Lots 13 — 24 with the address of 1006 E. 6 Street. Their
intent is to tear down the existing building and build a new single level building on the same property.
The applicant was unable to attend the meeting due to the turnaround work their Union is involved with
at the Refinery.
Monica read the Staff Findings:
1. The applicant is requesting a variance from Laurel Municipal Code 17.56.030 to reconstruct a
nonconforming use. LMC 17.56.030 states that "no building used for a nonconforming use shall
be enlarged, extended, reconstructed, or structurally altered ".
5
2. The property is currently used as a union meeting hall which is considered an assembly hall.
Assembly halls are not allowed in its currently zoning Residental Limited Multi - Family zoning
classification.
3. A map identifying the property and letter of application are attached.
4. 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.
Zoning Commission Considerations and Recommendation:
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 (30) days;
3. Delay action on the application for a period not to exceed thirty (30) 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.
Public Hearing opened at 6:45 pm
Proponents:
Rita Mus from 610 Cottonwood spoke. Her property is directly acros te street from the Union
it definitehy needs to be replaced th
She has no opposition to the old Union Hall being replac ed as
6
new building. She would like to know that that the weeds behind the building will be mowed on a
regular basis.
Richard Klose from 511 Cottonwood spoke. He is in favor of a new building being built as the building is
used by more than the Union Members for things such as wedding receptions and parties. The building
is not handicap accessible and at this time not useable for much. He would like to see the hall be
replaced with something more accessible as long as no alcohol permits are issued.
Opponents:
Chairman Siegrist asked 3 times if there were any opponents wishing to speak. There were none.
The public hearing was closed at 6:50 pm.
Board Discussion:
The board had many questions and concerns regarding the look of the building, water runoff from the
building, parking, and whether or not alcohol consumption will be allowed.
A motion was made by Hazel Klein, seconded by Dick Fritzler to postpone the variance application for no
more than 30 days so the Steel Workers Union can be present to answer some of the boards questions
and concerns. The motion carried by a vote of 6 -0.
Discussion Series: Annexation
Monica gave a brief description of annexation of City -owned property.
Recently the City considered annexation of Riverside Park which is not contiguous to Laurel city limits.
When the city owns property outside of the city limits they cannot enforce city ordinances. With the
damage done by flooding a few years ago the city had to close Riverside Park to campers. Because the
park is not within city jurisdiction the city police officers were unable to enforce ordinances and the
Yellowstone County Sheriffs Department had to come out for enforcement issues that were happening
in the park such as people camping when the Park is closed to campers.
Montana State code allows cities to annex city owned property by a simple petition from the city Mayor
to the City Council. Issues that have to be considered prior to annexation are water and sewer service,
garbage collection, and emergency services. Those issues were addressed by the city after which the
City Council approved annexation of Riverside Park.
Applications for Reappointment
Monica stated that there are 2 County Representative appointments that need to be renewed and
encouraged Dick Fritzler and Chairman Siegrist to send in their applications.
There are currently three city representative openings for new members as of June 30, 2013.
7
Miscellaneous:
The next scheduled meeting will be held on June 27, 2013 at 6:00 pm.
Monica stated that she talked with the City Attorney regarding the Boards request to hold workshops
prior to a regularly scheduled meeting. The City Attorney does not recommend that this be done and if
the board feels they need more information or more time to consider an application they have the
ability through LMC 17.72.060 (3) to legally postpone a decision for 30 days.
The meeting was adjourned at 7:15 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Cheryll Lund, Secretary
8
To whom it may concern:
This letter is in regards to the planning board hearing for a variance °o the Foos family and their
property on 815 East Main in Laurel, Montana. I live across the street (at 813 East 4 Street) from the
back of the old apartment building that is in question.
What I do have a concern with is the garbage cans and the litter that have come from both businesses
(Mabels Restaurant and now Fastlane –used to be Kwikway) on the 300 block of east main. Right after
Alder Ave. was redone 7 -8 years ( ?) ago the city decided to move the cans across the street from us. I
didn't think much about it until litter started showing up in our yard and most of the properties on the
block. We had no problem when the cans were in their previous positions. Kurt Markegard came over
and talked to me a couple of times with no solution forthcoming. He said that it wasn't possible to
move them back to the previous position. No explanation. About that time, we started to notice that
the street was coming apart in front of the cans (at that time they were placed behind the curb).
Apparently the garbage truck started to break through the 12 foot of chip seal on clay on the edge of the
original street. After the ruts were about a foot deep the city came in with equipment and dug out
about 2' down by 10'wide and 30' long and put millings in to bring it back to the original level. Good try,
but it didn't work! Bad Clay and high water table. Same problems the city had when Alder was redone.
The city refused to accept defeat and redid the same thing 2 -3 times more. Now the "patch" is 12' wide
and 70 ` long and the cans are now in the street so the truck can sta': on solid pavement to do its work —
and the main part of the street is now breaking up. Since nobody seems to have a solution, let me offer
a couple:
Separate the business garbage cans —that way they will each be responsible for their own —they
will not be able to blame anybody else but themselves.
Move them off the street. The city doesn't allow permanent parking on the streets why should
garbage cans be able to do the same. I see people drive up all the time and dump into them. They
probably aren't from town or they wouldn't be dumping in this spot, Mabels can go over on Alder and it
should be able to handle the load of the truck on the street without breaking it up. Fastlane can have
their can where it is convenient for them and the city.
Both businesses should be required to install a garbage can corral like any of the other
businesses in the new part of town.
In all fairness, I really don't think that Fastlane is as much of a problem as Kwikway was and
Mabels is at the present time. But if this is not dealt with I would have to say that I am not in favor of
granting this variance.
Sincerely yours,
�l
Curt Bradley ' JUN m 3 2013
C TY CF LAUREL
„ .
-
.
1. - '
'._:•"!!‘
- - - •
A ! •
OgS
• • ; •
';`f • rr, ' -
* .” • *.;' !•;r,
"-** . "1. '" • , 4-'
*
-; • , -7-;"
- s
. ,
11 1`•
41'44 se' 0,s
•
. s
s.1 =,
— - ,
—
-.-
• rt
7 /
re' 1
,
/ te."..„, "7'
-
4ar'
,
• ,-
, .
,
„i•
•
,
• •
. „
, -
„ r„C: . •
"
r •
"*-7"
— --, ,
____ —
Eli
' 7A
,.
7-4-`-' r4.1,4itt
r
- - ,_,
., -.• - -, '"-',':
,- .. . ' ' , titit.1
. - 1
-
. -
1
_ — -
"•- , .,..., .
7 \ • i/ , , ,-, Z ..- - ,
.....4--- /- , ..■ 4 6''' '
, ■ J .1 c.
i ' -'1' -
..---"; ,- "Z .._ ■„ ,-,' ,_ --tr i -'
i
I,�r A
- '
LAUREL CITY -COUNY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
TO: Laurel City- County Planning Board
FROM: Monica Plecker, Laurel Planner
RE: Variance for 815 East Main Street
HEARING
DATE: June 6, 2013
DESCRIPTION /LOCATION:
Dan Foos has submitted an application for variance on behalf of East Main Development. The request is
to waive the setback requirements to the property. The property is legally described as NUTTING SUBD,
S10, T02 S, R24 E, BLOCK 20, Lot 1A, AMND (1 -30 ALSO HERE) (99) ALL VAC 20 FT ALLEY.
The property is currently zoned Community Commercial
STAFF FINDINGS:
1. The applicant is requesting the setback requirements identified in LMC 17.20.020 be
waived.
2. The property is zoned Community Commercial which states minimum yard requirements
are 20' in the front and 10' on side adjacent to streets.
3. There is currently a structure located along the north edge of the property which exceeds
setbacks identified in LMC 17.20.020. The structure was built prior to the enactment of
zoning regulations. Reconstruction would require compliance with the current zoning
regulations.
4. A map identifying the property, the letter of application and drawing of proposed building
construction has been attached.
5. 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.
♦ l
ZONING COMMISSION CONSIDERATIONS AND RECOMMENDATION:
The Zoning Commission shall review and made 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 Toss 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 stormwater must be kept on site.
E , 4TH -ST
_ _ w
Q
r{ re
w m
B00911
w
J
8.15
80091?
800
•
•
801 _ s�
•
7
J
f V
..
i II
3 C
C
1 .
-",)
s h
b ° ,3-, t'
VI
rt Z
r
r
c
_ O
z
1
m
m b , - -.
n
n 1
1;) / o
m m
La
, ` i a ' Z, -' \,:
1
Laurel Variance Request Application
This application covers appeals from decisions of the Planning Department (and sometimes
other officials) and for requests for variances concerning setbacks, structures, heights, lot
coverage, etc.
The undersigned owner or agent of the owner of the following described property requests a
variance to the Zoning Ordinances of the City of Laurel as outlined by the laws of the State of
Montana. �-
1. Name of property owner: Cyr sc toc '4 '7, a I b a ! ,- = QS-I'I (n a vl
'Mc? Mo prkp ai, LL C.
2. Name of Applicant if different from above:
3. Phone number of Applicant: lj '',22S --- ‘ 70 Y
4. Street address and general location: gri �- ?thu,„....
5. Legal description of the property: `' l o � w
v, o- �� �t
6g�e g A '� Q ' a , a? , , / _ Q " r a t , P r r
6. CuYrrent Zonin : C e U J
-
g
7. Provide a copy of covenants or deed restrictions on property.
1 understand that the filing fee accompanying this application is not refundable, that it pays
part of the cost of process, and that the fee does not constitute a payment for a variance. I
also understand I or my agent must appear at the hearing of this request before the Planning
Board and all of the information presented by me is true and correct to the best of my
knowledge.
Signature of Applicant:
Date of Submittal: 3' --73
^ EAST MAIN DEVELOPMENT
1415 Ridge Drive, Laurel, MT 59044
(406) 628 -6204
April 30, 2013
City of Laurel
115 West 1S Street
Laurel, MT 59044
RE: Variance request for property located at 815 East Main Street, Laurel, Montana
The purpose of our request for this variance is as follows:
The old apartment units and garages are deteriorating, are an eye -sore, and create a liability in the
condition they are now. We would like to tear the apartments and garages down.
We propose utilizing the existing footprint of old apartments and garages (north and east sides
retaining same setbacks) for new storage units. We would remove existing buckled curb on the north
side of the property (East 4 Street) because it has settled and been pushed out of shape and would like
to install a Montana Public Works Standard Drive over curb and gutter. This would allow people to
back up to storage units without having to "hop" over a regular style curb. This would be a safer and
more effective approach to the storage units. We would also install a curb cut on the east side of the
property onto Birch Avenue.
When the apartments and garages are torn down, the new storage units would face East Main Street
and face East 4 Street. The city code indicates that when a structure is torn down current setbacks
would have to be followed. In this case the property doesn't allow for these types of setbacks because
of the shape of the lot and the property being surrounded by Alder Avenue, East 4 Street, Birch
Avenue, and East Main Street (see photo map).
Due to configuration of the lot, tapering towards the east end and surrounded by streets on all sides, the
variance is needed to promote development. Trying to develop the lot using new setbacks would
greatly reduce useable footage.
This property is right next to CBD zoning and at the end of business district on the east side of town.
This variance would be beneficial to surrounding property owners by increasing property values if we
were able to develop and remodel as planned.
Thank you,
Dan Foos
dba East Main Development
Attachment: Response to Addendum per City Code 17.060.20
•� Addendum per City Code 17.60.020
1. Unless the denial would constitute an unnecessary and unjust invasion of the right of property.
The denial would constitute this. This is commercial property.
2. Unless the Grant relates to a condition or situation special and peculiar to the applicant.
The property has an odd - shaped lot, so city setbacks wouldn't work in the case.
3. Unless the basis is something more than a mere financial loss to the owner.
The basis being that the old curb needs to be replaced for a better approach to new storage units
and utilizing as much of this property as possible and increasing the value of surrounding
properties (getting rid of an eyesore to the area).
4. Unless the hardship was created by someone other than the owner.
The curb and gutter and setbacks need to be addressed. The existing property shape is difficult
to work with due to being surrounded by streets and the lot tapering towards the east. The curb
problems were caused by phone company not packing their trench and then settling when heavy
traffic goes by, such as garbage trucks.
5. Unless the variance would be within the spirit, intent, purpose and general plan of this title.
This is commercial property that has potential for more development and improvement. A
zoning variance would enable better use of this property
6. Unless the variance would not affect adversely or injure or result in injustice to others.
The old apartment units and garages have been at this location for 82 years and have not caused
a problem as they stand now on this lot. The drive -over curb and gutter would be a safer and
better approach to the property.
7. Ordinarily unless the applicants owned the property prior to the enactment of this title or
amendment. (Prior code 17.08.015).
N/A
4
•
117 w 1„ Ic
_ "
it
LAUREL
LAUREL CITY -COUNY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
TO: Laurel City- County Planning Board
FROM: Monica Plecker, Laurel Planner
RE: Variance for 1009 East 6 Street
HEARING
DATE: June 6, 2013
DESCRIPTION /LOCATION:
Alyssa Vandersloot has submitted an application for variance on behalf of United Steel Workers 11 -443.
The request is to reconstruct a nonconforming use. The property is legally described as NUTTING SUBD,
S10, T02 S, R24 E, BLOCK 6, Lot 13 - 24
n
The property is currently zoned Residential Limited Multifamily
STAFF FINDINGS:
1. The applicant is requesting a variance from Laurel Municipal code 17.56.030 to
reconstruct a nonconforming use. LMC 17.56.030 states that "no building used for a
nonconforming use shall be enlarged, extended, reconstructed, or structurally altered ".
2. The property is currently used as a union meeting hell which is considered an assembly
hall. Assembly halls are not allowed in the RLMF zoning classification.
3. A map identifying the property and letter of application are attached.
4. 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.
ZONING COMMISSION CONSIDERATIONS AND RECOMMENDATION:
The Zoning Commission shall review and made 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 Toss 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 stormwater must be kept on site.
m p lE@MOWE
.--� j\ C-D 11:41A.
APR 3 0 2013
cnrroF
k) * ukuRa: C ITY OF LAUREL
Laurel Variance Request Application
This application covers appeals from decisions of the Planning Department (and sometimes
other officials) and for requests for variances concerning setbacks, structures, heights, lot
coverage, etc.
The undersigned owner or agent of the owner of the following described property requests a
variance to the Zoning Ordinances of the City of Laurel as outlined by the laws of the State of
Montana.
1. Name of property owner: I01 rf 3-c t z J'o ) ( — L(i 4
2. Name of Applicant if different from above:
3. Phone number of Applicant: / -1 f
FLt\55ct o '5toof 1Ca'C .crlc c' rG
4. Street address and general location: f tj(�( E ( �--, '
n
5. Legal description of the property: a an 1 QC f
6. Current Zonin • : • � ' 1
7. Provide a copy of covenants or deed restrictions on property.
I understand that the filing fee accompanying this application is not refundable, that it pays
part of the cost of process, and that the fee does not constitute a payment for a variance. I
also understand I or my agent must appear at the hearing of this request before the Planning
Board and all of the information presented by me is true and correct to the best of my
knowledge.
(/
Signature of Applicant: I ate of Submittal: 3 ,)/ i.c.)(/
,
United Steel Workers 11 -4431 2013
Dear Laurel residents,
The United Steel Workers union is submitting an application for a variance for the union hall located at
1006 east 6th street. The plan for this variance is to tear down and build a new union hall on the same
property it sits on today.
The United Steel Workers union came to on September 12, 1940, formerly known as the Oil
Chemical and Atomic Workers Union 2 -443. The union has always participated and supported the local
community. We believe that if we are able to build a new building this will only better the community.
The building that exists now was built somewhere in the 1920s -1930s and overtime has just
deteriorated. Plans are to build a building that will be able to host dinners and receptions with ease as
well as the locals main office.
The existing building is approximately 60Lx4OW, with two levels. Plans are to build a building
that would be approximately 100Lx8OW this would be a single level building. The building will be energy
efficient and have a nice curb appeal, we plan on the exterior having a half rock or brick face (city hall
has pictures of what the projected building will resemble). The parking lot that exists now will remain
with repairs that are needed.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Alyssa andersloot
■411111
/
Recording secretary Local 11 -443
n
J
The attached is a letter for application of a variance for the United Steel Workers Union hall located at
1009 East 6 st. in Laurel, Mt. the following is in reference to Laurel Municipal Code 17.60.20
1.) United Steel Workers Union does believe that denial would constitute as an unnecessary or unjust
invasion of the right of property, because the need for major building repair, in this case to build a
new building.
2.) The grant relates to a condition and situation special and peculiar to the applicant because it will
allow the United Steel Workers to build and new building were the existing building takes up
vacancy.
3.) The basis is not a mere financial loss to the United Steel Workers.
4.) Hardship was not created by any party to the United Steel Workers.
5.) The variance will be within the spirit, intent, purpose and general plan of this title.
6.) The variance will not affect any party adversely or injure or result in injustice to any party.
7.) The United Steel workers did not own the existing property prior to the enactment of this
amendment.
^ ..
. i / | ___---- -11443o ___--
r
'
�- -- - .. F ----
---1 \ 800779
8008E14 800706 � 800r»0 j ' »00788
|
800803 / � \ / ------ i `--- - -
. _—�---'—~ 800780A � ___----
- -'---�—� 800796 / | / 800780
800802 | �____ | � 13°°787 �
__ 800704 ---
i 800700A ( | 800781 ._ ! | ~~~`~' i � mmm/
------- i r------�
800800 euoror
mm/ou � 800782 �
{ r �
' ,
_j w - / \� � \ yuo/ux 800784 | mm '»v m
- �� _-_____� �_ ____� �_ ____/ L/ �
—
— smTy`aT--- — -----
��— i — ------ '
| ,,,,^, ,,"° m / | n»0»2/
N0 > 8uV84o |
ommm
07 | � / 1 - ______�
800825 e00817 � --- 800848A ' | 800840
08 | i 800836 �--- -- � '--'-- �
' —J ' 800829 | 800847 � B00840 i |
---� \ r----- i r------- ! 800835 ' ------'� L-__--�-� - ------'/
09 | | »»»»23 [ i 800819 ! ) r � 800830 � | 800846 B008+
»o0
` / ����-- | � / . }
'''''N