Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity/County Planning Board Minutes 05.01.2014 MINUTES LAUREL CITY - COUNTY PLANNING BOARD May 1, 2014 6:00 pm COUNCIL CHAMBERS MEMBERS PRESENT: Kathy Siegrist, Chairman Dan Koch, City Rep. Shirley McDermott, City Rep. Greg Nelson, Member -at -Large Judy Goldsby, County Rep. Hazel Klein, City Rep. OTHERS PRESENT: Monica Plecker, City Planner Cheryll Lund, City Secretary Gary Colley, City Building Official Mike Balch —C & H Engineering, Bozeman Raymond Moore, Moore Subdivision owner 1 other CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Kathy Siegrist called the meeting to order at 6:02 pm. ROLL CALL: A roll call was taken. Members present were Koch, Goldsby, McDermott, Klein, Nelson and Siegrist. The board took a moment of silence in memory of board member John VanAken who is no longer with us due to his untimely passing. PUBLIC COMMENT: 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. No one from the public spoke. APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM PREVIOUS MEETING A motion was made by Dan Koch, seconded by Judy Goldsby to approve the minutes of the March 6, 2014 meeting as written. The motion carried by a vote of 6 — 0. NEW BUSINESS: Public Hearing on Moore Subdivision, Application for preliminary plat. Chairman Siegrist read the public hearing procedures and opened the public hearing at 6:06 pm. City Planner Monica Plecker spoke regarding the Application for Preliminary Plat for Moore Subdivision. 1 INTRODUCTION: In March 2014, Ray Moore, applied for major preliminary plat approval for Moore Subdivision which contains 41 Tots on approximately 7.85 acres of land for residential development. It is zoned Residential Manufactured Homes and will remain as such. The subject property is located east of Date Avenue, North of 8th St, South of Maryland Lane, West of the City Park /Soccer Field. The property is not within the City of Laurel but is adjacent to city limits and the property owner is petitioning for annexation. VARIANCES: The following variances have been requested on the property: 1. Width of Right of Way for EIm Avenue 2. Width of Right of Way for Date Avenue 3. Width of Right of Way for Maryland Lane The applicant has included a detailed justification for the three (3) variance requests in the subdivision application. Essentially the City of Laurel's Subdivision Regulations would normally require 67 feet of right -of -way for EIm and Date Avenue and additional right -of -way for Maryland Lane. In this case the applicant is able to meet the minimum road width requirements without needing to provide that extra 7 feet. Monica included a print out of the city's subdivision regulations 16.11.1 Variances which addresses the criteria found for variances in the subdivision. In the detailed justification the developer has addressed all 5 criteria. In Staffs opinion those 5 criteria have been adequately met. PROPOSED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: Monica stated that pursuant to Section 76 -3- 608(4), MCA, the following conditions are recommended to reasonably minimize potential adverse impacts identified within the Findings of Fact: 1. The property shall be annexed into the City of Laurel. 2. All public improvements shall be built to Montana Public Work Standards and to the specifications made in the Subdivision Improvements Agreement provided with the application for preliminary plat. 3. To minimize effects on local services, utility easements shall be provided on the final plat. 4. To minimize the effects on local services, a centralized mailbox unit shall be provide as coordinated by the U.S. Postal Service along the north side of East 8th Street. There shall also be a concrete pad. 5. Minor changes may be made in the SIA and final documents, as requested by the Planning, Legal and Public Works Department to clarify the documents and bring them into the standard acceptable format. 2 6. To minimize the effects on the natural environment, a weed management plan and property inspection shall be approved by the County Weed Department, prior to final plat approval. 7. Cash in lieu of parkland shall be received with final plat approval. 8. The final plat shall comply with all requirements of the Laurel- Yellowstone City- County Planning Area Subdivision Regulations, rules, regulations, policies, and resolutions of the City of Laurel, and the law and Administrative Rules of the State of Montana. Monica went on to state that she did include an Addendum to the Staff report adding two (2) additional conditions as follows for a total of 10 conditions. 9. All curb boxes shall be installed a maximum of 5 feet from the side lot boundary. 10. Date and Elm Avenues shall allow no parking and signage stating such shall be provided by the developer. These conditions were suggested by the Public Works Department. (see the attached Memo from Kurt Markegard) Monica stated that concludes the staff suggested conditions. As far as the Findings of Facts there is nothing that has been identified as adversely affecting the application for preliminary plat. APPLICANT: Mike Balch from C & H Engineering and Surveying, Inc. located at 1091 Stoneridge Drive in Bozeman, Montana spoke representing the developer. He does not having anything to add to what has already been said but he will take a look at the possibility of making the road wider for parking. He will discuss it with both the City Planner and the Public Works Director. Board questions: Dan Koch expressed concern that even with signs people will park there anyway. This could cause problems for fire protection. He feels that the 8 feet should be considered to make it possible to park on one side. Mike Balch stated they will definitely consider that. Hazel Klein asked what the width would have to be to accommodate the parking. Mike Balch stated they would be looking at a 36 foot wide road. In order make the road wider they would have to shrink the boulevard width. Shirley McDermott stated that parking in residential areas is difficult because you have mailboxes and newspaper deliveries. On the block she lives it is almost impossible to park because of the curb cuts and the mailboxes. She questioned if they were going to have centralized mailboxes. 3 Mike Balch stated he has talked with the Laurel Postmaster for input on where he would like the mailboxes to be placed. Mike went on to say that the centralized mailbox placement is shown on the plat map along E. 8th Street. The mailman will be able to pull safely off the street to access the mailboxes. Chairman Siegrist asked if any other proponents wished to speak in favor of Moore Subdivision. Chairman Siegrist asked 2 more times if there were any other proponents wishing to speak in favor of Moore Subdivision. No one wished to speak. OPPONENTS: Chairman Siegrist asked 3 times if there were any opponents wishing to speak against the Moore Subdivision. There were no opponents wishing to speak. Chairman Siegrist closed the public hearing at 6:17 pm. A motion was made by Shirley McDermott to recommend approval of the Moore Subdivision Preliminary Plat subject to the Staff report Recommendations, Findings of Fact, three (3) variance requests and 10 proposed conditions of approval. The motion was seconded by Hazel Klein. DISCUSSION: The five criteria listed in Laurel Subdivision Regulation 2006, Chapter 16.11.1.A (1 -5) Variances were discussed and it was concluded by the board that all criteria were met. 1. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or general welfare or injurious to other adjoining properties; 2. Because of the particular physical surroundings, shape, or topographical conditions of the specific property involved, an undue hardship to the owner would result if the strict letter of the regulation was enforced; 3. The variance will not result in an increase in taxpayer burden; 4. The variance will not in any manner place the subdivision in nonconformance with any adopted zoning regulations or Growth Police; and 5. The subdivider must prove that the alternative design is equally effective and the objectives of the improvements are satisfied. Monica stated that in her staff report she reported that all five (5) criteria have been met. Judy Goldsby asked if when the board approves this it should include the developer's offer of an 8 foot on street parking lane. Monica stated that there are several times that minor adjustments can be made to the SIA and the opportunity for changes and corrections to the plat. Judy Goldsby is concerned that people will park on the street whether they live there or not. She feels the additional width is needed to provide access for fire protection vehicles. No one reads parking signs. 4 Shirley McDermott has a problem with making the street wider as it then becomes a raceway for the school kids. The wider the street the faster people drive. Hazel Klein says she can see when people have guests and a small parking area it would be nice to have extra parking out on the street. Shirley McDermott says she would prefer to have the variances approved. Chairman Siegrist stated that the entire application is contingent on the variances as it is laid out. Monica stated that the motion on the floor is to recommend approval of the 3 variances and it includes the parking restriction. Hazel Klein asked if the City Council could still amend it. Monica stated that absolutely the City Council could amend it. There is also time for staff and the applicants Engineer to make more recommendations prior to the final review and approval of the subdivision. Chairman Siegrist stated that the board observed that the five (5) criteria are enumerated and each individual variance is described in detail in the developers subdivision application materials. Greg Nelson asked to address criteria # 3: "The variance will not result in an increase in taxpayer burden ". Greg asked Monica how that works with the city water and sewer fees. Monica stated that since the variances requested are directly related to right -of -ways it has absolutely no bearing on water and sewer fees. If anything having a smaller street will decrease street maintenance fees and would be less of a burden on the taxpayers. Chairman Siegrist asked if there was more discussion. There was none. At this time the motion was voted on and passed by a unanimous vote of 6 -0. PUBLIC HEARING — MOORE SUBDIVISION PETITION FOR ANNEXATION Chairman Siegrist opened the public hearing at 6:25 pm. Monica spoke regarding the petition for annexation for Moore Subdivision. The legal description of the property is Nutting Brothers 2 Filing, 510, TO2S, R24, Lots 7 & 8. It consists of 7.85 acres. The property is zoned Residential Manufactured Home and the applicant is requesting that it remain so. The property is currently vacant land. The application identifies future use as a 41 lot subdivision for manufactured homes. The applicant has also submitted an application for preliminary plat for Moore Subdivision an Addition to the City of Laurel. 5 The application for preliminary plat provides a detailed Subdivision Improvements Agreement, which satisfies the development agreement improvement. A letter was provided to the applicant from Great West Engineering stating the City has the capacity to serve the proposed subdivision, a requirement of the annexation policy. The application conforms to the goals of the City of Laurel Growth Management Plan. The Future Land Use map identifies this area as Residential Manufactured Homes. This application in conjunction with the application for preliminary plat meets the requirements of the City of Laurel Annexation Policy. As per annexation policy requirements adopted by Ordinance No. 008 -02, the Planning Board shall conduct a public hearing and forward a recommendation to the City Council. The public hearing was advertised in the Laurel Outlook. The staff found no Annexation Criteria and requirements that could not be met. The Staff Suggested Conditions of Approval are: 1. In the event public improvements have not been completed at the time a building permit is applied for, the applicant shall provide a development agreement. 2. A Subdivision Improvements Agreement shall be executed with the Final Plat approval. 3. A waiver of right to protest shall be executed and filed with the Clerk and Recorder at the time of annexation approval. The Staff Suggested Conditions of Approval are based off of the Annexation Policy itself. PROPONENTS: The applicant stated he had nothing more to add to the proceedings. Chairman Siegrist asked 3 times if there were any proponents who wished to speak in favor of the annexation application. There were none. Chairman Siegrist asked 3 times if there were any opponents who wished to speak in opposition of the annexation application. There were none. Chairman Siegrist closed the public hearing at 6:30 pm. A motion was made by Shirley McDermott to recommend approval of annexation of Moore Subdivision subject to the three (3) Staff Suggested Conditions of Approval. The motion was seconded by Hazel Klein. DISCUSSION: Shirley McDermott stated that she has seen the property and drove through the area. She thinks this is going to be a good improvement for the area and is a good idea to annex the property on the east side 6 of the city so there can be some cohesiveness with the city boundaries. She is very much in favor of annexation for this particular project. Hazel Klein thinks it's a great project also as it will impact that area as far as improvements overall as it will bring the area into the future. It will provide great affordable housing which is sorely needed. The way it is laid out it has a nice flow to it. The fact that it is individually owned lots is going to create pride of ownership. She is very much in favor of it. At this time a vote was taken on the motion and it carried by a vote of 6 — 0. PUBLIC HEARING: PROPOSED CHANGES TO L.M.C. 17.20.010 (see attached table) Chairman Siegrist opened the public hearing at 6:35 pm. PROPONENT: The lot area yard and lot coverage requirements for 1 and 2 single family dwellings in commercial zoning districts are the same as those in the RLMF residential zoning districts. City Planner Monica Plecker spoke in regards to proposed changes to L.M.C. 17.20.010. This public hearing relates to three different issues: Lot coverage requirements for 1 and 2 single family dwellings in commercial zoning districts; Storage, compartmentalized storage for commercial rent; and, Storage and warehouse yards. Monica stated that currently if someone wishes to build a family dwelling in the commercial district zoning codes state that the building codes revert back to the RLMF codes. This has caused some major restrictions and discourages high density housing units. Staff is bringing this forward because it was identified in the Growth Management Policy there is a real need for residential housing. There has been some interest in Multi -units in the Central Business District and with the current zoning it causes major restrictions for those multi -units as the lot coverage is very prohibitive. It has created some conflict as there are some mixed -use buildings which have apartments on the top floor and businesses on the ground floor. This language would simply clarify how those apartment style units can come into conformance with the code. Storage, compartmentalized storage for commercial rent. Currently storage and compartmentalized storage units for commercial rent are allowed in Central Business District, Community Commercial, Highway Commercial, and Light Industrial zones. They are also allowed in Neighborhood Commercial and Heavy Industrial zones through the Special Review process. Staff has identified that there are many storage units but not many buildable lots. Monica believes it is important that the neighborhoods that have allowable commercial uses within them would better be served by not having storage units within them. Monica stated that the Central Business District is the core of Laurel and she believes there are more appropriate places that storage units can be located. City staff has proposed not allowing storage, 7 compartmentalized storage for commercial rent in Neighborhood Commercial, Central Business District, Community Commercial and Highway Commercial. Staff is suggesting that they only be allowed through the Special Review process in Light Industrial and Heavy Industrial. Monica goes on to state that this may seem a bit restrictive but at the same time with not many buildable lots available staff feels that these proposed changes are more within the spirit of Laurel's zoning codes. Storage and warehouse yards. Currently storage and warehouse yards are allowed in both Light Industrial and Heavy Industrial. City staff is proposing that storage and warehouse yards be allowed by Special Review in Light Industrial and continue to be allowed in Heavy Industrial zoning. Chairman Siegrist asked if there were any other proponents wishing to speak in favor of the proposed changes to L.M.C. 17.20.010. Gary Colley, Laurel Building Official spoke. The proposed changes to 1 and 2 dwellings will be beneficial as he has run into this problem many times over the past years. Since there are two separate code books, one being for 1 and 2 family residential dwellings and the International Building Code that covers multi - family housing for 3 units and above. Once you are over 3 units you are in the commercial codes and out of the residential dwelling codes. He feels the change would be beneficial to the staff and the developers. He also stated that he feels the proposed changes to storage units will be a good change. Chairman Siegrist asked 2 more times if there were any other proponents wishing to speak in favor of the proposed changes to L.M.C. 17.20.010. There were none. OPPONENTS: Chairman Siegrist asked 3 times if there were any opponents wishing to speak against these proposed changes to L.M.C. 17.20.010. There were none. The public hearing was closed at 6:39 pm. A motion was made by Judy Goldsby and seconded by Greg Nelson to approve and recommend the proposed changes to L.M.C. 17.20.010 to the Laurel City Council. DISCUSSION: After several questions regarding storage units Monica clarified for the board that the difference between Storage, compartmentalized storage for commercial rent and Storage and warehouse yards is that Storage and warehouse yards are used for heavier industrial uses. 8 Dan Koch asked how the proposed changes would affect previously approved variance requests that have not moved forward with their plans. Monica is unsure at this time how they would be affected. She will research this issue and put those findings into her Findings of Fact and Staff report to the City Council. At this time the motion to approve was voted on and failed by a vote of 0 — 6. A motion was made by Kathy Siegrist and seconded by Judy Goldsby to delay the vote on these proposed changes to the June 5, 2014 meeting to allow staff to research answers on questions brought up by the board. Motion carried by a vote of 6 — 0. Old Business: Judy Goldsby asked how many board openings there are on the board. Secretary Cheryll Lund stated that there are 2 city openings and 1 county opening. Miscellaneous: Monica passed out a letter that was presented to Laurel City Council by Elk River Law Office regarding what steps and criteria are required by Laurel Municipal Code to approve to recommend approval of a variance. Monica stated she will work with Elk River for clarification of the wording of the 7 criteria and will bring it back to the board as a discussion series in the near future. The next meeting will be Wednesday, June 4, 2014. A motion was made by Hazel Klein and seconded by Judy Goldsby to adjourn the meeting. The motion carried by a vote of 6 — 0. The meeting was adjourned at 7:15 pm. Respectfully Submitted, Cheryll Lund, Secretary 9 ■ • NNf irfi LAUREL CITY- COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO: Planning Board FROM: Monica Plecker, Planning Director RE: Moore Subdivision an Addition to the City of Laurel HEARING DATE: May 1, 2014 INTRODI TION: In March 2014, Ray Moore, applied for major preliminary plat approval for Moore Subdivision which contains 41 lots on approximately 7.85 acres of land for residential development. The subject property is located east of Date Avenue, North of 8 St, South of Maryland Lane, West of City Park. • The property is not within the City of Laurel but the property owner is petitioning for annexation. RE('OJINIENI)AT1O'S: Planning Staff recommends that the City /County Planning Board adopt the staff report and Findings of Fact as presented in this staff report. � 'ARI \CF_S REQL'ESTEI): 1. Width of Right of Way for Elm Avenue 2. Width of Right of Way for Date Avenue 3. Width of Right of Way for Maryland Lane PROPOSED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: Pursuant to Section 76- 3- 608(4), MCA, the following conditions are recommended to reasonably minimize potential adverse impacts identified within the Findings of Fact: 1. The property shall be annexed into the City of Laurel. 2. All public improvements shall be built to Montana Public Work Standards and to the specifications made in the Subdivision Improvements Agreement provided with the application for preliminary plat. Page 1 of 5 • 3. To minimize effects on local services, utility easements shall be provided on the final plat. 4. To minimized the effects on local services, a centralized mailbox unit shall be provide as coordinated by the U.S. Postal Service along the north side of East 8 th Street. There shall also be a concrete pad. 5.. Minor changes may be made in the SIA and final documents, as requested by the Planning, Legal or Public Works Department to clarify the documents and bring them into the standard acceptable format. 6. To minimize the effects on the natural environment, a weed management plan and property inspection shall be approved by the County Weed Department, prior to final plat approval. 7. Cash in lieu of parkland shall be received with final plat approval. • 8. The final plat shall comply with all requirements of the Laurel - Yellowstone City- County Planning Area Subdivision Regulations, rules, regulations, policies, and resolutions of the City of Laurel, and the law and Administrative Rules of the State of Montana. PROC EDI'RAL HISTORI': • A pre - application meeting was conducted with Planning Staff for the proposed subdivision • The preliminary plat pre - application sufficiency and completeness review was done and submitted to the owners agent • The City /County Planning Board held a public hearing on May lst PLAT INFORVIA "PION: In March, Ray Moore applied for major subdivision preliminary plat approval for Moore Subdivision an Addition to the City of Laurel. The proposed subdivision contains 41 -lots on 7.85 acres of land for residential development. The subject property is located east of Date Avenue, North of 8 St, South of Maryland Lane, West of City Park. The property is not within the City of Laurel but the property owner is petitioning for annexation. General location: East of Date Avenue, North of 8 St, South of Maryland Lane, West of City Park Legal Description: NUTTING BROS 2ND FILING, S10, T02 S, R24 E, Lot 7 - 8 Page 2 of 5 Subdivider and Owner: Ray Moore Engineering and Surveyor: Owner has dismissed and is using C &H Engineering as a representative Existing Zoning: Residential Manufactured Home Existing Land Use: Vacant/Open Proposed Land Use: Residential Manufactured "Homes Gross Area: 7.85 Proposed # of Lots: 41 Lot Sizes: Approximately 6000 sq.ft. Parkland Requirements: Cash in lieu of parkland will be received. PROPOSFll FIyI)I \GS OF FACT: The Findings of Fact for the preliminary plat of Moore Subdivision an Addition to the City of Laurel have been prepared by the Laurel City - County Planning Department staff for review by the City /County Planning Board. These findings are based on the preliminary plat application and address the review criteria required by the Montana Subdivision and Platting Act (76 -3 -608, MCA) and the Laurel- Yellowstone City - County Planning Area Subdivision Regulations. A. What are the effects on agriculture and agricultural water user facilities, local services, the natural environment, wildlife and wildlife habitat and public health and safety? (76- 3- 608(3)(a), MCA) (Section 3 (C)(3)(a), LYCCPASR) 1. Effect on agriculture and agricultural water user facilities. The proposed Moore Subdivision will have no impact on agriculture. The 7.85 acre Moore Subdivision site is currently a vacant lot. It is surrounded on three sides by land that has been annexed into the City of Laurel; therefore, the site is no longer considered a viable farming unit. Areas to the South and West are currently mobile home parks and the area to the east and north are parkland. There are no existing irrigation rights with the property and no modification to existing ditches will occur with the development. 2. Effect on local services Page 3 of 5 a. The subdivision improvements agreement has provided detailed information regarding: • Water • Sanitary sewer • Storm drainage • Streets • Parks and Open Space • A detailed phasing plan c 3. Effects on the natural environment The proposed subdivision is proposed as a 41 lot major subdivision. The development is proposed to contain 41 single family residential manufactured homes. The property has a zoning designation of RMH and is being annexed into the City concurrent with the preliminary plat. The proposed subdivision will have minimal impact on local services as it is surrounded on three sides by existing city land. 4. ' Effects on wildlife and wildlife habitat There are no known endangered species or critical game ranges on site. Due to the history of agricultural use near the site, and the adjacent residential use, it provides little wildlife habitat. A letter was sent to the FWP for comment, but no comments were included in the application. Wildlife species consist mainly of rodents and common birds. Little cover and shelter is available for wildlife species in the area. 5. Effects on public health and safety The proposed subdivision will improve the public health and safety in the City of Laurel. Cash -in -lieu donation for parkland will be able to be used to better maintain city parks. Also, the proposed subdivision will improve access for the public by installing sidewalks along 8 Street and Maryland Lane. This will allow residents in the area to safely walk to the park. B. Was an Environmental Assessment Required? (76- 3-603, MCA)(Section 16.9 LYCCPASR) An env assessment was requ and subm w the appl C. Does the subdivision conform to the Montana Subdivision and Platting Act and to local subdivision regulations? (76 -3-608 (3)(b), MCA) The subdivision, with proposed conditions, satisfies the requirements of the Montana Subdivision and Platting Act and conforms to the design standards specified in the LYCCPASR. The subdivider and the local government have complied with the Page 4 of 5 subdivision review and approval procedures set forth in the local and state subdivision regulations. D. Does the subdivision conform to sanitary requirements? (Section 3(C)(3)(e), LYCCPASR) A water and sewer design report has been included with the application. The Subdivision Improvements agreement identifies the developer responsibilities in connecting to City water and sewer services. E. Does the proposed plat provide easements for the location and installation of any utilities? (76- 3- 608(3)(C), MCA Utility easements shall be provide on the face of the final plat. F. Does the proposed plat provide legal and physical access to each parcel within the subdivision and notation of that access on the plat? (76 -3-608 (3)(d), MCA) Legal and Physical access to all lots has been provided and is shown on the preliminary plat. CONCULSIONS OF FINDINGS OF FACT • The preliminary plat of Moore Subdvision does not create any adverse impacts that warrant denial of the subdivision. • With the proposed conditions, Moore Subdivision is in compliance with the Montana Subdivision and Platting Act and the LYCCPASR. • All public improvements shall be built to Montana Public Work Standards. RECOMMENDATION Planning staff recommends that the City /County Planning Board make findings and should they decide to approval include the staff report and staff recommended conditions and adopt the Findings of Fact as presented. ATTACHMENTS A: Preliminary Plat and Associated Documents Page5of5 MEMORANDUM TO: Monica Plecker, Planning Director FROM: Kurt Markegard, Director of Public Works SUBJECT: Moore Subdivision DATE: May 1,'2014 Monica, After our discussion this morning and also over the last few months about the proposed Moore Subdivision, I have the following comments. • 1. It appears that when the Subdivision Regulations where being developed, a mistake was made to the technical standards for street construction. Under Part 5, table 1, number 2, of the adopted Standards for Public Works Improvements, the minimum road right of way was 26 feet and included a foot note (a). This foot note indicates "Where Parking will be permitted, add eight feet on each side ". 2. The water curb box locations should not be permitted under proposed concrete driveways, sidewalks, or curb and gutter. I would recommend that they are put 5 feet away maximum from side property lines. 3. All Public Work improvements shall be submitted for approval to the Public Works Department prior to any construction and be prepared by a Registered PE according to the rules and regulation for Public Works Standards. 4. The street right of way of 67 feet is not a concern as there is a lot of street right of way in this city that is 60 feet. In the Standards for Public Works Improvements it states in Part 5, 1.13 of the general conditions at least 60 feet of right of way must be obtained. I have attached the Section 5 of the Standards for Public Works Improvements for your review. r Respect lly, ,.__ _ arkegard t* \\*1 At LAUREL CITY - COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Board FROM: Monica Plecker, Planning. Director RE: ADDENDUM to staff report for Moore Subdivision an Addition to the City of Laurel HEARING DATE: May 1, 2014 VARIANCES REQCFSTED: 1. Width of Right of Way for Elm Avenue (See attached PW Memo) 2. Width of Right of Way for Date Avenue (See attached PW Memo) 3. Width of Right of Way for Maryland Lane (See attached PW Memo) PROPOSED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: The items identified below are staff suggested conditions of approval in addition to those already included in the full staff report. 1. All curb boxes shall be installed a maximum of 5 feet from the side lot boundary. 2. Date and Elm Avenue shall allow no parking and signage shall be provided by the developer. Page 1 of 1 II I CITY OF LAUREL REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND PLAN OF ANNEXATION 1. Only parcels of land adjacent to the City of Laurel municipal limits will be considered for annexation. "Adjacent to" also includes being across a public right of way. If the parcel to be annexed is smaller than one city`biock in size (2.06 acres), the City Council must approve consideration of the request; the applicant must matte a separate written request to the City Council stating their wish to annex a parcel of land less than one city block in. Once the Council approves the request the applicant can apply for the annexation. ALI 131_:1VI<S OF T111 Al'I'LIC° \TION ARE TO BE FILLFI) IN w AN FXIPL_ANATI 3N 13\''1'111; _•tl'PLI('.1! "1 °. THE : I'I'I IC'A`1'I0\ \N ILL '+t:►i' 131: PROCESSED S1":.1) IF THE Aib1'LICAT1I1: IS NOl f:1)N1PLFTF!!! 2. Applicant landowner's name: Moore. j (a j yt ov,d E Address: ISIS C d-et-, NA r si to2. -2131 � • 2 Phone: (40to) 01-0 - (rsoo l 3. Parcel to be annexed: ;(if it not surveyed or of public record, it must be of public record PRIOR to applying for annexation). Legal d escription: N v►t#►vi $vas ZN o F 1 r,r J ` S 10 "f'b2. S . R3.4 , .c*s , $ Lot size: 1 re,s .,,J Present use: Vc ttecl La►�a Planned use: 41 j..tit S *divis foie Mur►iA ''w -mil -NSW -S Present zoning: 12;siclefrih'iii ( t t Ac w- tk vw►�. (land which is being annexed automatically becomes zoned R -7500 when it is officially annexed (City ordinance 17.12.220) 4. City services: The extension of needed City services shall be at the cost of the applicant after annexation by the City has been approved. As part of the application process, each of the following City services must addressed with an explanation: Water Service: Location of existing main '' o e : 1 ocotte� e&+ irate o f $Th S} aid Date- A 'JG Cost of extension of approved service: 'V 104-, (soo How cost determined: EY+5 i nee v's E sf; rv.t4+e- Timeframe for installation: Plnre„e..1 + be.. cow, Ict'e4 Stnm rv►�y Z c> t4 Sewer Service: Location of existing main: Govvvei o $ + t- b. S-i- ct but Dc+ tt- A\f Cost of extension of approved service: $ t 2 t ,1-0 How cost determined: v, i v►ee r^ s es+ w. 'I imefiame for installation: ?k s-e• 5u hiw" -4 How €inanced: Pv'i vcrtely v.c$ea 1 � r Streets: MAR'f1 -A D A LA*t� LONG . • /t SrA of PRoP RTY, Location of existing paved access: ' ¶ + cx I o n S01 s t ckc- o f Cost of paving: %24Q, t50 How cost determined: 1 heGh firrt - c Tinme&ame fora : 3 4 i3e. co„., ftc-1 -e4 Sv, knw� 2014 Other required irnprov Provide above information on attached pages. Applicant must next with the proper planning representative PRIOR to tilling oat this 5. A map suitable for review of this application of the proposed area to be annexed must be submitted with this application. 6. A written Waiver of Protest must accompany this application, suitable for recording and cx ing a covenant to run with the land to be annexed, waiving all right of protest to the oration by the City of any needed improvement district for construction or maintenance of municipal services. This Waiver of Protest must be signed by the application prior to annexation by the City. 7. Requests for annexations are referred to the City - County Planning Board for reix dation to the City Council. Within thirty (30) days after receiving the properly filled out applicsnhion with all required accompaniments and after conducting a duly advertised public hearing, the City- County Planning Board shall make recoannendalion to the City Council as to this Request for Annexation. If more information is needed from the applicant curing the review of the application, such application shall be deemed incomplete and the time for reporting to the City Council extended may, if needed. 8. Fees are to accompany application upon sabrnission: Annexation into City of Laurel (89 acres or kss) $300 + $25.00/ac re Annexation into City of Lewd (11 acres or swi) $300 + $35AOlacre The City Council of the City of Laurel, Montana, after review and consideration s Application for Annexation found smelt to be in the best interest of the City, that it complied with State code, and approved this request at its City Council meeting oi: 2 1. ..,00,15 - Argo " a....G. 4 - 1 r -1 I? •� ‘ .• .. ..-- C i ' - iGN . 4 1)k 1fl I% "t- t 1.., Is, 1 1„:„ , ..1 4 ,w . ,,t 4 . k : - . :Nr .4‘'° klt it • • •` i .„.,y __ - & pis 1 ., l � l € 1 1'4'14•4 ' ° b - - -- - -� b I■ k IS ; , , t its, I . 4.:! .4 , t es'! Nj - i k t ry ,.4 e • a $ ,.. .S it Al It% 1 . * .i ‘ % kiN.' k-14 k i - Ai' I. K 9ev.ia t===.. - - - Z g 4' i w , t o I. te 't - 4 i . J k 4su 11 $ . Q Q • nags 4 a 4 )�� i . • tt k ., I.,. , , t „ 6 , , 1.. f %ir. ki \ 1 .1„.• % i i i ) ,t % : F._.. 1 -_- 4---•::::1 ∎ i ' � a k � ° 6) L- -- _k -.1 p 'te e r 4.1 Igii k , t4 , 41 1 ;f i , . • . - N t 1 t ® . 111 . 0 _ C b j I • • tl - 114Z611 .! i . jil I Itlf,;%: L 4 ' � 1 f k : 4 . ,_,s. .: *==.'11.1.::: J I ! ;1 t $ y Z _ h , 1,-)1‘, \ ,k . tt: - .1 - -7.\ - - - - - - . 4 C P" ‘44 ‘4' k - * 1 .. i . -4 ® p- . iril s z -41 kA 4,4 — t wow; t . — 46111,42-..-.. . • . i i HIGH POINT PARE HIGH POINT SUBDIVISION I . `/ ow WO= 1AT 7 1111111110 • ... s 1 4 e / ! . rr_�8 i•+1��6Y _r� TM 1 I a. — wr ] sr - w I ----, V I — T q .... TM • i ! 74 28 • I .- * 41 I 8--- __1:111•.._.__ , R_1 _ __ --:1 1 . 1_, , u,n.r a ,r i fit .ma° ei • . 1 ,. I ,� lilt' 3 t== - _ J'I � ! 12 1 L i w ,...-_,_ Q 1 ur. 1-'4 „..,.... 11 M I k t w. 124../ w ` + __ a 1 Ik ' NINTH STREET k c r t: r v W t. 111 l i ° II U 10 _,.$ hi 14. 11 I -. 1 4 1 33 1 — 1 c r ,,. 1 1 . I 20 .32 I G --- _I R -.. 1 1.A`' I R l [ --_ ° • 1 —i ...1_9. g k 4 lor 1 _ L_' .42 .1, VW. M111111114 TO' WATE11 • ili o I 1 1 h I 2t I � I V �rrrs tro 1 a-i f I w I . � I � I 4I . I LE G o - P �AS ® E%Sis10 Sa*TMY 5ct. u41Rtat§ N • PIUSE j ' , tars 1 -7 . ® PROPOSED sAmrprrsprat uaeiOtE PW15Et -'1073 5-14 1 PYNSE Jt - LOTS 15-21 t 1018 29-33 E%IB'RAD ARE RYORMIT PIPES p, - 1013 22 -29 3 1078 34-41 1 PROPOSED an H/1710A IT ofS1810 1YAIER VANE ∎ - w PROPOSED 1SA1ER % E — 8•'W — EXISTING II WATER MART — 12"SS — E70S18c 12s SA1SgRf SEaYER WM1 — 8°11 — PROPOSED V :MAIER.. WWI ..' , : . — 8^SS — PROPOSED S, S4I5 9R/ SERER IpYlt . — w . PROPOSED YWER SERVICE pp scale IRs Fart . — 4" SS' — PROPOSED SNIVRI SESIER SEANCE 1 I _ loo 30 ; Seals Ix zits'= r MY 4 I 7&& ° . _J- r xm coumarr araruk *�'. f. • • , 1 ti s 4 l Of LAUREL CITY- COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT - STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Board FROM: Monica Plecker, Planning Director RE: Application for Annexation HEARING DATE: May 1,'2014 INTRODUCTION: Ray Moore has applied for annexation of his property located north of East 8 Street and East Maryland along Date Avenue. The property is legally described as NUTTING BROS 2' FILING, S10, TO2S, R24, LOTS 7 &8. STAFF FINDINGS: 1. Ray Moore is, requesting the annexation of his property identified above. The property is zoned Residential Manufactured Homes. The property is 7.85 acres in size and is currently vacant land. 2. The application identifies the future use as a 41 lot subdivision for manufactured homes. The applicant has also submitted an application for preliminary plat for Moore Subdivision an Addition to the City of Laurel 3. The application for preliminary plat provides a detailed Subdivision Improvements Agreement, which satisfies the development agreement improvement. 4. A letter was provided to the applicant from Great West stating the City has the capacity to serve the proposed subdivision, a requirement of the annexation policy. 5. The application conforms to the goals of the City of Laurel Growth Management Plan. The Future Land Use map identifies this area as Residential Manufactured Homes. 6. This application in conjunction with the application for preliminary plat meets the requirements of the City of Laurel Annexation Policy. 7. As per the annexation policy requirements adopted by Ordinance No. 008 - 02, the planning board shall conduct a public hearing and forward a recommendation to the City Council. The public hearing has been advertised and scheduled at a regular Planning Board meeting to be held May 2, 2014. Page 1 of 2 � \ \ E\ATIO\ CRITERIA A \D REQI IREyIENT A: The City Council shall consider the following criteria when it receives a written petition for annexation: • The property must be located within an area identified by city staff as a location for future city annexation or annexation of the property will promote orderly growth of the city to protect the health, safety and welfare in areas intensely utilized for residential, commercial, institutional and governmental purposes. • The city must be able to provide adequate city services within a time period mutually agreed to by the property owner requesting annexation and the city; • Existing or proposed public improvements within the area to be annex must meet all city standards. If the public improvements are not constructed at the time of annexation, the property owner shall provide the city a bond or letter of credit that equals 125% of the estimated engineering costs for the construction of improvements. If the property owner fails to construct the improvements or to obtain the agreed upon engineering, the city shall utilize the bond or letter of credit to pay for the construction, including engineering; In accordance with GASB -34, the Developer of Landowner shall provide the city the total cost and /or value of the improvements including, but not limited to, parks, sidewalks, curb and gutter, lift stations, and sewer and water lines, that are conveyed to the city; • All property owners within the area to be annexed must sign a Waiver of Right to Protest the creation of Special Improvement Districts for engineering and construction of improvements including, but not limited to, streets, sidewalks, curb and gutter and the creation of a' Park Maintenance District, in a form acceptable and approved by the city; • Residential densities within the area to be annexed must be rezoned at a minimum density of R- 7500; and • The proposed land use within the area to be annexed must conform to the goals of the Laurel Yellowstone City- County Planning Board Growth Policy. B: The City Council may decide to either condition the approval of the annexation in order to meet the criteria listed in Section A herein or require an annexation agreement. The conditions of approval must be clearly stated in the resolution of annexation or if required, the annexation agreement. If the property to be annexed is not developed, the conditions of approval or annexation agreement shall include a requirement for: A development agreement prior to the issuance of a building permit; • A subdivision improvements agreement at the time of final plat approval, if applicable and • An executed Waiver of Right to Protest creation of Special Improvement Districts for engineering and construction of improvements including, but not limited, streets, sidewalks, curb and gutter and the creation of a Park Maintenance District, in a form acceptable and approved by the City. 1. In the event public improvements have riot been completed at the time a building permit is applied for, the applicant shall provide a development agreement. 2. A Subdivision Improvements Agreement shall be executed with Final Plat approval. 3. A waiver of right to protest shall be executed and filed with the Clerk and Recorder at the time of annexation approval. Page 2 of 2 Chapter 17.20.010 Proposed Changes for Public Hearing: Table 17.20.010 AG RP NC CBD CC HC LI HI P Storage, compartmentalized storage for commercial - SR A-SR SR •..rent Storage and warehouse yards A SR A The lot area yard and lot coverage requirements for 1 and 2 sinEle family dwellings in commercial zoning districts shall be the same as those in the RLMF residential zoning district ,::..