HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity/County Planning Board Minutes 03.01.2001 DRAFT
MINUTES
LAUREL-YELLOWSTONE CITY-COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
March 1, 2001 7:00 pm
Council Chambers
Members present: Gerald Shay, Chairman
Ziggy Ziegler, County Rep.
Bud Johnson, City Rep.
Steve O'Neil, City Rep.
Kate Stevenson, City Rep.
Tom Robertus, County Rep.
Clarence Foos, County Rep.
Others present: Cal Cumin, City Planner
Cheryll Lund, City Secretary
The minutes of the December, 2000 meeting were reviewed and approved
by a vote of 7-0.
At this time the Planning Board meeting was closed and the Zoning
Commission was opened to review the following special review request.
Special Review—250' Cell Tower- Proposed Site South of Fichtner
Chevrolet on SE 41h Street
The proposed location of this self-supporting tower is Lot 1-D of Amended
Plat of Lot 1, Block 11-A, Hageman Subdivision, 3`d Filing. General
location is south of Fitchner Chevrolet.
Ken Stratton, representing Mesa Communications Group, LLC of Falls
Church, Virginia, spoke regarding the proposed cell tower.
They are building a wireless communications system throughout the state of
Montana and this tower is one of the approximately 160 sites they are
building. They have been through this process with the sites they are
1
building in Yellowstone County and this does fit their network design.
Mesa Communications is primarily set up to build towers for their anchor
tenants network design.
They have reviewed Laurel's zoning requirements and ordinances and feel
they fit within them. They do know that there is a tower over 50 feet within
the 1-mile requirement, however that tower is not tall enough for effective
reception.
Mr. Stanton goes on to explain that the taller the tower the more tenants they
can accommodate.
Ziggy Ziegler states that as County Commissioner he was involved in the
review process for the 5 towers that were reviewed recently in Billings. He
feels he can give some insight into this application because of this and would
be happy to enlighten anyone having questions.
Mr. Stanton goes on to say that there was an analysis done for the entire
state of Montana in regards to traffic flow, population distribution and the
most positive sites that would accommodate the most possible service for the
least amount of tower. They look for sites along the highway to place the
towers. They also have to analyze where the radio frequency has the best
reception. The tower frequencies have to bounce from one tower to the next
in order to work, so the tower placement is crucial to the working of the
system.
Obviously communities do not want to have towers and the way to keep that
from happening is to have one taller tower that can accommodate more
carriers. He can't make the promise that every cell phone company will
locate on his tower but due to the lengthy process each separate company
would have to go through to put up a cell tower there is a high likelihood
that they would prefer to put up their antenna on an established tower. The
proposed tower can accommodate approximately 5 cell antennas and several
other type of communication dishes such as two-way radio operator
antenna's and pager systems. The tower that is within .05 of a mile of the
proposed site is not high enough to be effective, and it can only
accommodate 2 carriers.
Kate Stevenson questions whether this is a good place for this tower to be, as
this is the first thing people see when getting off of the interstate. In the
2
future this exit is going to draw a lot of attention and she is concerned about
a tower being placed in direct view of incoming traffic and being the first
thing people see when coming to Laurel. This proposed tower is going to be
in direct competition for what the City of Laurel wants for the future of this
entrance.
Mr. Stanton states that one of the things that attract people into areas is good
cell phone coverage and Internet access. This proposed site will do that.
Kate Stevenson questions if there is another site that the tower could be
located.
If the tower is moved south the line of site would not be sufficient.
Laurel Haggart states that the City of Billings had them cut down the height
of the towers down to 180' when reviewing the 5 applications.
Mr. Stanton states that it was not a requirement put on them by the City of
Billings but rather something that Mesa Communications offered to do to
keep the City and County happy.
Laurel Haggart states that the people of Laurel do not understand why they
want to locate right at the entrance to the city.
Mr. Stanton states that the analysis was done and it indicated the best
possible location.
Question on how high the Cenex Refinery stacks are? Laurel Haggart states
that the refinery stacks are 187 feet high.
Question on how far this proposed tower will be from the tower located by
Cenex?
Mr. Stanton is not sure but thinks it is a little over a mile away. But he does
stipulate that the tower by Cenex is not owned by Mesa Communications.
Question on how big the base for the tower will be? The base for a tower
that is 250 feet tall is approximately 27 feet wide.
3
Cal has a problem with the statement by the applicant that the design of our
community is based on the location of these microwave towers.
Cal reads Section 17.21.030 (A)(3) requiring users of towers and antennae to
locate them, to the extent possible, in areas where the adverse impact on the
community is minimal. He does not see where the applicant has addressed
this issue and feels that this tower will adversely affect the community.
Cal points out that Section 17.10.030 (G) (11) Tower Separation,
specifically states that there be at least a one mile separation between all
commercial towers over 50 feet in height. He wonders how the applicant
feels about this part of the city's ordinance.
Mr. Stanton states that whoever put that restriction into the ordinance is not
looking at the industry as a whole. He thinks we are being very restrictive
to competitive businesses trying to come into town.
Cal feels this is the worst possible place to locate this tower. The
community is looking into what will be best for the future generations.
Mr. Stanton states that this tower will bring a lot to this community when it
comes to Internet and cellular services.
Jean Bender, Attorney for Mesa Communications spoke. She stated that
after going through quite a long process in the City of Billings regarding
towers, the City of Billings decided that they would rather have a less
amount of taller towers than a larger amount of shorter towers. She states
that the City of Laurel may want to consider that issue when considering the
approval of this.
Laurel Haggart stated that the town of Laurel is much smaller than Billings.
Kate Stevenson stated that there are only 2 main entrances into Laurel and it
is a primary concern to the community to have a tower placed in this area.
She does not agree with the statement that Joan Bender made in regards to
the board considering less tall towers than shorter towers.
Mr. Stanton states that he would landscape the tower however the city feels
he needs to. He states that most towers impact people from a distance and
they don't usually notice it when they drive right up to it.
4
Question on how many carriers can be located on the tower?
Mr. Stanton states that there are only a certain number of licenses allowed in
an area. He may get all of the carriers to locate on his tower, or he may not.
Sean, from Summit Wireless spoke in support of the tower. (Can't hear him
on the tape)
Opponents:
Gary Temple, City Councilman, spoke in opposition of the proposed tower.
He doesn't like the idea of a 250' tower located at the exit. He is not in
favor of it. The Burger King sign is 60 feet tall and this proposed sign
would be over 4 times higher than that. He doesn't think any amount of
landscaping would cover this up. He thinks we have better things to do.
This is a main thoroughfare in Laurel and at this point in time we have a
group that is trying to do something to enhnce the entrance to Laurel. This
is not going to do that.
At this time the Public Hearing was closed (7:35 pm).
Cal questions Jean Bender on how she feels the applicant can get around the
ordinance regarding having at least 1 mile in between towers over 50 feet
tall?
She states that a tower is approved within this particular zone and during a
Special Review the board can waive any one of the points in the ordinance
that they feel needs to be waived. The 1-mile radius is supposed to
encourage co-location just as the ordinance encourages co-location.
Cal recommends denial of this tower based on the existing ordinances. He
feels this is the absolute worst spot to place this tower and he feels the
applicants have not addressed the esthetic issues addressed in the ordinance,
particularly the one-mile stipulation. He would also like to recommend to
the council that if they do decide to approve this tower location, they send it
back to the Planning Board for the conditions of approval.
5
Motion by Laurel Haggart, second by Kate Stevenson to recommend denial
for this application for the 250-foot tower by Mesa Communications.
Motion carried 4-3.
Zone Change and Annexation of Certificate of Survey #49 (less the
north 410% address of 315 E. Maryland.
Brad Dillon of BAGP Associates, LLP, spoke regarding this application. He
has a buy-sell on this piece of property. It is contingent on being awarded
tax credits from the state to build affordable housing.
He has plans to build an affordable 32-unit apartment. He will be the
general contractor and the developer of the property. He is also the general
partner and owner.
He submitted a potential site plan for the complex, but there are many other
elements that will be put into place once the project is approved. The
apartments planned are 1 and 2 bedrooms. The tenants will have a minimum
of a 6-month lease and will have to qualify financially to be able to be live in
the apartments. The government gives them a substantial break on their
rent, if they qualify. Qualification is based on income and family size.
This is not considered low-income housing, but affordable housing.
Question on whether or not there would be more than the 32-units put onto
the property?
At this time the proposal is only for 32-units.
Opponents:
Darrell Magnus, 1131 Colorado, spoke in opposition. He had no knowledge
of the annexation and zone change request until he received the notice in the
mail. (Note: all property owners were notified by mail on February 7`h, the
same day the legal ad was posted in the Laurel Outlook) He has owned his
property since 1967 and lived on the property since 1984. He thinks the
drain ditch will need to be covered over because of a safety issue if children
live in the apartments. He does not want to be subject to the children that
will live in the apartment because he has a firewood pile that they could be
injured on, and the wood is his livelihood. He does not want to have to put
6
up a fence around the wood or be annexed into the city. He states that this
is a type of"slum" waiting to happen and anticipates the turnover rate in the
apartments will be quite high. He is afraid that crime will go up in the
neighborhood.
Dave Metzger, son of George Metzger, 215 E. Maryland, spoke in
opposition. He was not made aware of this proposal until his father was
notified in the mail. He is concerned with the extra children this will bring
to the neighborhood and with that possible damage to their businesses. At
the address of 215 E. Maryland there are 3 businesses, a ceramic shop, auto
repair shop and a working farm. He does not feel that the area can handle
any more children. He is wondering how the area will handle more snow
removal. Where will the extra snow go? He works in the evening and is
wondering how the new neighbors will handle the extra noise his body shop
will create. When his dad butcher's an animal, how will the children react?
He had a conversation with a 5-year Laurel Police Officer and was told they
were not sure how they could handle 32 more apartments? Also he
questioned how the Fire Department will handle the extra load?
Mary Herman, George Metzger's daughter, spoke in opposition. She was
upset because no one came to their door and told them what was proposed.
She is concerned with what it will do to her father's livelihood.
Proponents Rebuttal:
Brad Dillon apologized to the neighbor's around the proposed annexation
and zone change that he didn't come and talk to each one of them
personally. Due to time constraints he was unable to do so.
He stated that state mandates that each tenant sign a minimum 6-month
lease. He didn't appreciate the comments stating that the people who would
live in these apartments would be the type that break the law. These people
will be citizen's of Laurel and should be treated no less than anyone else.
Steve O'Neil stated that he is concerned with children being moved into the
area. He himself grew up in that neighborhood and was chased out of the
Metzger's yard.
Kate Stevenson states that the above concerns are legitimate, but those kinds
of concerns happen everywhere. She chases kids out of the stairwell of her
7
business. But, what the board needs to look at is the planning process and
the need for more density within the city. No one wants this in his or her
backyard, but we do need affordable housing in Laurel.
Laurel Haggart states that she worries about he kids playing in the ditches.
Kate notes that those kinds of problems need to be addressed in the final
stages of the planning. What needs to be decided tonight is whether or not
this would fit into this neighborhood.
Steve O'Neil is concerned that the neighbors were not given much notice of
this proposal. There needs to be more communication between developers
and neighbors affected by the proposals.
Cal read his recommendation into the record. (See attached)
Cal recommends approval of this zone change and annexation.
Question on what will happen to the Body Shop if this is eventually annexed
into the city?
Cal states that the existing businesses would be grand fathered in. If there
are air quality issues involved the city would not be involved. Cal does feel
that if the new school does get built in that area annexation for that area
would be the next step. He feels a change is coming shortly.
Motion by Bud Johnson, second by Kate Stevenson, to recommend approval
of the application for annexation and zone change by Brad Dillon for
Certificate of Survey #49 (less north 410') to the City Council. The motion
was defeated by a vote of 3-4.
The Discussion on Daycare/Childcare was tabled until the April meeting.
Cal stated that the board should request a 6-month moratorium be put into
effect on the ordinances regulating to the use and placement of
telecommunications towers and antennas.
Motion by Laurel Haggart, second by Bud Johnson to recommend the city
council order a 6-month moratorium be put into effect on the ordinances
8
regulating the use and placement of telecommunications towers and
antennae. Motion carried 7-0.
Motion by Bud Johnson, second by Laurel Haggart to move the April
meeting to Tuesday, April 10`h. Motion carried 7-0.
The meeting was adjourned at 8:35 pm
Respectfully submitted,
Cheryll Lund, Secretary
9
CffYHALL
115 W. ISTST.
WATWORKS: 628-479
ER OFC:628 7431 City Of Laurel
COURT:628-1964
FAX:628-2241 P.O. BOX 10 yow REEL "
Laurel, Montana 59044
PLANNING BOARD
APPLICATION FORM DEPARTMENT
The undersigned as owner or agent of the following described
property requests a Zone Change/Land Use Variance as outlined in
the City Zoning Ordinance :
From Residential Tracts Outside City / Rf7ggUexed Zone
To Residential Multi-Fame y Zone
1 . Legal descripption of roperty C/S 49 (Less N 410 ' ) in
NWNE4 SEC 9-2S-24Ep
2 . General location: 115 E. Maryland Lane, Laurel
3 . Proposed use : A roximate 32 unit Affordable Housing
Apartments, per Section 42 of the IRS Code
4 . Owner (s) : Stephen S. & Linda E. Gillett
(recorded owner)
315 E. Maryland Ln, Laurel, MT
(address)
655-2130
(phone number)
S . Agent (s) : Brad Dillon
(name)
_ P.O. Box 1529 , Red Lodge MT
(address)
446-2380
(phone number)
G . Covenants or deed restrictions on property: Yes No X
(if yes, include copy)
I understand that the filing fee accompanying this application is
not refundable, that it pays part of the cost in processing, and
that the fee does not constitute a payment for a Zone Change/Land
Use Variance . Also, that all the information presented is true and
correct . PETITIONER MUST BE PRESENT AT HEARINGS .
PETITION NO .
FEE PAID
PETITIONER' S SIGNATURE DATE v
faxa.ZChenge
CITY OF LAUREL
115 W. 1st
City Of Laurel is an EEO Employer P.O. Box 10
Equal Housing Opportunity Laurel, Montana 59044
BAGP ASSOCIATES, LLP
P.O. BOX 1 529
RED LODGE, MT 59068
(406) 446.2380 FAX (406) 446.3860
February 1, 2001
City of Laurel
Laurel, MT
Re: Blueprints and Sketch Plan
Ladies and Gentlemen,
Enclosed with this package is a set of blueprints for Mountain View Apartments,
a 32 unit Affordable Housing Apartment complex BAGP Associates, LLP built in
1999 in Red Lodge, Montana. These plans are simply a representation of the
possible plans for the project in Laurel. These plans will change based upon the
knowledge gained in building Mountain View Apartments, in particular the one
bedroom apartments may become smaller and the two bedroom apartments
may become larger. These types of decisions on the final plans will be based
upon the findings of the Market Study which will be performed prior to final
blueprints.
Also enclosed is a sketch plan for the Affordable Housing project in Laurel. This
is a possible site layout before any surveying, engineering or soil testing. The
results of all these items will determine the final site layout of the project. The
enclosed sketch is just a preliminary possibility.
Sincerely,
Brad Dillon
Operating Partner
165'
r--------- -------�
20'
I
I ,
I ,
I ,
I
SKETCH PLAN FOR AFFORDABLE HOU5ING
C/5 49 LF-55 NORTH 410 FEET
YELLOW5TONE COUNTY, MT
I ,
I ,
I ,
I I
I ,
I AI
I , 1j1
I ,
I
I 1
I ,
I ,
I I
I I
, I
I ,
1 I
t ,
I I
1 5 I
I 5' --'
I
I ,
I ,
796. I ' 8 APARTMENTS
� I
I ,
� I
, I
I ,
I
1� I
� I
I G APARTMENTS
do z
1u j[
U Q
I ,
I ,
I ,
8 APARTMENTS
I
I ,
I
I ,
1 ,
� 1
I ,
APPROXIMATE
I
I
LOCATION OF
CURRENT
20' RE5IDENCE
EA5TfMAKYLAND LANE
� ' • • • • •
1w do
� y
- ,l
Ll
''y yuN�li
h
-gym-
-
i�v
BAGP ASSOCIATES, LLP
P.O. BOX 1529
RED LODGE, MT 59068
(406) 446-2380 FAX (406) 446-3860
February 1, 2001
City of Laurel
Laurel, MT
Re: Zone Change Request and Annexation Request
Ladies and Gentlemen,
We are requesting the annexation and zone change for a 3.02 acre tract located
at 315 E. Maryland Ln. BAGP Associates, LLC currently has a signed buy/sell
agreement with the owners to purchase this lot for a proposed 32 unit Affordable
Housing Apartment project.
The application to the Montana Board of Housing is due to the state in April, and
we will not know if we are awarded the tax credit reservation until the end of
June, so the proposed closing for this property is approximately July 1, 2001.
The buy/sell agreement is contingent upon being awarded the tax credit
reservation from the state.
We are required to provide proof of approved proper zoning and annexation of
this property to the state with the application, as well as proof that it will be able
to be serviced with water, sewer and power. While we need the approval to
happen prior to the application submission, the current owners do not want these
changes to become effective until the day of closing on the property, as the they
do not want the property to be annexed or rezoned if they retain it.
Brad Dillon will be acting as agent/petitioner for Stephen Gillett, current owner,
regarding the matters of annexation and zoning changes. Attached please find
the application for the zone change and the annexation request. If you have any
questions please call our office.
Sincerely,
t'� & J
Brad Dillon Ste h_ -�CXc
p
Operating Partner Owner
enclosures
JAN,30-01 TUE 01 :40 PM C17 OF LAUREL Fnn:406 628 2241 PAGE 1
CITY OF LAUREL
REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION
And Plan of Annexation
I- 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 block in size (2.06
acres) , the City Council must approve consideration of the
request; the applicant must make a separate written request
to the City Council (for parcels smaller than a city block)
stating their wish to annex a parcel of land less than one
city block in size- and do so prior to filling out and
submitting this Request' for Annexation-
2- Applicant landowner' s name: Stephen S. & Linda E. Gillett
address: 315 E. Maryland Ln, Laurel, MT
telephone : 655-2130
3 . Parcel to be annexed: (if it is not surveyed or of public
record, it must be of public record prior to applying for
annexation) .
Legal Description: C/S 49 (Less N 410 ' ) in NWNE4 SEC
9-2S-24E
Size : 3.02 acres
Present Use: Vacant land with a rental home in SE corner of property
Planned u,,,Approx. 32 unit Affordable Housing Apart.per Sec 42 IRS
Present 2oning:Residential Tracts Outside City code
(Land which is being annexed becomes zoned R-7500 when it, is
officially annexed (City Or. 17,12 .220 .F)
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 be addressed:
Water Service:
Location of existing main:E• Maryland Ln in street bordering property
Cost of extension of approved service:
How cost determined:
Timeframe for installation:
How financed: n a
1
JAN-310-01 TUE 01 :40 PM CITY OF LAUREL FAY:406 62" 2241 PAGE 2
Sewer Service :
Location of existing. main:E• Maryland Ln in street bordering property
Cost of extension of approved service : a
Flow cost determined: n/a
Timeframe for installation: n a
How financed: a
S'treetst
Location of existing paved access: E. Maryland Ln
Cost of paving: n/a How determipedt n a
Timeframe for construction: n a
Other required improvements: Provide above information on attached
pages .
5 . A map suitable for review of this application of the proposed
area to be annexed mustlbe submitted with this application_
6. A written Waiver of Protest must accompany this application,
suitable for recording and containing a covenant to run with
the land cc be annexed, waiving all right of protest to the
creation by the City of any needed improvement district for
construction or maintenance of municipal services _ This
wavier of Protest must be signed by the applicant prior to
annexation by the City.
7_ Requests for annexations are referred to the City-County
Planning Board for recommendation to the City Council_
Applicants should contact the planning representative prior to
filling out this application.
8 . Within thirty (30) days after receiving the properly filled
out application with all required accompaniments and after
conducting a duly advertised public hearing, the City-County
Planning Board shall make recommendation to the City Council
as to this Request for Annexation. If more information is
needed from the applicant during the review of the
application, such application shall be deemed incomplete and
the timeframe for reporting to the City Council extended
accordingly, if needed.
9 . An application fee of one hundred fifty dollars ($150) must
accompany the submission of this application_
The City Council of the City of Laurel, Montana, after review
and consideration of this Application for Annexation found such to
be in the best interest of the City, that it complied with state
code, and approved this request at its City Council meeting of :
[orm..nnox
2
FROM Lewistown/Fergus Co.Plannin9 PHONE NO. : 406 536 4046 Fcb. 0! 2001 05:41PM P2
i
BA P ASSOCIATES, LLP
P.O.)BOX 1529
RED LODGE, MT $9068
(408) -23SO FAX(406)44&386O
I
February 1, 2001
City of Laurel
Laurel, AAT
Re: Zone Change Requ� and Annexation Request
Ladies and Gentlemen,
We am requesting the a xatlon and zone change for a 3.02 acre tract located
at 316 E. Maryland Ln. SAGP Associates, LLC currently has a signed buyMell
agreement with the owners to purch0se this lot for a proposed 32 unit Affordable
Housing Apartment project.
The application to the Mc ntana Board of Housing is due to the state in April, and
we will not know if we an awarded the tax credit reservation untf!the end of
June, so the proposed dotting for this property Is approximately July 1, 2001.
The buy/veil agreement contingent upon being awarded the tax credit
reservation from the sta .
We are required to prov proof of approved proper zoning and annexation of
this property to the state the application, as well as proof that it will be able
to be serviced with water, sewer and:power. While we need the approval to
happen prier to the appG 'on submission,the current owners do not want these
changes to became ve until the day of closing on the property, as the they
do not want the property be.annexed or rezoned If they naWn It.
Brad Dillon WHI be acting s agerrilpetitioner for Stephen and Linda Gillett,
current owner, regarding a matters'of annexation and zoning changes.
Attached please find the pplication for the zone change and the annexation
request. If you have any uestlons please call our office.
Sincerely,
( cl
Brad Dillon Linda Gillett
Operating Partner Owner
i
enclosures
lid MAP I Ifni mom
�Q' id i am 0.
mml III MIND, 11411111111111111
111�������1PARR-R-9
Illll.11ll Bull,
Boa
Fd
J111111111il
Egan 6,11111111
AR
Poll W-;-'
Illlll WHOM jJ1111111 M111111 full MARRON
IP 11111111111 11110 1 MIND 1-14 P
II 1 WORM Glll���dh IIIIIII,h �1111111111111 1111111111111111�� ®® �� `�
II a MINE
HOME
IIIIIGIg 41
NO TZ 71,15,wl I 1 94 OWN
MRM
fill it Illllllllll
Mm
-1111 M —VA
IMHO
'1111 hudillmll
0 -
Iva pectin !I "I
-41�
n L
WAIVER
FOR VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, the undersigned, being the Applicant for
annexation and all of the owners of the hereinafter described real property, do hereby
waive the right to protest the formation of one or more special improvement districts for
street lights construction, sidewalks, street light maintenance and energy, driveway
approaches, traffic lights and traffic control devices, streets, water lines, sanitary sewer,
storm drain, (to provide drainage for runoff water within or from outside of the real
property), park construction and park maintenance, and other improvements incident to
the above which the City of Laurel may require.
This waiver and Agreement is independent from all other agreements and is
supported by sufficient independent consideration to which the undersigned are parties
and shall run with the land and shall be binding upon the undersigned, their successors
and assigns, and the same shall be recorded in the office of the County Clerk and
Recorder of Yellowstone County, Montana.
The real property hereinabove mentioned is more particularly described as
follows, towit:
CIS 49 (Less N 410') in NWNE4 SEC 9-2S-24E
BAGP Associates,LLP
By:
Brad Dillon
Title: Operating Partner
STATE OF MONTANA )
ss.
County of Carbon )
On this day of 2001, before me, the undersigned, a
Notary Public for the State of Montana, personally appeared Brad Dillon, known to me to be the
persons whose names are subscribed to the attached instrument, and acknowledged to me that
they executed the same.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I sign and affix my official seal on the date written above.
(SEAL)
Notary Public for the State of Montana
Residing at . Montana.
My commission expires
PLANNING BOARD —CITY OF LAUREL
DEPARTMENT REVIEW
Date:
Review requested: AVI n�xai r __ i _ C- , \
esft-4'9I C 2ss U
3a 0rnrinoa
Public Works Director: 4.4 hi approved/denied
Date: o
Comments: .F/ �ac4d
Fire Department: approve denied
Date:
Comments �9 U d ,I�1.1T- Cd1 C�iJs%lY�iyk�ily� �./t��Cl'h�S IU
MEMO
SUBJECT: Findings and Conclusions Regarding Certificate of
Survey 49 (Less the north 410 feet)Zone Change
Request (and Annexation)
TO: Laurel Zoning Commission
FROM: Cal Cumin, Laurel Planning Director
DATE: March 1, 2001
LEGAL COMMEN
TS
The Laurel Municipal Code (17.72.050 (G)) requires that, "The planning director shall
report his findings and conclusions in writing to the rezoning commission, which report
shall be a matter of public record." In this particular case--involving a simultaneous
annexation, the issue is slightly different; however, this report is submitted for the Board
members' and City Council's information.
State code (MCA 76-2-304)requires that local governments take into consideration
during deliberations on proposed zone changes the `Purposes of zoning': (1) Such
regulations shall be made in accordance with a comprehensive plan and designed to lessen
congestion in the streets; to secure safety from fire, panic, and other dangers; to promote
health and the general welfare; to provide adequate light and air; to prevent the
overcrowding of land; to avoid undue concentration of population; to facilitate the
adequate provision of transportation, water, schools, parks, and other public requirements.
(2) Such regulations shall be made with reasonable consideration, among other things, to
the character of the district and its peculiar suitability for particular uses and with a view
to conserving the value of buildings and encouraging the most appropriate use of land
throughout such municipality.
State code (MCA 76-2-305(2)) provides that when a protest against a proposed zone
change is signed by the owners of 25% or more of the area of the lots within 150 feet from
the subject zone change, such amendment shall not be come effective except by the
favorable vote of two-thirds of all`the members of the city council;there is such valid legal
protest.
SPECIFICS OF ZONE CHANGE REQUEST
The applicants have requested a zone change for Certificate of Survey 49 (less the north
410 feet) located north of Maryland Avenue adjacent to the City limits of Laurel in
1
� r
Yellowstone County, an area of approximately 3.02 acres. The request is from Residential
Tracts (a zone requiring one-acre minimum tracts of land for single-family residential) to
Residential Multi-family(RMF).
PURPOSES OF ZONING
In reference to `purposes of zoning': This application is in compliance with the adopted
master plan for Laurel which specifies this area as residential. Currently zoned for one-
acre residential, the site is adjacent to and across the street on the south from Residential
7500 (R-7500) (7500 square feet per dwelling unit); it is also approximately one block
(300 feet) east of limited multi-family zoning. The proposed zoning is not designed to
lessen congestion in the streets; however, Maryland Avenue, the street that serves the site,
is designed for high volume traffic, and it is no where near its capacity. The same applies
to considerations for undue concentration of population and adequate water, schools,
parks, and other public requirements. The City needs to encourage in-fill development as
opposed to new sprawling subdivisions that require further extensions of city services.
High density development is also well located on streets that can handle the traffic (as
stated), near schools, and on existing water and sewer systems. This project meets these
stipulations.
Regarding reasonable consideration to the character of the district and its peculiar
suitability for multi-family housing: Because of the configuration of this parcel, it is
extremely difficult to develop--given the need for access, individual lot ownership; and
extension of services. As such it could just sit here as the community grows out. Having
such a blank spot in the development pattern creates higher costs than if the area were to
fill in with development at a steady and contiguous rate and pattern. The area is a mix of
existing uses currently, and the proposal will not adversely impact these uses. Since it is
not planned as an exclusive development catering to a small segment of the population, it
will provide diversity in the housing opportunity for all of the community.
CONSIDERATIONS
This application is being considered as part of an annexation of the parcel. Under City
Code, all annexed land automatically becomes R-7500 Zoning unless otherwise designated
through a process either initiated by the City or by the applicant. In this case, the
applicant is requesting the zoning be changed, not to R-7500 but to RMF, which is an
available method of requesting such zoning.
The Planning Board is tasked with holding a public hearing and, after considering the
issues, making a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council will again
advertise the request for annexation and zone change in the Laurel Outlook(as the
Planning Board has done). This advertisement will state the recommendation of the
Planning Board and the date of a second public hearing--this one before the City Council.
2
w E
U, U
V-L
CITY OF L J4Lq4 A'0-7
Lj
311
ou-el
41 /*
7'o k
�9 0""z -c
C3 e e"
141(--- ov fL..
. . .... . . rnn.4�,U ULC LL4I - rAUZ J
CITY HALL
PUT1U W. ISTST. City Of Laurel
WORKS:628-WA 431 Y WATER OfC:628-7a3 t
COURT:628.1964 P.O. Box 10
FAX 623.2241
Laurel, Montana 59044
PLANNING BOARD
DEPARTM6NP
APPLICATION FORM- SvZCTAj. REVIEW
The undersigned as owner or agent of the following described
PrcFer=y requests a Special Review as outlined in the City Zoning
Ordinance :
Legal Description: Ln+ I-1) of AY,pifdj PlaiCE j .8Iock I _
a � S�I� 3c11
General Descripticn (address) :�+. /�o/✓T.4tih9 .�B
ATTACH MAP SHOWING DIMENSIONS, ACREAGE AND LOCATION OF TRACTS_
Owner of Tract : Leonard tom , + TA y r.e K.
Mailinc address,: P. O. BoX 15-7 ;/agjr-e LAT 5204./L/
Phone Number: y0lo- 6o2-$- 48 /4/
Attach site plan:
Time Scaedule for development:
Special Review request : -�
/o COrG41--Od - a- ZSo� SeJr St�Dportlnq Lowe.✓
I understar-d that the filing fee accompanying this aoplidatior-
is rot refundable and that it pays p oC the cost in processing.
Also, that all information prese is true and correct .
Petitioner' s�Snignature:-,,:
petition Nc . 6R ok—O
Fee paid and date: -DL—1 — I ✓�"�°f`CF� ��T��(
City Of Laurel is an EEO Employer
Equal Housing Opporruniry
CITY HALL
115W. 1STS City Of Laurel
PUB WORKS:: 628-4796
WATER OFC:628-7431
'., COURT:628-1964 P.O. Box 10
FAY: 628-2241
Laurel, Montana 59044
DEPARTMENT
February 1,2001
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
FILE#SR 01-01
NOTICE IS HEREBY;GIVEN that the Laurel-Yellowstone City-County Planning
Board will hold a public hearing on Thursday, March 1, 2001, at 7:00 pm in the Council
Chambers of City Hall, Laurel, Montana, for the purpose of reviewing a request for
Special Review to allow a 250' Self-Supporting Tower on the following described
property:
Lot I-D of Amended Plat of Lot 1, Block 11-A,
Hageman Subdivision, Jrd Filing.
Information concerning this proposed change can be obtained at the Office of the Public
Works Director, 115 W. First Street, Laurel, Montana. Anyone wishing to protest or
speak in favor of the application may appear at this Hearing with or without counsel.
Gerald Shay, Chairman
Pub. Laurel Outlook 2/7/01 & 2/14/01
City Of Laurel is an EEO Employer
Equal Housing Opportunity
...
1S Sag
C�{E o�oWQ
¢z ��zi-i 3szi LJI .9vrGvr�vWi rn
J - ZC^p0 U zo.-o2o U zp
I
^ o x 0 a Q o
O
a�r-a c�¢
U W
-m u
A-4 . i W
� IIr a' sNFssi CL
�
sOE
o
O I—H ram- Zi W U cz��
tiO�OWU
M.,�_-o=
W
O "_ INN=-
W O NTM w
�i o ?arx N E
d
0
i w y z>
'
6
O _ 8o
a 06 m� _� - o
4 5 zo pz - m m rwo oa �e $ 3 �erioi�a
_i `o �e w
Z s
w !oo o .gym LL ouW O
- W Wm° Jo 'E�.: pn rc p m au
o$p .g
H�
W viW3 S ink itym ¢p 3 as oon_ zm
p ¢p r~w H
F O Cn$ p m ml u� .I.i tSFao HD W ¢ SN1
vi om'N F6 ip `N '�_"& 04 .1W is
NC �i = CAW m - .n_wF� �O� Z -
O o CCL w p NC yp 7u �p2 w �O ON C
Z N p Na �2 g ZC C �Y]CO�=p
J Iz
pH
C o �Ww a`m Ye - gua � ar a'du BWom
ol
60
w T �n4 0 °uu Yoy °O 6!i O
r 1 °tl YS s �YCYs� ? r�fl� dS
� 3 c
1O
CC N l 1%I
m CN".Q
_ 97���Ssao
' m -
�n
a as f
I
I
Np `oow II Noa 3g p U r 2 O -s-2 u O O b e 3� S 7
oQ �Na II o
J
Vw O + OOv..4C I Z,II
UNZ � NOw I Z _
OJQ 11 N
C_ pV� O mp� j qO0 �V¢wim OJO •uE-'
2 y p
p
-
_ a O O
�.__ .p3w [
z3 c�ia per¢ —_________________ � _
N a w z ^ tJ
_ H "d
O - m aN6N .�.` 905 08
Z �
�� W >
z o
m -
a a � `p„ a n,a,
Ury~06 eV /z pC 2 U p
3ry
O
W
J o of m
SIN130 NWVA313 A N111"N003 N >z I
dw S,ON S,8hnN 3NNM tl3A01 Ol 83334 - 3 v<pi r Bt a
63M01 ONI1NOddnS 313S •0-,09Z oI 0 S W
N Unm 3 Aa _
Nna O3HSn8J k g� Nos Y u
0."/L : 30 .b
>Z�I VI O � F-
u w 5 _ w
¢ W V � i.Ol
<
ry N O � .1PP 1 Oa
�1 sp E
\° `g a
>U
O
2
=W
wZpw
N m�2 U
I x 2r Q uI
W - =
I --
z �s
1 a��
0
o w y
n Q _ Z -
^a o
zS Z
ryVU QF
c _ m-
3 II II " r Q
_¢ I
Z
io U o
M._N5o�J'ma
....� �c.+ / z cgs
MR
0 9 V g i o a e E
-
I
-
r
r
'I I INN20=
'. ( I So9 offer
O w
o c g
! a w z o
oza O O m z w
V Y Q BB
<tt0 //
a r
S
i
O
%f
I /
/r
/ 99
/
i
° o
s
r
�W >�
-Y ZZ
u O
Q�
w P
I O
Q
-
a
k_} G ■ E § )/ ! t ;/a - � ( -_ C
\\~ , oz
` 2 Al
IL
IL
\
�
-
/
I
o
n
�O 3G rnUmU ca o G �Oc
^ [y V
vsim r = ggS [Y O j'
gs w°- uw Pi 0 a u1b8 Q Q tl 4
m w Z
rzz
¢ c
� cs ^o �� I/"i � � zu � •
s
� n
0 L
N N
Bm 7 m9/
Z
E
z _
wo ra l �
IC,
>O
CFgjoy.,2y:
u o m / �.< r...J�
S O �_ 'p._ - L
�w v e _$[l�-ICE •q `�•' JZP�C: pC
oo oeg
�g
p o aw \
W o gnG�
W ev n e n u r
C2
JI
T w a
zw
U
N
\ C I
_ Z U
� LL
C =
zIl
E-
t2
zc
t;j
T: z-
o m LO
li 0 C, >2:
F.71
.0-,6
PLANNING BOARD— CITY OF LAUREL
DEPARTMENT REVIEW
Date:
Review requested: Sp p-t kt, Ve a C.J
45
a
Public Works Director: approved/denied
Date:
Comments: M7.
oy /r� /IGCG/C.Cl ` Gl�i I
Fire Department: 1����V rov denied
Date: Z-2I-or/
Co
,tl K My f✓C4 f2l//CK:S AV? / fi(�la/k D r a E 7
/ / I V
u a 1� t1+1 1j 1 y l t i Iy �f
� m I: Y ~7¢ a t 'Y aF y J•x a ' 4 1" .� pl 1 1 cal a !�1>'*1 1 ,I ti WZ
yS ]1 1 1 i It IYr rt 111 3li f r t I 1IV ��j�pl
® � t t 'T1 la flll 1H h ,ti l 1 h , �
1 1 I Y a Y p . l a P I kl t 2 tM
1
� � > I Wr t ✓< ,I1 a #r
YYn 1 I a 11 � 1 nISY dr1 } 'f r a °Yr.d �t 11 a na3 is{I^y� 7�°
1
���� _� ® I,, � } � pa J en a� �1 of iti t Ir✓j' `!�`, '� r 1�r��
4^" �
p W +S
1 9YA'rv�'t!p
§ r 1 FE
s
�r�+G
a 1F r r1r 4 a 4 -
� '�
taal' r 1
Srl' `tt
x } f 11 1 1 Y l a l q r Y WuY'
I Fyn 1 r !P 71 'i
®� ���1 �yi p 1
i•"IIIIf'I i J 1I PI 4 Y.. } i t a f e W 1 r 1
l.
IF,Pik
4 '% ra r Y I r t PWl aP:ape T� i, tt: Y i
IF
t
yirFAIN ,
A R�tp aE U ! 4 of i � t1 � � �{ Fit Yt
IF
y�ff�'�M��nsp '� i a.1 r {i t �o r' ✓.S T" � �
d
_ a
r 1 € --
qpg§
es
Vti �s�
al�f��y�id`
4
i�
s