HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity/County Planning Board Minutes 02.06.2003 MINUTES
LAUREL CITY-COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
FEBRUARY 6, 2003 7:00 PM
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MEMBERS PRESENT:
OTHERS PRESENT:
Gerald Shay, Chairman
Laurel Haggart, City Rep.
Doug Poehls, City Rep.
Betty Hart, County Rep.
Tom Roberms, County Rep.
Clarence Foos, County Rep.
Ed Thumer, City Rep. (arrived 7:20 pm)
Cai Cumin, City Planner
Cheryll Lund, City Secretary
Teresa and Tige Elke
Shani Rich, Brad Reiners & Jarrod Weenum, Rocky Mt. College
Motion by Doug Poehls, second by Betty Hart, to approve the minutes of the December 5, 2002
meeting. Motion carded.
Annexation Requests- Public Hearino
1) Tige and Teresa Elke have requested annexation of Lot 1-5, Block 1 of Mathis Subdivision, the
comer Valley Drive and W. 13th Street.
Because this is less than the requirement ora city block permission was requested and approved
by the City Council on December 3, 2002 to proceed with the annexation process.
The property has existing city water. The Elke's have signed a waiver of rights to protest and
completed all required paperwork. This request will allow them to hook into the city sewer
system.
No one spoke in opposition.
Cai recommends approval of this request.
Motion by Laurel Haggart, second by Betty Hart to recommend approval of this
annexation request to the Laurel City Council. Motion carded.
2) Kathy Simanton has requested annexation of Lot 1, Block 6 of High Point Subdivision which is
located on the northwest comer orE. Maryland Lane and Yard Office Road.
Because this is less than the requirement of a city block, permission was requested and approved
by the City Council on January 7, 2003 to proceed with the annexation process.
This address will hook into water service only. Streets are already existing.
Cai recommends approval of this annexation.
Motion by Doug Poehls, second by Laurel Haggart, to recommend approval of this
annexation request to the City Council. Motion carried.
Growth Management Plan - Economic Development Plan & Strategy - RMC Analysis
At this time Cal introduced Shani Rich, Brad Reiners, and Jarrod Weenum from Rocky Mountain
College. Cal enlisted the Business classes help with this part of the Growth Management Plan analysis.
The students passed out copies of their analysis and went over it page by page with the board. (see
attached copy of analysis)
Discussion by board. Several questions and issues were brought up.
Cal thanked them for all of the work they did on the analysis report. Cai stated that if board members
have questions on the analysis done by the students that they bring them to him and he will make sure
they are addressed.
Proposed Changes to Temporary. Use Permit Ordinance
The board held a public hearing on the proposed changes to Temporary Use Permits in January, but the
board because of the lack of a quorum took no action.
Cai reviewed the proposed changes with the board. The main reason for the changes is mostly
housekeeping issues. The most important change made was taking the final decision on temporary use
permits away from the Planning Board and giving that power back to the City Council, as the Planning
Board should serve as advisors to the city council.
Motion by Doug Poehls, second by Betty Hart, to recommend approval of the proposed changes
to the Temporary Use Permits Ordinance. Motion carried.
Model Subdivision Regulations
The State Department of Commerce has developed a new Subdivision Model regulation booklet to serve
as an example and reference for local governments preparing or revising their own regulations. This is
being done as part of an on-going program of technical assistance provided by the Department of
Commerce (DOT) Community Technical Assistance Program (CTAP) to local government officials,
planning boards, planning staff, and development interests.
Cai encouraged board members to look at the booklet. It is available for checkout in the Public Works
Office. See Cheryll.
2
The MDOC is also offering an on-line training opportunity for citizen planning and others who would
like to learn more about land use planning. The Lincoln Institute of Land Police, Cambridge, Ma. has
offered Montana the opportunity to participate in a pilot project that will allow 50 individuals fi.om
Montana to enroll in the Institute's Planning Fundaments course at no charge to the participants.
The course consists of 22 lessons and five self-assessment quizzes. The course is supplemented with
audio clips, case studies and links to other web-based resources. The course is offered on-line and can
be completed at your own pace.
There are two conditions that must be met if you are accepted to participate in the project. First you
must complete the entire course and second you must complete and remm an evaluation form when you
have completed the course.
Anyone wanting to take advantage of this opporttmity should contact: Gavin Anderson, Program
Manager, Community Technical Assistance Program, Montana Department of Commerce, 301 S. Park
Ave, Helena, Mt. 59620-0523. Telephone number is 406-84D2783.
Miscellaneous
Cai passed out information that was sent out with the Laurel Outlook regarding the Land Use Chapter of
Laurel's New Growth Management Plan.
Laurel Haggart asked Cai about the "Granny Housing" information that the board received information
on at the last Planning Board meeting. She asked about some specifics.
Cal stated that the idea behind it is to allow those people with family to have their family integrated
within their home. It also does not have to be specifically family members. The idea' is to provide
housing within residential zones to people that cannot afford to live in regular housing.
Cai stated that he received a request to review a master plan/preliminary plat for Clark's Camp from Mr.
Cavin Noddings, P.E., fi.om Engineering, Inc. Cai wrote back to Mr. Noddings (see attached letter) and
told him it would be premature to accept the application package for review until the owner of Clark's
Canap addressed several issues.
Cai announced that there is still an opening for a County Representative on the board.
The meeting was adjourned at 8:00 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Cheryll Lund, Secretary
3
ZONING CHAPTER 17.49
TEMPORARY USES AND STRUCTURES
Proposed Changes
Public Hearing January 2, 2003
Section 17.49.020: Paragraph B.2.b: Delete "if within the Laurel municipal limits or the county
office of public works if outside of Laurel but within the one-mile zoning jurisdiation".
Paragraph B.2.c: Delete "if within the Laurel municipal limits or the county office of
public works if outside of Laurel but within the one-mile zoning jurisdiction".
Paragraph B.2.d: Delete "date accompanied by a one hundred dollar application review
fee".
Paragraph C.1 .b: Change to read: Other uses, such as carryout espresso stands less than
120 square feet in floor area as allowed in the appropriate zoning districts."
Paragraph C.3.b: Delete from the end of the paragraph the following: Delete "if within
the Laurel municipal limits or the county office of public works if outside of Laurel but within
the one-mile zoning jurisdiction".
Paragraph C.3.c: Delete from the end of the paragraph the following: Delete "if within
the Laurel municipal limits or the county office of public works if outside of Laurel but within
the one-mile zoning jurisdiction".
Paragraph C.3.d: Delete from the end of the paragraph the following: Delete "if with/n
the Laurel municipal limits or the county office of public works if outside of Laurel but within
the one-mile zoning jurisdiction".
Paragraph C.3.e: Delete: "accompanied by a one hundred dollar application review fee."
Section 17.49.070: Add to the start of the paragraph: "All Group 2 and Group 3 temporary uses
must conform to the Municipal Sign Code."
Section 17.49.080 (New Section): Action by Laurel City Council.
After the Planning Board has reviewed an application for temporary use, it shall make a
recommendation to the City Council to approve, deny, or approve with conditions. The City
Council shall approve, deny, or approve with conditions the application. If approved or if
approved with conditions, the applicant shall then obtain a City business license prior to
operating business.
CHANGES TO THE APPLICATION FORM
Add a new paragraph 5 (and renumber remaining paragraphs accordingly): "N ' '
of property owner of record." ame ana signature
Delete references to County Public Works.
Add to paragraph 7 (now 8): "The $1,500 must accompany the application when submitted to
the Planning Board. If the application is denied the $1,500 shall be returned to the applicant;
however, the application review fee will not be returned."
Change paragraph 10 (now 11) to read: "A '
fter recommendation by the Planning Board, the
application shall be forwarded to the City Council for final action. The applicant must appear
before the City Council to answer any questions the Council may have."
Add paragraph 12: "After approval by the City Council, the applicant must obtain a business
license fi:om the City."
~ITRODUCTION
In accordance with governmental and state regulations the City of Laurel has been instructed to
devise and implement au operational econom/c development plan and strategy. Tkis process of
research, analyzing, and interpretation has been outsourced to the Rocky Mountain College S~FE
(Students in Free Enterpr/se) Team. Tb_e crux oftb/s report will be based on:
· histoncal information,
· census statistics,
· current impending status of the city of Laurel,
· reports prepared by the Better Business Bureau,
· reg/onal newspaper publications, and
· data provided by city and country agencies.
The multifaceted aspects of th/s plan will include, but will not be limited to:
· au economic h/storical back~ound,
the current business and financial setting of Laurel,
· the strengths and weaknesses and their possible manipulations,
· population projections,
· incremental steps of implementation, and finally
· a concluding snapshot of the current Laurel as well as guided direotion for the next 15
years.
The goal of this economic .tevelopment plan is to portray an accurate depiction of the current
situations i~flicting Laurel, Laurel's potential to become a tlmving, successful, regional
com~terpart, and to pray/de historically and statistically based recommendations and predictions
for the future Laurel. '
ECONOMIC BACKGROUND
The economic foundation of Laurel is strongly tied to its long held refinery and mil industries; its
proximity to Billings, and its regional business ties. Laurel's economy heavily relies on its local
residents for business as well as a substantiated tourism industry. The underpinning of Lauret's
local economy is multifaceted, diversified, and ch/cf basis consists of seven major businesses.
COMPANY NAME PRODUCT/SERViCE ESTABLISItED YEAR 2003 EMPLOYEE
Cortex Refinery ......................... Petroleum Products ................. 1943 ............................ 250
Montaua Rail L/nk .................... Rail Transport ......................... 1987 ............................
Laurel School District ............... Education ................................ 1909 ............................ 230
Wood's Power Gnp .................. Materials Handles ................... 1990 .............................. 90
Jan's IGA .................................. Groceries ................................. 1979 .............................. 78
Laurel Ford ................................ Vehicle Sales ........................... 1993 .............................. 45
Buriingron Northern Santa Fe...Rail Transport ......................... 1800's ........................... 60
3-ource: Better Sustness Bureau: )don~ana Depa~wnent qfLaoor & Indus~y; Interview,s ~Data 2003)
Laurel Econormc Development -Plan -[- Rocky. NIountain College SIYE 1/03
E~n, LoY~mrfr
~UMBER OF
EMPLOYEES 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995
1-4 .............. 131 ............ 137 ............ 140 ............. '128 ................ 138 ......... ~ ........ i36
5-9 ................ 5I .............. 46 .............. 44 ............... 43 .................. 38 .................... 34
10-19 .............. 25 .............. 29 .............. 32 ............... 37 .................. 35 ................... :28
20-49 .............. 15 .............. 21 .............. 18 ............... 15 .................. 14 .................... 18
50-99 ................ 3 ................ 4 ................ 5 ................. 4 .................... 4 ...................... 5
100-249 .............. 1 ................ 0 ................ 0 ................. 1 .................... 0 ...................... 0
250-499 .............. I ................ 1 .......... :.....1 ................. 0 .................... 0 ...................... 0
500-999 .............. 0 ................ 0 ............... 0 ................. 0 .................... 0 ...................... 0
iO00-up .............. 0 ................ 0 ................ 0 ................. 0 .................... 0 ............... ~ ...... 0
The propinquity of the interstate, the nearness of Montana's largest city and regional hub, and
advantage of rail availability has helped sustain Laurel as a natural site for industry, sh/pping,
and iight manufacturing. A multifaceted mergence o£ agriculture, industry, manufactar/mg,
transportation, mad serv/ces has helped shape and de,me the balance of the indigenous economy.
2000 DATA
EMPLOYI~IENT BY INDUSTRY NUMBER OF LAUREL RI~SmENTS , PERCENTAGE
Agr/culture, f0resrry, fkshing, mining ........................ 100 ........................................ : ........... 3.59/o
Construction..; .............................................................. 94 ....................................
Manufacturing .............. .; 341
Whdiesaie Trade ........................................................ 103 .................................................... 3.6%
Retail Trade ................................................................ 538 .................................................. 18.7%
Transportation & warehousing & Utilities ................ 281 ....................................................
Information ..................................................... : ............ 19 ................... : ................................... 7%
Finance~ Imurance, Real Estate, &
Rental, & Leasing ...................................................... 169 .................................................... 5.9%
Professional, Scientific, Management ........................ 169 .................................................... 5.9¢/,
Adm/nistrative & Waste Management
Educational, Health, & Social Services ..................... 498 .................................................. 17.3%
A.rts, Entertainment, Recreation,
Accommodation & Food Services .......................... 281 .................................................... 9.8%
Public Administration ................................................ 111 .................................................... 3.9%
Other Services ........................................................... 177 .................................................... 6.1
*Source: (Z5. Census £ureau Report for the Ci~ qF£auref l~on~ana (Dam 2000)
Laura! Econ?rmc?eveiopmenr Plan -;- Rocky ?,~lounrain College SIFE i/03
1990 D^TA
E?~PLOYMENT BY INDUSTRY NUMBER OF LAUREL I~ESmENTS PERCENTAge;
Agriculture, forestry, and fisheries .............................. 69 .................................................... 2.7856
Mining ....................................... : .................................. 28 ......................... ' ........................... 1.13%
Construction ............................................................... 146 .................................................... 5.88%
Manufacturing, nondurable goods ............................. 130 .................................................... 5.24%
Manufacturing, durable goods ..................................... 48 .................................................... 1.93%
Transoortation 9 ~.o
. - ................................................. 54 .................................................. 10.2~
Communications and other public utilities .................. 30 .................................................... 1.21%
Wholesale trade 103 '
.............................................................................................................. 4. i5%
Retail trade ................................................................. 657 .................................................. 26.46%
Finance, insurance, and real estate .... 156 ................... 6.28%
Business and repair serv/ce ........................................ 134 .................................................... 5.40%
Personal services i ......................................................... 68 .................................................... 2.74%
Entertainment and recreation service ........... 20 .................................. 081
Health service ............................................................. 184 ............. ~ ...................................... 7.41%
Educational service .................................................... 186 .................................................... 7.49%
Other professional and related services ..................... 169 ......... i .......................................... 6.81%
Public adm~rdstration ................................................. 101 .................................................... 4.07%
*Source: U]S. Census Bureau Report for the City of Lauret Montana ('Data 1990)
Laurel has a population base of approximately.6,255 individuals within the city limits, and the
greater area, encompass/ag the entire 59044 z/p code has approximately 9,618 people. O/these
indiv/ctuals considered in the City l~mits, Laurel has a civilian labor force of approx/mately 4,651
individuals and 1,592 people not in the work force, with about 12 individuals being in the armed
forces anti not.~clounted in the civilian work force. Tiffs accounts for 65.8 percent ~mpl0yed and
34.2 percent unemployed. According tO the 2000 census reports, the City 0fLaur~i has i73
individuals who are unemployed, accounting for 3.7 percent of the civilian work force.
According to the Montana Department of Labor reports, Montana's unemployment rate was
4.6% in 2001 down from 4.9% in 2000. In fids perspective the City of Laarel seems to be
positioned better in terms o£ unemployment *hen the state average.
*Source: U.S. Census Bureau _Report for the City of Laurel Montana (Data 2000) & Montana Department of Labor
Laurel has an economic base and income level similar to and congruent to that of many other
similar communities in Montana. The median household income, according tO 2000 Census
reports, is $32,679, for the City of Laurel. The median family income for the City of Laurel is
$40,068. The Per Capita income is $16,953. The Per Capita income for Yellowstone County is
approximately $25,253 a.ud the average annual wage is $25,552**.
*Source: U..~. Census t~ureau .qeporr for the City of Laurel Montana /Data 2000)
**Source: MT Dept of £abor & fndusrcy. , Dept of Commerce, ..tree fnaome & £mpioyment (Data 1999)
Laurel Economic Development Plan -3- Rock5.' Mountain College SIFE 1/03
The average household incomes for the city of Laurel are as follows:
1999 1989
INCOME NUMBER OF NLrMBER OF
PER HOUSEHOLD HOUSEHOLDS I~ERCENT HOUSEHOLDS PERCENT
Total ..................................... 2445 .................. 100.0% ........................... 2280 .................. 100.0%
Less than $10,000 .................. 261 .................... 10.6% ............................. 416 .................... 18.3%
$10,000-$14,999 .................... 252 .................... 10.3% ............................. 330 .................... 14.5%
$I5,000-$24,999 .: .................. 448 ................... A8.2% ............................. 640 .................... 28.1%
$25,000-$34,999 .................... 338 .................... 13.8% ............................. 391 .................... 17.2%
$35,000-$49,999 .................... 492 .................... 20.0% ............................. 338 .................... 14.8%
$50,000-$74,999 .................... 390 .................... 15.9% ............................. 148 ...................... 6.5%
$75,000-$99,999 .................... 206 ...................... 8.4% ............................... 17 ......................... 8%
$100,000-$149,000 ~ ................. 40 ...................... 1.6% ......................... : ....... 0 ...................... 0.0%
$150,000-$199,999 .................... 7 ..................... .0.3% ........................... ;.....0 ...................... 0.0%
$200,000 or more ..................... 21 ...................... 0.9% ................................ ,0 ...................... 0.0%
Median household income ($) 32,679 ......... (X) ........................ 24,328 ........................ (X)
*Source: U.S. Census Bureau 3~eport for the City of Laurel, Montana (Data 1990 and 2000)
Laurel has gone through some kistorical development arid continues to be the site for continued
expansion sad progress. Laurel has several new subd/visiom mid several locations zoned for
commercial use.
HOUSING AND~C ONSTRUCT~ON 1999 2000 2001 2002
Residential New/Remodel ...................... 168 .................. 138 ........ , ......... 210 .......... ~ ....... 198
Commercial New/Remodel .................. :....20 .................... 30 .................... 28 ......... ~ .......... 21
Average Selling Price of Homes ........................................... $101,900'*
Average Mon~ly Rental ....................................................... House $600 Ap~,Uaent $~00'*
*Source: City of Lauret Public g/orb -Building Permits J,~$ued
** A House Of Realty, Laurel Montana
Often referred to as "the l~ub of Montana" for/ts tourism and transportation, Laurel is a major
cormecting and transit point. According to the Better Business Bureau, Laurel is the busiest
interchange in Montana w/th twelve thousand cars passing through daily. The foundation of the
economic basis of Laurel rests on the core of the local Cenex Refinery, Montana Rail Link, the
Laurel School District, Laurel Ford, Wood's Power Ghp, Jan's IGA, BurLington Northern Santa
Fo, and various other vital businesses and services. New entrepreneur/al ventures and a
revitalized downtown are helping contour a better economic forecast for the city of Laurel.
Laurel has extensive assets, a sound economy harmomous with the times, and an outlook for a
bright filmre. Bearing in mind, the stagnant economy of the State of Montan~ Laurel is doing
mar~nally well in comparison. While many other commumfies are drxfing up and experiencing
lktle mm:iced grovah or little potential, Laurel does nor have lnro these characteristics.
Laurel Economic Development Plan -4- Rocl~ 5!oun*ain College SIFE 1/03
I]'OUSEHOLDS BY TYl~e
2000 1990
N~u~er Perceont Numbers Percent
Total Households ........................................ .~,7~0 ............ 100,0 ¼ .: .......... 4,795 ..........100.0%
Family Household (fsmilies) ...................... 2,723 .............. 73.0% ............. 1,609 ........ 33.6¢/o
With own children under 18 years ......... 1,286 .............. .34.5%
Married-couple family 2 250 60 3 o/ ~
............................................... 7o .......... 1,3~8 .............. 27.9%
With own ckildren under 18 years ..... 995 ............26.7%
Female householder, no husband present ...... 321 ................ 8.6% ................. 214 ................ 4.5%
With Own children under 18 years ........... 199 ................ 5.3%
Non.family households .............................. 1.1,007 .............. 27.0% ................. 653 .............. 13.6%
Household living alone ............................. 878 .......... 2.3 5% .......... 607 .............. 12.7%
Household 65 years and over ......................... 426 .............. 11.4% ................. 317 ............. 6.6%
Households with individuals .
under 18 years ...................................... ~.1,361 .............. 36.5%
Households with individuals
65 years and over ...... : ............................... 960 .............. 25.7%
Average household size ..................................... 2.55 ....... (X)
Average family Size
- - .......................................... 3.m ....... (X)
Household Oceu ancv
2000 1990
*" ......................................................... ].. Number Percent Numbers Percent
Total ~ousing Units ~ ° ......
.................................... ~,o~ ............ luu.o 7o .............. 2,604 ........100 0%
Occupied housing umts. . 3 ?~t) a<
.................. , ................. ~.~ ~o .............. 2,262.....: ........ 86.9%
Vacant homing units I63 4 ~o/ - '.
................................................ ~>'~ ................. 334 .............. 12.8%
For seasonal, recreational
or occasional use ......................................... 19 .............. 0.5% .. . 8
Source: U.S. Census Bureau Report for the Ci~. of Laurel, Montana (Data 1990 and 2000)
POPULATION PROJECTIONS
/n order to fully implement any plan or strategy into a basic comprehensive city plan, a major
component needing to be taken into consideration is the 5Imre population. Th/s data is vital to
the importance of adequately and efficiently planning a city's layout, sustaining and expanding
an infrastructure, providing adequate services and facilities, and'arranging and legislating proper
govermnental statutes, regulations, and zoning pmcedares.
Judgment is key to forecasting any famre projection/'or population. Various factors and
elements need to be incorporated and marnpuiated in order to ~llv and accurately delineate these
forect~ts. Complete analysis of these govermng famors is essenu~ for the most ~ccurate
predictions. Several problems in interpreting this imbrmauon do however arise. In some areas.
population growth is marked by stable, predictable, and ?hsroncal ~ow~h with 1/tile deviance in
social and economic change. Other areas experience drastic flucmaions ~n ~owrh resuitmg in
Laurel Economic Development Plan
-5-
Rocky Mountain College SilyE 1/03
cver~changiug population rares making predictions more difEcuk. Even the most sound
population predictions may not bc accurate, especially for smaller cormmurLities thc size of
Laurel. In terms of genera~dty, the smaller the commurfity, the more complicated it is to dehve
popu/ation predictions.
Further compl/cating predictions is the historical fluctuations in the population of Laurel.
Another viable concern to take into consideration is LaureI's proximity to Billiugs and the almost
at times undifferentiated dow of people and business. There is a definite impingement of
Billings on Laurel, resulting in more difficult decipherment of the two areas and their distinct
characteristics.
In an effort to provide an accurate army of sufficient projections, a base model centered on
average population projections by the United States Census for the State o£Montana is used. We
have haterpolated the average growth rates determined by the U.S. Census for the State of
Montana and apphed that average growth to the population base of Laurel. Our other projections'
provide both a Iiberal and conservative view of these forecasted population trends and
incorporate some economic factors such as local and area growth and business expansion,
Hav/ng interviewed many businesses in the Laurel area, it is apparent that most do not plan on
expansion or addition o£new employees. There simply is not a drive to foster much ora
population/ncrease over and above the base model.
The conservative projection takes the base state growth rate, reduces it by two percent, and then
applies .it to the published 2000 census figures for Laurel. The higher growth projection for
Laurel takes this same base percentage provided by the census and adds an additional percent.
POPULATION PROJECTIONS
BASE. CONSERVATIVE. AND LIBERAL SERIES
5 'x~rEAR INCREMENTS
LAUREL AND THE GREATER ~9044 AREA
Series ................... PonulationfYear .....1990 .............2000 ........... 2005 .............. 2010 ...... i,.2015
Base Laurel ...................... 5,686 ............ 6,255 ..........6,624 ............. 6, 8-32 ......... 7,046
Outlying ................. - ..... . ........... .3,263 .......... 3,562 ............. 3,674 ......... 3,789
Total ....................... - ..... . ...... ;....9,618 ........ 10,186 ........... 10,506 ....... 10,8.35
Conservative
Laurel ...................... 5,686 ............ 6,255 .......... 6,499 ............. 6,6.38 ......... 6,780
Outlying ................. - ..... ........... 2i.363 .......... 3,494 ............. 3,568 ......... .3,646
Total ....................... - ...... . ........... 9,6 t 8 .......... 9,993 ........... 10,207 ....... 10,426
Liberal Laurel ...................... 5,686 ............ 6,255 .......... 6,686 ............. 6,963 ......... 7,25 t
Outlying ................. - ...... ....i ....... .3,263 .......... .3,595 ............. 3,744 ......... 3,899
Total ....................... - ..... . ........... 9,918 ........ 10,281 ........... 10,707 ....... 11,150
*crs Cens~ Bureau ~'990 and 2000
Rock,"v Mountai~t Co ilege SIFE Proyecnons
Laurel Economic Development Plan -,5- Rock'5.' Mountain College SIFE 1/03
LAUREL'S ASSETS AND STRONG FEATURES
L Bedroom Communin,
The community of Laurel is located approx/mately 15 m/les away from the city of Billings. Due
to its location Laurel could be developed as a bedroom commun/ty offering competitive homing.
The median cost of an average fam/ly home in the Laurel urea is $85,800 compared to the
median cost of $99, 900 in the Billings area.* The cost of housing, both in terms or real estate
and rent ute substantially lower and more than compensating for the short commute. Laurel also
provides an alternative to School District #2. The Laurel school dislxSct provides smaller
classroom sizes allowing for ch/ldren to become more involved in both academic and ath/etic
activities. These benefits ora smaller comrmlllity are coupled with the benefits of having a large
selection of jobs and a market of 100,000 peoples just a short commute away.
*Source: U.~q. Census Eureau Report for the Cites of Laurel and ~3iIlings Montana (Data 2000)
2. Small Town Environment
The environmeat of a small town is becoming increns/ngly appealing to the masses try/rig to
escape the problems facing urban areas. Community or/ented activities should be encouraged to
complement the small town atmosphere such as the farmers market and promoting the Christmas
Iight display more. Local businesses should become involved in these events which would in
tufa lead to growth and development in Laurel's downtown and an expanded sense of
community awareness.
3. Gatewag to Tourism
Laurel is close to some of Montana and Wyoming's main tourist am;actions inclu~g the Red
Lodge ski and resort area, Yellowstone National Park, the B eurtooth Motmtam Range, Pompey's
Pillar, and the Big Fiom National Battlefield. According to the Montana Department of
Transpor[ation the 9.6 million nonresidents who visited Montana in 2001 spent $1.7 billion
during their stay. In order to capitali=e on its unique position as a gateway to many tour
destinations Laurel should provide incentives for travelers to stop and spend time in the
cormmumty. Making Laurel's appearance more attractive to passersby and promoting local
activ/ties such a~ the Fourth of July fireworks display could influence tourists to make Laurel
one of their stops. Local events held throughout the summer roonths should be expanded, for
example baseball and golf tournaments and the air show.
4. _4 ffordabilltv and fmnroved Bur,a,,eratic o°tructure
Economical real esxate, established zoning, ~nd lower taxes in comoarison to surrounding areas,
makes Laurel a good loca:ion ~%r new businesses. Due to these £ac~ors, start up costs are lower
in Laurel than in larger commUm:ies, and attractin~ room industr/es to the Laurel area would
help increase employment and genera:e furthernew businesses.
Laurel Economic Development Plan -7- Rocky Nlountain College StFE t/03
5.. Airport
Laurel's airport has seen a great deal of development, expansion, and increased capabilities in
the past several years. The Rocky Motmtain College of Aviation recently transferred from the
Logan Airport in Billings to the Laurel Airport. Rocky feels they can double the size of the
aviation program at the new location. The local FBO offers fixed wing and helicopter insmtction.
A FAA certified repair and fabrication facility rounds out the facilities currently available.
United Parcel Service has displayed an interest in using the Laurel airport as one of its bases and
additional hangers are being planned. The continuing expansion of the airport will aid in
bringing more business to the Laurel community.
LImITiNG FACTORS
1. Lack of Marketing to Billings
One of the ~eatest attributes of Laurel is the capability to bring capital into the comrmmity from
Billings due mainly to its low housing costs. The cost of a residence in Billings is much greater
than the cost of a residence in Laurel. One possibility is to market Laurel as a bedroom
community for Billings. Travel time from one end of BilIi~gs to the other is comparable to
travel from Laurel to the Billings westend. Laurel needs to attract westend and downtown-
located employees to live in Laurel This can be accomplished by preparing a markefing
campaign directed to new residents and first time buyers. The City should consider a "first-time"
buyers fund to peak interest from young farailies and really focus on Laurel's lower priced real:
estate and small commu_~ity seriing.
Within a 15 mile radius there is a market of over 100,000 people. Laurel needs.to capital/ze on
this market an',d increase its market share. TNs is attainable by marketing umque '.and diversified
businesses and settings, in order for businesses in Laurel to be successful, they need'to market a
niche that positions themselves against other businesses, but at the same time sets them apart.
Z La& of Coordination for Develoning the Econornv
In order to appease all parties involved and in an effort to provide fairness, a local economic
coordinator needs to be outsourced. This individual would coordinate economic development
activities with and for downtown located area businesses and industries, local government, and
reg/onal development agencies such as Big Sky Economic Development Authority, Beartooth
RC&D, and the State Depm tment of Commerce. The effort should be to utilize the existing
economic development professionals and to make Laurel competitive in the regional economic
dynamic.
3. £ncome Tax £aw,e/£aws That Don ~! Encourage DevMoprnent
The City Council should also reconunend that the "Laurel Enterprise" comnuttee review local
!a;vs and reswictions ~br development, and provide input into change that would allow ~ow~h
both within the city and the county a.rea surrounding Laurel. Tax incentives and other political
attributes could be legislated to encourage business deveiopmem.
Laurel Econormc Development ~=lan -8- RoekT Mountain College SIFE 1/03
The needs to maintain and up-grade water, sewer, streets, and other community systems is a
basic part of communal living. The requirements for adequate and safe drinking water, sewage,
and garbage deposal, and the need for fLrefighting, police, and emergency services are the same
for LaureI, a town of 6,000, as the requirements where the costs are spread over 100,000 or a
mi/lion people. The only way to address such issues is through ut///zafion of the very best
management techniques and through technology; the cit/zens need to insure that their Council is
doing so accordingly. Short-term solut/ons and band aidingproblerns only prolongs real
resolut/ons and increases the cost.
~ ~p~earance
The unattractiveness of a commllnity is as much of a deterrent as an inability to affectively offer
qual/ty sewage and water systems to a resident. The appearance as you enter Laurel is not poor,
but could be improved. The recent adoption of the Enlryway Zoning District is a step in the right
direction. In the downtown area many old buildings have boarded windows and peeling paint.
Outsiders often base the/r impression of a community on its downtown appearance. Laurel
needs revitalization of its downtown and has begun the process using the Transportat/on and
Community Sustainability (TSCP) grants received in 2000, mid au effort needs to be made to
capitalize on such larger and significant economic enterprises. The City, store owners, and the
economic development/revital/zat/on efforts need to work together to comprehensively address
areas of need in the downtown. Th/s needs to include everything fi.om clean up and facade
renovation to bridge loan financing and new construction. An additional possibility might
include Iooldng to the refinery and the railroad to landscape a greenbelt as well as some other
contributions tO improve the hew.
P~RESCRII'TIOI~S AND PROTOCOL
The problems afflicting and concerning Laurel now are not new. F/reiighting and.band aiding
these problems will only prolong them and offer no realistic solution. Laurel's vitality and
ultimate success as an economically viable community lies within better marketing and building
a more am'active community. Laurel has parallel characteristics to some cornmumt/es but
possesses more assets than most and can really market itself as a umque and sat/sfymg place to
live, work, recreate, shop, and do business.
Laurel should position itself as a bedroom community to Billings and a gateway to tour/sm.
From this stance, Laurel can attract people to live there for the benefits of affordability and small
town atmosphere, wh/le at the same t/me capitalize on the benefits of being a regional hub and
stop-over point for tourism. T~ae future outlook of Laurel is going to be pivoted on how well
Laurel can do this and how well local businesses eau market themselves and Laurel as a xvhote to
the ~eater Billings area. The market for ~eople and their business is present. Laurel needs to
just capkalize on its umoueness and its diCersi/ied businesses in order to gain a ~eater market
share and demonstrate what the City really has m offer. Continued efforts re beaut/fy the city
and to create ne~v b~sinesses ,.viii on/v comnbute further success. '
Laurel Economic Deveiopment Plan -9~ Rocky Mountain College SIFE 1/03
M &NTANA
'~"'D =.pa~rnent of Commerce_ ~
LCITY OF AU'R L
The Montana Department of Commerce is pleased to announce an on-line training
opportunity for citizen planning and zoning board members, local elected officials, and
others who would like to learn more about land use planning. The Lincoln Institute of
Land Policy, (LILP) Cambridge, MA has offered Montana the opportunity to participate
in a pilot project that will allow 50 individuals from Montana to enroll in the Institute's
Planning Fundamentals course. LILP is offering this course at no charge to the
participants.
Planning Fundamentals introduces planning vocabulary, concepts and processes for
local government officials, and members of planning and zoning boards. The course
consists of 22 lessons and five self-assessment quizzes. The course is supplemented with
audio clips, case studies and links to other web-based resources. The course is offered on-
line and can be completed at your own pace.
There are two conditions that must be met if you arc accepted to participate in the project.
First you must complete the entire course and second you must complete and return an
evaluation form when you have completed the course.
The Lincoln Institute is an internationally acclaimed non-profit and tax-exempt
educational institution established in 1974. Its mission as a school is to study and teach
land policy, including land economics and land taxation.
The course is available through the Department of Commerce's Community Technical
Assistance Program.
Individuals interested in taking advantage of this opportunity should contact:
Gavin Anderson, Program Manager
Community Technical Assistance Program
Montana Department of Commerce
301 S. Park Ave.
P.O. Box 200523
Helena, MT 59620-0523
406-841-2783
To:
M ??NTANA
Department of Commerce
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIVISION
P.O. Box 200523 * Helena, Montana 59620-8523
Phone: 406-841-2770 * Fax: 406-841-2771
All parties interested in subdivision regulation
From: The Community Technical Assistance Program
Montana Department of Commerce
Date: January 29, 2003
Re: Model Subdivision Regulations
Enclosed is a copy of the newly updated Montana Model Subdivision
Regulations. The Model will also be accessible via the Department of Commerce
Community Technical Assistance Program web page at
http://www, commerce.state.mt, us/CDD/CDD_CTAP, html.
The model is intended to serve as an example and reference for local
governments preparing or revising their own regulations. The Model is an
advisory, publication. We encourage local governments to adaptthe Model
to match local concerns and needs. Local governments should look carefully
at each section of the Model and add or delete as needed to serve local
objectives. In addition, the Model contains commentary intended to clarify issues
raised by the subdivision review process. These comments should not be
incorporated into local regulations.
Comments or questions regarding the Model may be sent to CTAP by clicking on
the email addresses provided on the web page or by contacting the Community
Technical Assistance Program at (408)841-2784.
CITY HALL
115 W. IST ST.
PUB WORKS: 628-4796
WATER 0FC: 628-7431
COURT: 625-1964
FAX: 62B-2241
City Of Laurel
P.O. Box 10
Laurel Monfana 59044
PLANNING
January 22, 2003
Mr. Cavin Noddings, PE
Engineering, Inc.
POB 81345
Billlno~s, MT 59108-1345
Dear Mr. Noddings:
I appreciate the opportunity to meet with you for a subdivision pre-application meeting last
Wednesday as required by the Laurel City-County Subdivision Regulations: Regarding the
submission to this Planning Board of a master plan/preliminary plat for Clarks Camp as required
under State and local statutes for what is being proposed: I feel it would be premature to accept the
application package for review until several issues have been addressed by your client.
A cra'rent survey oftbe river showing the floodway and floodplain at the upper, middle, and lower
points.of the property must be prepared to show the public and the governmental decision makers
what is currently 100-year floodway, the floodway demarcation/flood hazard lille, and floodplain.
Your hydrological modeling must also show how the existing structures on-site affect flood elevation
in the floodway.
As you know, the delineation of the floodway as descn'bed in the preceding paragraph determines
what can and cannot be done on the site and is critical to the review and decision-making process. If
we do not have that information, we cannot do an adequate job of review and recommendation. We
will also require that a knowledgeable and qnali6ed third party review the floodway/floodplain
analysis, and that any cost of this third party review (not to exceed $1000.00) will be part of the
application submittal cost.
Another problem with building in a river floodway is how such structures therein will withstand the
effect of ice when, in those years of serions ice build-up on the river, the ice breaks up and moves
down river. The damage such ice blocks can do to the wooden structures on stilts is something the
developer should consider. However the damage the ice may do to such facilities as a sewage
collection system and sewage holding tank needs to be taken into consideration as a much broader
public health and safety issue; this also needs to be addressed.
City Of Laurel is aa EEO Employer
The County Floodplain Adminlmrator has denied the application ~om the Korbs for (as stated in the
Floodplain Development Permit A4~plieation dated August 22, 2002): "Camp & reception facilities an
on-site water & wastewater facilities as deserihed in previously forwarded Engineering Report for
Clark's Rivarf~ont Camp." Mr. Jerry Burns, PE, Permitting and Compliance Division, Billings
Regional Office, Montana Department of Environmental Quality stated (two times) at the public
hearing in Laurel on September 30, 2002 that he would not approve water and wastewater facilities at
Clarks Camp if the Floodplain Administrator denied the application--which Mr. Krat~ did. The
Floodplnin Admlnlmator's deeksion ks apparantly being appealeff by the landowner. Thks appeal needs
~o be resolved hefore we can move forward with review of any new on-site development.
Finally, and I realiTe this ks not in your engineering purview, the issue of the exk~;,,g buildings and the
fact that they were built illegally needs to be addressed by the landowner--and how this Board is
supposed to deal with that. I also helieve someone is act, rally living in one of the structures in the
floodway of the Yellowstone which, I helieve, ks also illegal.
It ks difficult to justify public review and a hearing process about a proposed development when much
of the site ks already developed---qmd illegally so. These buildings were, I believe, permitted as
secondary buildings to a campground, the latter of which was permitted only if it complied with all
agency requirements having jurkscllcfion. This was never done, but the secondary buildings were
constructed anyway. I am not fimillar with the legalities regarding such a situation, but we definitely
have a eart-hefore-the-horse situation here. It places this Board in a very awkward position (as well
as limiting its options) of trying to make a recommendation regarding a development--part of whioh ks
cai C, min: AIO' 5
Planning Director
CCi
Board of County Co.,-,~ssioners
County Floodplain Adminlgtrator
THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION IS FROM THE LAND USE CHAPTER OF LAUREI.'S
NEW GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (BASICA!.Iy THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN).
OTHE. R CHAPTERS WILL INCLUDE PUBLIC FACII~ITI~S, ECONOMY,
POPULATION, HOUSING, AND TRANSPORTATION.
COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS SHOULD BE SENT TO
CITY-COUNTY PLANNING, POB 10, LAUREL.
A COMPLETE TEXT CAN BE REVIEWED AT THE CITY PUBLIC WORK'S OFFICE
OR AT MyLaurel.com WEB PAGE.
D-R-A-F-T
LAND USE EI.EMENT
The City's existing Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map shows a relatively com
pact community with commercial uses leaking out from the central core along Main Street and, especially,
along South First Ave..nue. Most of the residential areas of the northern part of Laurel are relatively free of
non-residential activities except for some along North First Avenue. As could be expdeted, industrial activity
predominates along the railroad tracks and the refinery complex.
The Land Use Plan in the existing, adopted City Comprehensive Plan encourages Laurel to continue its
attempt to remain compact: The concept o£a commercial node on the north side is incorporated in the Land
Use Plan, but the idea of just letting commercial businesses string out along arterial roadways is discouraged.
There have been some battles in the past as retail businesses tried to locate on North First Avenue using the
argument that there are some along the street already. The location by the Federal government of the Post
Office outside of the core downtown asea was a major land use disaster. The second was the relocation o£the
City's library way over on Eighth Avenue. As realized throughout this planning analysis, the key to a success-
ful downtown is people, and having to intensive people-use £acilities (post office and library) relocated out of
downtown seriously reduced the number of people in the central business area.
ISSUE: Urban sprawl weakens the community by increasing the cost of providing central services, tak-
ing farmland out of production, damaging wildlife habitat, increasing transportation and energy costs,
facilitating the gap between rich and poor, and leading to land use conflicts between agricultural oper-
ations and residential neighborhoods.
Policy: Concentrate development in areas with access to community water and sewer and promote infill
development on vacant land within the city 1/mits.
Implementation strategies:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
10.
!1.
12.
13.
14.
15
16
17
18
19.
20.
Encourage the use of professional landscape architects on all new developments, and require same on all
major subdivisions.
Inventory critical natural and open space areas that may 'be best set aside as future park land and open-
space.
Implement subdivision and zoning proceduxes that consider lands best left undeveloped or which axe
needed for future parks and open space.
Support concentrated development with access to central water and sewer systems.
Support duster or conservation-style development with alley access.
Encourage the preservation of good farmland and open space in areas that provide open space vistas or
pedestrian/bike trail continuity through the purchase of development rights or other conservation
processes.
Discourage residential development in undesirable locations such as on Prime farmland, potential prime
farmland, and farmland ofstatewide, local, and unique importance (as described by the USDA's Natural
Resources and Conservation Service) as well as in wildlife habitat areas and wetlands.
Prevent any development except for open space, non-intensive agricultural operations, and park land in
designated 100-year floodways of the Yellowstone River.
Waive environmental assessment requirements or other regulatory provisions for developments that
address these implementations strategies.
Pursue a performance-driven development permit system designed to limit large lot subdivisions.
Require master central water and sewer system designs for all major subdivisions.
Prevent strip commercial development.
Keep non-compatible land uses separate.
Keep major people-server uses downtown.
Work with Montana Department o£Transportation on development of the Main Street Streetscape and
Heritage Parkway.
Adopt the Streetscape Plans for South First Avenue and Main Street.
Work and coordinate with the Billings-Yellowstone County Planning Board on the buffer area bet-ween
the Laurel and Billings planning jurisdictions.
Discourage "no resubdivision" clauses in in new subdivision developments.
Require all new land uses in the Laurel Municipal Zoning Jurisdictional area to provide a Zoning
Compliance Permit.
Support the creation of neighborhood plans by activist neighborhoods and make such plans part of the
City's GMP after review and approval of the Planning Board and City Council.
22.
23.
24.
Support a non-mandatory Planned Unit/Smart Growth Ordinance that en~0~rages innovative design
and construction of new land uses, neighborhoods, and subdivisions.
Disallow construction of new land uses on the crest of the rims to the north of Laurel through the sub-
division review process.
Encourage the use of conservation easements to preserve farmland and open space.'
Encourage preservation and protection of the Yellowstone River and establish coordinated, access-there,
to via bicycle and pedestrian paths, well-designed parks, and activities which promote appreciation of its
history and' natural character.
iSSUE: There is a need for afforfluhle housing for low and moderate income families.
Polic~ Enable the development of affordable homing throughout the j~risdictional area.
Implementation Strategies:
1. Allow the provision of basement apartments, "granny flats", and similar types of small, ancillary homing
units in single-family neighborhoods through the Special Review zoning process; the total number of such
secondary dwellings shall not exceed twenty percent of the total number of single-family detached
dwellings..
2. Encourage mixed sing!e-family and multi-family residential traits in new subdivisions based on approved
master plans and appropriate land use design.
3. Require ten percent of all new subdivisions with more than 20 residential lots in the total, multi-phase
master plan or project provide for low and moderate income housing.
4. Provide incentives for low and moderate income housing by waiving review or hookup fees, lot coverages
or size, setbacks, reduced review timetables, or other procedures to be negotiated at the dine of develop-
ment applJ~_tion review.
5. Support the City's efforts to obtain federal grants for home buying and home renovation for low and mod-
erate income buyers.
6. Support development of dwelling units in the downtown area, such as on upper floors of commercial
buildings.
ISSUE: Land use around the airport development area needs to limited to uses related to airport indus-
trial park needs ~nd support activities.
Implementation Strategies:
1. Use zoning to limit land uses and developments unrelated to airport development needs and support uses
and prevent non-compatible uses.
2. Require air navigation easements from all new developments in the airport's Flight Pattern/Airport Hazard
Area as defined in the Airport Zoning Ordinance.
3. Require new land uses in the Flight Pattern/Airport Hazard Area to p ovme a Zoning Compliance Permit.
ISSUE: To differentiate Laurel from the thousands of other billboard-blurred commnnlties that line
the nation's interstate system, the entryways into and through Laurel need to be enhanced, vistas and
open space preserved, signage controlled, appropriate construction design landscaping encouraged, and
opportunities for landscaping of public lands in such areas needs to be pursued.
Implementation Strategies:
1. Support implementation and administration of the Entryway Zoning District as adopted by the City in
November 2002.
2. Support use of standard Montana Department of Transportation signage for businesses in Laurel catering
to the traveling public.
3. Work with the Montana Department of Transportation to encourage landscaping of the interchange
median areas on the interstate.
4. Encourage non-commercial, non-billboard information signage welcoming visitors to Laurel, and support
efforts of the Laurel Revitalization League to build a welcome sign on South 1st Avenue near the inter-
state off-ramp.
5. Allow for a small sign zoo where billboards and other signs will be allowed without regulation.
ISSUE: Laurel's downtown needs revitalization and new businesses. Specific land use issues include
redevelopment of old buildings, development of vacant lots, diversification of land uses, and coopera-
tion of revitalization efforts. (Non-land use issues such as economic development strategies are delin-
eated elsewhere in this G1VIP under the applicable chapter.)
Implementation Strategies:
1. Encourage development of vacant land areas in the downtown area.
2. Encourage redevelopment of vacant business sites.
3. Encourage removal of bLighted buildings and re-use.
4. Support the Laurel Revitalization League in its efforts o£redeveloping downtown.
5. Use shared service areas including driveways, off-street parking, and service access and use areas.
6. Consolidate driveway and access areas and curb cuts across public sidewalks.
7. Encourage boulevard sidewalks.
8. Encourage landscaping and tree planting in the downtown area.
9. Support the development of housing units in the downtown area on upper floors and rear areas of com-
merciai buildings and in the construction of multi-family, multi-floor residential complexes through the
Special Review zoning provisions.
10.Support a non-mandatory Planned Unit/Smart Growth Ordinance that encourages innovation in com-
mercial uses design and construction.
11.Retain existing buildings with historical or architectural features that enhance the visual character of the
community and provide a sense of continuity in the growth of the community's downtown area.
12.Encourage public art initiatives in the downtown area such as the Elsie Johnson Flower Garden and the
Chief ~oseph statue.
January 21, 2003
Mr. Brent McCaan
424 Morey
Billings, MT 59104
(HOMr'~4
Dear Mr. McCaan,
On behalf of several residents' living west of Laurel on Old Highway 10, I
would like to propose the issuance ora right-of-way and the construction of
a bike/walk trail. Initially, the hail will run from Laurel city limits, west
along Old Highway 10, for approximately two and one-half miles and
eventually to the Stillwater County line.
Our area is growing with young, active families. We feel a bike/walk h-ail
will enhance the quality of life for many of us who enjoy walking and bike
riding with our families.
As the road functions now, the shoulder is dangerously narrow and in some
cases has proven to be deadly.
Thank y u for your attemxon to this matter and I look forward to Working
with you on the comtruction of our bike/walk Ixa~
Sincerely,
.
Bonnie Wallila
230 27th Ave W.
Laurel, MT 59044
(406) 628.6261
cc: Laurel City County Planning Board
CITY OF LAUREL
REQ~]EST FOR AN1TEXATION
And Plan of Annexation
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. 7= 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 fil!inq out
submittinc this Request for Annexation.
Applicant landowner's name:
address:
telephone:
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: ~,~ 1"~ 8~ [ ~ ~.
Size: /l zSo
Present Use:
Planned use:.
Present Zoning:
{Land which is being annexed becomes zoned R-7500 when it is
officially annexed (City Or~ 17.12.220.F)
City services: The extension of needed City services shall be
at the cost of the applicant after annexation by the City has
been approved. ~ks part of the application process, each of
the following City services must be addressed:
Water Service:
Location of existing main:
Cost of extension of approved service: ~ 4/r~,~
How cost determined: ~ .,._~
Timeframe for installation:
How financed:
Sewer Service:
Location of existing main: ~
Cost of extension of approved service:
How cost determined:
Timeframe for installation: /
How financed:~m C~rl~.,~h~
Streets:
Location of existing paved access:
Cost of paving: ~ ~ow determined~
Timeframe for construction: ~// ~' ,
Other required improvements: Provide above information on attached
pages.
A map suitable for review of this application of the proposed
area to be annexed must be submitted with this application.
A written Waiver of Protest must accompany this application,
suitable for recording and containing a covenant to run with
the land to 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 o
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.
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.
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:
2
Waiver of Rights to Protest
FOR VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, TI-rE Owner(s), of
the hereinafter described real property, do/does hereby
waive the right to protest the formation of one or more
Rural Special Improvement District(s) (RS1D), or Special
Improvement District(s) (SID), for the construction and or
maintenance of streets, curbs and gutters, sidewalks, driveways,
survey monuments, street name signs, street lights, street light
energy and maintenance, traffic control devices on site and
offsite as determined by an overall traffic accessibility study,
sanitary sewer lines, water lines, valley gutters, culverts, storm
sewer lines either within or without the area to provide drainage
for run off water from the real property hereinafter described,
park improvements and park maintenance district, noxious weed
control and other incidental improvements which the County of
Yellowstone may require.
The waiver and agreement shall run with the land and shall
be binding upon the undersigned, its successors and assigns, and
shall be recorded in the office of the County Clerk and
Recorder of Yellowstone County, Montana.
The above referenced real property is more particularly
described as follows, to-wit:
Lots 1,2,3 of Mathis Subdivision Block 1, according to
plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the
Clerk and Recorded of Yellowstone County, Montana.
the
WAIVED signed and dated this ~/ day of ~/~. , 2002.
BY
On this~l~day of /kJDue~ ,2002, before me, a Notary
Public in and fo~-The State of Montana, personally appeared ~{~{~
, and '~d~r~ ~.~ , ~wn to
be to be the persons who signed the foregoing instrument and
acknowledged to me that they executed the same.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my
Notarial Seal the day and year in this certificate here above written.
Montana; [ $ E A L ]
My commission expires
No.~a_~ry Publi. c-~io~r the ~tate of
CS AM
CiTY OF LAUREL
REQUEST FOR A1TNEXATION
And Plan of Annexation
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 tc
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 fillin~ out amd
submittin~ this Request for Annexation.
Applicant landowner's name:
address:
telephone:
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 ~escr±ption:
Size: 3~e$0
Present Use:
Planned use:
Present Zoning:
(Land which is being annexed becomes zoned R-7500
officially annexed (City Or. 17.12.220.F)
wken it is
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 cf
the following City services must be addressed:
Water Service:
Location of existing main:
Cost of extension of approved service:
How cost determined: ~;~
Timeframe for installation:
How financed:
Sewer Service:
Location of existing main: ~'%O~
Cost of extension of approved service:
How cost determined:
Timeframe for installation:
How financed: ....
Streets:
Cost of paving: ~y;~ Kow determine~: ~/~ ~/
Timeframe for co~struc[ion: ~kJ~
Other required improvements: Provide above information on attached
pages.
5 o
A map suitable for review of this application of the proposed
area to be annexed must be submitted with this application.
A written Waiver of Protest must accompany this application,
suitable for recording and containing a covenant to run with
the land to 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.
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.
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.
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:
2
WAIVER OF RIGHTS TO PROTEST
FOR VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, Owner(s), of the hereinafter described real property,
do/does hereby waive the right to protest the formation of one or more Rural Special Improvement
District(s) (RSID), or Special Improvement Diatrict(s) (SID), for the construction and or maintenance of
streets, curbs and gutters, sidewalks, driveways, survey monuments, street name signs, street lights,
street 15ght energy and maintenance, traffic control devices on site and offsite as determ/ned by an
overall traffic accessibility study, sanitary sewer lines, water lines, valley gutters, culverts, storm sewer
lines either within or without the area to provide drainage for mn offwater from the real property
hereinafter described, park improvements and park maintenance district, noxious week control and other
incidental improvements which the County of Yellowstone may require.
The waiver and agreement shall mn with the land and shall be binding upon the undersigned, its
successors and assigns, and shall be recorded in the office of the County Clerk and Recorder of
Yellowstone County, Montana.
~.~_referenc_e real property is more p~cularly ~described as follows, to-wit:
~ .~'/~C¥. (0 ~.\(c,\l} ~2o;,~+ <~.b. , According to the plat thereof on file
and of record in the office of the Clerk aiad Recorded of Yel/owstone County, Montana.
WAIVED, signed/a;nd dated this .~ day of ~, , 2003.
BY
·
Onthis ~ .. dayof ~-~l~caa~¥ ,2003, beforeme, a Notary Public in and for the State of
Montana, ,personally app~eared ]~a q~/~_,.f D'~ $, m "~,~--(o r7 , known t6 me to be the
persons wno signed the t0regoing instrument and they acknowledged to me that they executed the same.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed by Notarial Seal the day and
year in this certificate here above written.
Notary Igublic for the State of Montana
Residing at:. c_~a ~-~_
My commission expires: / ~ a~ - c9 ?
~hut~ ~e)
,e of Washington
arming Board and
)iNT S[~DIVIS ION
qontana~ that the
Planning Board
vne County this
,as filed rcr~ record
o'clock/~ . H.
SOUTH- - 577.3'
NUTMEG