Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity/County Planning Board Minutes 10.07.2004DRAFT MINUTES LAUREL CITY-COUNTY PLANNING BOARD OCTOBER 7, 2004 7:00 PM COUNCIL CHAMBERS Members Present: Others Present: Gerald Shay, Chairman Bud Johnson, City Rep. Tom Maack, City Rep. Hazel Klein, City Rep. Clarence Foos, County rep. David Oberly, County Rep. Greg Johnson, County Rep. Dan Koch, City Rep. Dan Ruff, County Rep. Rick Flanagan, County Rep. Cal Cumin, City Planner Cheryll Lund, City Secretary Minutes of the September 9, 2004 meeting were approved as written. Public Hearing - Elena Subdivision Second Filing - Preliminary Major Plat Pat Davies of Engineering, Inc. spoke in regards to this preliminary plat. Dave Bequette, owner and subdivider of the property was also present. The first filing involved a county subdivision of 5 lots. The developer, Brace Wagner had proposed a second filing of 17 lots but then decided not to bring that project forward. This proposal consists of 27.87 acres, which will consist of 49 lots with a minimum square footage of 7,734 and maximum of 6.89 acres. The 6.89 acre lot is proposed for condominium and duplex units. The existing zoning is Residential Tracts with the intended use or purpose being for residential development. Proposed zoning for the property is as follows: R-7500 for Lot 5, Block 1, and Lots 1 & 3 & 7-15, Block 2; Lots 1-12, Block 3: & Lots 1-11, Block 4. Residential Multi-family: Lots 4-6, Block 2; Lot 1, Block 5; and Lots 2-8, Block 6. Neighborhood commercial: Lot 1, Block 6. This subdivision is proposed to be annexed into the city and city services will be extended to the site. There will be curb and gutter. There is also storm water detention ponds located in the condominium development and in Block 2 located in the southeast comer of the land. Internal streets are proposed to be 32 feet wide, curb and gutter with boulevard sidewalks. The t~vo main streets are proposed to be 37 feet back to back. This is a variance from standard street widths to force people to drive slower in residential streets. Parkland requirement is 1.2 acres. Parkland dedication will be 2 acres. There will be one park located in the southeast corner of the land in Block 2, and another park located in Block 4 in the north central part of the subdivision. A traffic study was done and it found that the impacts are minimal. It was determined that a turn lane would be needed at the intersection of Golf Course Road and Highway 10 for the cumulative impact of new subdivisions in the area. Dave Bequette spoke and stated that they want to stay with the existing covenants and the homes will not be Iow income. Minimum house size will be 1400 square feet with basements. The condominium area will be town homes targeting retired and semi-retired residents. There will be landscaping, earth tone colored homes, and full sidewalks. The streets will be paved. He plans to keep the subdivision looking like the surrounding subdivisions. There will be no soil impact. They plan to annex into the city with water and sewer services, along with fire hydrants for fire suppression. Chairman Shay read the names of the people that sent in letters of protest. (Letters attached) OPPONENTS: Rick Blaskovich, 1740 W. Maryland Lane, read a letter (attached). He is concerned that this subdivision is already a "done deal"; traffic impact; covenants; no impact study done on Saddleback Ridge; and subdivision is not consistent with complete Managed Development Study. Roy Thurman, 1807 W. Maryland, is concerned about Woods' Way being only 150 feet from the existing W. Maryland Lane; environmental impact of noise, dust and smoke; well logs on engineering study show only one test when more than one test was done; and he is concerned about being flooded out by the farmers. Sam Miller, 1045 Golf Course road, is concerned that the environmental assessment does not address all of the test wells which, in his opinion, is deceptive and makes him question everything in the assessment; roads flow north to south and if a torrential downpour were to come down the houses on the south side of the subdivision could be flooded; no irrigation ditches are shown on the plat; he questions what involvement Bruce Wagner still has in the subdivision; no condominiums were discussed in the first filing; narrowing of Woods' Way will not make people drive slower; when W. Maryland Lane gets extended it will cause even more traffic; you cannot discriminate against low income housing; property taxes will go up; rural life will be gone; will they be forced into annexing into the city and hooking into services?; commercial development would not fall in line with the existing homes. Dirk Moler, 1107 Golf Course Road, is concerned with property values going down when smaller lots are put beside his; and the traffic impact will also affect property values and cause a hazard. 2 PROPONENTS: Pat Davies addressed the concerns that were brought up by the opponents. In regards to the statement that Saddleback Ridge was not addressed in the traffic study; if you look at the traffic study one of the scenarios that was discussed did include Saddleback Ridge. He went on to say that right at this time the roads are considered a level A and after the impact of this subdivision some intersections will go to a level B. Level A means a car will have to sit at an intersection 0-10 seconds before being able to move. Level B means a car will have to sit at an intersection 10-20 seconds before being able to move. The turn lane discussed in the traffic study on Highway 10 will need to be addressed at some point and both the developers of Saddle Back Ridge and Elena subdivisions will have some financial responsibility in that turn lane. The double-fronted lot on Woods' Way is typically a situation that is avoided in planning and development. Woods' Way will eventually connect with W. M_aryland Lane (to the direct east), which has been identified by the city as a collector road. Regarding being "deceptive" in the monitoring wells: The reason those test wells were out there in the first place was that the lots were proposed to have drain fields. In order to be approved for drain fields they had to identify where the hydronolan work was. At the time it was decided that those lots would not have drain fields, the monitor wells were removed. Percolation tests also relate to drain fields and do not have anything to do with city water and sewer. He does have that data and will give it to the city. The only impact now is that the water table is building site conditions, which is something that the developer and builders will have to address as they build homes. As far as the lots being flooded when the farmer is flood irrigating; once the property is taken out of its agricultural status it will no longer be a problem. Storm water will drain with the land to the detention area. All of the storm drains will be designated to the 100-year frequency storm, which exceeds Laurel requirements. There are no plans to for any property owner into annexing into the city. Because there will be city sewer and water people may request to be annexed and hooked into city services. The public hearing was closed at 7:41 pm. BOARD DISCUSSION: Cai questioned Dave Bequette regarding the covenants remaining the same. Dave stated that the quality of housing will be the same. Bruce Wagner also anticipates doing the building of the homes. Dave's intention is not to open all of the lots for sale at the same time. Cai asked if those covenants included muki-family units? Dave stated that the homes previously were going to be patio homes. Question regarding how many condominiums and town homes will be built on the 6.89 acres? Dave Bequette stated that they plan to put the maximum amount allowed per lot coverage per zoning ordinance. Question on whether or not the park in the southeastern corner will be a park or a storm retention water area? Question on what impact this will have on the schools? Pat Davies said that the number in the study is based on 2.43 children per household, as per Yellowstone County's data, which would mean that there would be only 40 students out of 87 proposed units. Statement is made that the data from the schools is much different than the county data. Question if the park behind the houses in Phase II would be accessible to everyone? Answer is yes, it will be. Cai informed the board that state law prohibits local governments from making decisions on new subdivisions based on school impact. It is a specific statute. Question on how values will be affected in the subdivision based on lot cost and proposed construction. What will the average house cost? Dave Bequette stated that the condos/town_houses will cost an average of $140,000 to $150,000 and single family dwellings will average between $250,000 and $260,000. Cai recommended that the preliminary plat be tabled until the engineer can move Woods' Way to the north. After a discussion with Pat Davies it was decided that the road could not be moved. Cai then recommended that the preliminary plat be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. The Neighborhood Commercially zoned lot be moved from its location at the northwest comer of Duval Drive and Woods' Way to the interior of the subdivision, somewh~e in the vicinity of the intersection ofPayne's Place and Els Drive. 2. The proposed Residential Multi-family zoned lots (Lots 2-8, Block 6) be moved to the interior of the subdivision so that they do not back up against existing single-family residences; suggested location: Lots 8-12, and Lot 1, Block 3. The zoning requested should also be Residential Limited Multi-family. 3. The Residential Multi-family zoned lots of Lots 4,5, and 6, Block 2 needs to be Residential Limited Multi-family. 4 4. The proposed condominium area, Block 5, is planned as one and two-family townhouses or similar structures. A provision that this entke condominium planned area be zoned as R6000 to allow such structures, and this is recommended. 5. The subdivision preliminary plat not be approved until the City Council has agreed with the proposed zoning. 6. A sound barrier fence be constructed along the south side of Woods' Way in the back of existing houses to the south that will become double-frontage lots. 7. Existing irrigation rights and location of such irrigation ditches must be guaranteed. 8. Proposed Park #2 not be a public park but maintained by the Homeowners' Association for the proposed use of storm water detention area; however, the proposed bike/pedestrian trail along the Big Ditch should be extended to reach the sidewalk along Woods' Way. Any remaining land dedication for parks, if required, should be cash-in-lieu oflands or proposed improvements in Park #1. 9. Streets, street widths, right-of-way, and ADA requirements must meet the standards used by the City of Laurel. I 0. The requirements for fire protection of the Laurel Volunteer Fire Department be met. 11. The requirements for weed control noted in the comments from the County Weed Department be addressed. 12. The easements requested by utility companies be provided. Cai went on to state that because there is a legal protest against the proposed zoning from existing landowners of record, and this, accordingly, the proposed zoning will require a supermajority of the City Council to approve. It is also understood that this proposed subdivision cannot be annexed to the City until contiguality has been established and right-of-ways for the needed water and sewer mains are obtained. Sam Miller reminded the board that his irrigation rights had not been addressed. Pat Davies apologized and told Sam that he would address it with an easement and work with him on it. Discussion on irrigation rights and wastewater rights. Chairman Shay would like to consult with the city attorneys in regards to wastewater fights. Cai pointed out that Mr. Miller's irrigation fights are a pan of his recommendation for approval. (Condition #7) Patty Oblander questioned when the property deed for this land was transferred from the Fischer's to Dave Bequette. She checked with the county and the property is not in Bequette's name. Cai stated that when the final plat is filed all parties involved have to be named on the plat. Question on covenants? Cai stated that covenants are not addressed by the city. If the people with existing homes wish to pursue a violation of covenants they would have to take it to civil court. Several more audience members expressed the same concerns on traffic, water and sewer, value of their homes and size of homes. Their names were not listed because the public hearing was closed. Motion by Bud Johnson, second by Hazel Klein, to recommend approval of the preliminary plat for Elena Subdivision, 2na Filing, subject to the 12 conditions that Cai Cumin recommended. Motion carried with a vote of 7 "yes" and 2 abstaining. Public Hearing - Fox Farms Subdivision Matt Fogelsong of Engineering, Inc. presented the preliminary plat. Fox Farm subdivision is situated on an unplatted parcel of 10.45 acres in size. Approximately 4.23 acres is dedicated as road and the remaining 15.22 acres will be developed into lots with a minimum size of 45,636 square feet. The total number of proposed lots is 14. Roads will be built to grade. The internal streets will be 28 feet wide gravel Surface with drainage ditches on both sides. Culverts will be provided. A 15-foot wide bike trail easement has been dedicated and is accepted as an equivalent area of the required parkland area. A cash contribution shall constitute the remainder of the required parkland dedication. There will be on site water wells and septic systems. They will also put in a I0,000:gailon fire suppression tank. The site is generally located approximately ½ mile south of US Highway 10 along Pope Road. OPPONENTS: None. DISCUSSION: Cai recommended that Fox Farm Subdivision preliminary plat be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. Irrigation shown on the plat be addressed and be continued. 2. Requirements of Laurel Volunteer Fire Department are met. 3. Meet county weed requirements. 4. County Public Works requested a 1-foot non-access strip along Pope Road. 5. Parkland dedication. 6. Turn around on Lori Lane needs to be within the platted property. Motion by David Obefly, second by Bud Johnson, to recommend approval of Fox Farm subdivision preliminary plat, subject to the six conditions above. Motion carried by a vote of 9-0. 6 Public Input John Oakes, City Councilman for Ward 4, handed out information on website access related to on-line education on planning. He encouraged the board members to check out the website. Dan Ruff stated that he had heard the airport is planning improvements. Cai stated that there are improvements planned but they are not doing anything yet, it is still in the planning stages. The meeting was adjourned at 8:40 pm. Cheryll Lund, Secretary 7 Elena Subdivision, Second Filing TAS ELENA SUBDWISION, _S~OND FIRING ~OLF rW r~R~' FIGURE t :: Si,';'; LOCATI;CN; Engineering, Inc. 6 CITY HALL 115 W. 1ST ST. PUB WORKS: 6284796 WATER OFC: 628-7431 COURT: 628-1964 FAX: 628-2241 October 11, 2004 City Of Laurel P.O. Box 10 Laurel, Montana 59044 PLANNING Mayor and City Council City of Laurel Montana Dear Mayor and Council Members: ARer holding a duly-advertised public hearin4 and discussion, the Laurel-Yellowstone City-County Planning Board recommends approval of Elena Subdivision, 2~a Filing, preliminary subdivision plat, annexation to the City, and proposed zoning subject to the following conditions: 1. The Neighborhood Commereially-zoned lot be moved fi~m its location at the northwest comer olDuvai Drive and Woods Way to the interior of the subdivision, somewhere in the vicinity of the intersection of Paynes Place and Els Drive; 2. The proposed Residential Multifamily-zoned lots (Lots 2 through 8, Block 6) be moved to the interior of the subdivision so that they do not back up against existing single- family residences; suggested location: Lots 8 through 12 and Lot 1, Block 3. The zoning requested should also be Residential Limited Multifamily. 3. The Residential Mulfifamily-zoned lots of Lots 4, 5, and 6, Block 2 need to be Residential Limited Multifamily. 4. The proposed condominium area, Block 5, is planned as one and two-family townhouses or similar structure. A provision that this entire condominium-planned area be zoned as R6000 will allow such structures, and this is recommended. 5. The subdivision preliminary plat not be approved until the City Council has agreed with the proposed zoning. 6. A sound barrier fence be constructed along the south side of Woods Way in the back of existing houses to the south that will become double-frontage lots. 7. Existing irrigation rights and location of such irrigation ditches must be guaranteed. City Of Laurel is an EEO Employer Equal Housing Oppornmity 8. Proposed park #2 not be public park but mahatalned by the Homeowners' Assoc/ation for the proposed use of stormwater detention area; however, the proposed bike/pedestrian trail along Big Ditch should be extended to reach the sidewalk along Woods Way. Any remaining land dedication for parks, if required, should be cash-in-lieu of land or proposed improvements in Park #1. 9. Streets, street w/dths, rights-of-way, and ADA requirements must meet the standards used bythe City of LanreL 10. The requirements for fire protection of the Laurel Volunteer Fire Department be met. 11. The requirements for weed control noted in the comments ~om the County Weed Department be addressed. 12. The easements requested by the utility companies be provided. There is a valid legal protest against the proposed zoning l~om existing landowners of record, and this, accordingly, the proposed zorlng will require a supermajority of the City Council to approve. It is understood that this proposed subdivision cannot be annexed to the City until contigmtlity has been established and rights of way for the needed water and sewer mains are obtained. Sincerely, Cai Ch~rnln. AICP Planning Director City of Lenrel Planning Board P.P, Box 10 Laurel, MT 59044 OCT - 1 200 CITY OF LAUREL October I, 2004 Dear Planning Board: We respoctiwly submit the following comments, questions, and concerns related to the second filing of the Elena Subdivision. Please enter our letter into the record as objecting to this subdivision. We recommend the Board allow the fist filing of the Elena Subdivision to stand over this second filing. We object to the proposed Elena Subdivisinn (second filing) as currently planned and submitted. O~ objections are based en the following: We purchased our home from Mr. Bruce Wagner in August 2002. When we cansidered the purchase we expressed a concern that the property east of our house would bo developed in a manner consistent with our house price and in a m~ner to not negatively effect our property value and tho rural nature of the house setting. Mr. Wagner stated he, as the owner ortho property and having the option to purchasing the three additional vacant lots south of our house, planned a subdivision development with one aero lots, single family dwellings, and in the same manner as our subdivision. Mr. Wagner's first filing with the Elena Substation demenslxated his intent to maintain one acre lots with single family dwellings, parks, and ponds. Further, the answer to questions in the Planning Board meeting on Elcoa Subdivision First Filing lgR us comfortable with the planned development givan resolution to our expressed concerns (a~nong which included not showing our irfigafien waste water ditch en the drawings). The proposed homes were inline with our subdivision end should not have negatively affected our property value. However, with the second filing and plat drawing proposed for Elena Subdivision show lots much less than an acre each (and presumed lowar cost houses) with a highly dense development (I 7 residential lots proposed in the first filing versus 47 residential lots end Phase II's 40 mulfifamily dwellings in the second filing). The second filing is not in line with the stwroending properties (la keeping with the son'oonding subdivisions) and lot sizes, end is not in line with Mr. Wagner' personal commitolent to us to develop the land as eno acre single family residential properties. We see this proposed development plan as clCa'imental to our rural life style end home investment. We see the lot size end high homing density to be a negative impact to our property value and that of our neighbors. We see the inc~ase in Waffic~ increase in traffic noise, hight light polhifion (with street lighting), increase in neighbor noise with high density/hnily dwellings to be outside the development objectives describe to us when we purchasing our home. One acre .lots with proposed 17 housing ~mila, parks, ponds, and dwellings in line with the existing sm'totmding subdivisions is superior to the proposed high density, small lots, high traffic development a~rently proposed with Elena Subdivision, second filing. We object to high density residential multifamily (RMF) development of Block 2, Block 5, Block 6~ and Phase II being residential multJfamily dwelling us described in the documents and shown on the Preliminary Plat drawing for the second filing. We object to a commerc'ml lot reserved as described as LOt 1, Block 6 ... given the close proximity of the subdivision to the City of Laurel. Prior to our home purchase we also consulted the City ofLaurel's (City) future development plan for the area of our home and learned the City had no plans to annex in this area. Another reason for our considering the purchase of our current residence. Below is a listing of additional comments, concerns, and questions needing to be addresse~answexed regarding the second filing to the proposed Elena Subdivision: With the proposed high density development, has the City considered the higher flow of traffic on the west side of Main S~'eet given the possibility that the jobs asseclated with Elena Subdivision could be Billings commuters? Specifically the traf~c light at Main Stren~ and 1~ Avenue, the traffic study failed to consider possible traffic constraints that could be posed to the City between 5o 10. the Elena Subdivision and the Interstate 90 interchange near the Cen~x Refinery. Can the ev, isfing road system sustain the additional traffic from the west and from the south at Main and 1~ Slrcot ' given th* train underpass constraint during pr*-work and post-work day hot. s? What are the City's plans for thrther manexation to neighboring subdivisions7 Which lands have been slated for eondernnm~on actions against land owners to provide services? What are the Cities plans to involuntary annex or impose mandatmy City s~wices to neighboring suMivisians and at who's cost? The Subdivision Improvements Agreement item B 1 l~aves the door open with over sizing utilities for future city services growth (voluntary or involuntary). We do not support annexation into the City or desire City Services. We are concerned our~ taxes will increase based on the high density development of Elena Subdivision second filing. We do not support higher taxes. This second filing does not support the Planning Boards argument for maintaining a high water table to the area as discus~xt at the publio meeting on the first filing. What become of that argumom in support of the first filing as proposed by Mr. Wagner? The second filing lkils to support this argument from the first filing. The Elean Subdivision fails to support grotmd water The Laurel planning Board supported the first filing plans submitted by Bruce Wagner; we recommend the Board reject this second filing in support of the first filing. We have ink. arian rights to High Ditch and Big Ditch. The first, and now second filing, fail to address our waste wat~ ditch access to the Big Di~a:h as was discmsed in the first filing public meeting. Ctm'e~tly (until the farmer buried the hrigatian waste wator ditch in August) o~ irrigation waste water historically had eas~nants across the proposed Eteam Subdivision to the Big Ditela (and hi~ically the farmer has reopened the ditch after reanoving hay bales in the Fall). We will protest with the Ditch Company and Elana Subdivision prop~y ownexs next Spring should the wasto water ditch not be reopened to allow irrigation waste water aecess to Big Ditch. The Envimm~ental ~ent and Plat map are inaecurate with this issue. The devetop~ has inad~xlUataly considered the impacts to schools with the proposed dense development and onder estimated the impa~t to the schanlz. We would agrco to the onmbers proposed in the studies if the subdivision was focused on retirees looking to milize the Laurel Golf Course facilities, but the numbers do not retiect starter homes and new families which high dense subdivisians normally ~a, act Talking to one school official hardly supports the argnmaea~t the subdivision will SUl~ort added ~,d,mts with minimal impact to the schools. What empirical &,~/study supports this claim? It is anclcor how the stonn wat~ nv~ntion facilities wea~ d~igned ~d gnat precipitation was ased in d~r~rmining the dcoigned water detention ar~ With a suddm rain cloud burst which is not onsumman to the ~ tho draiango on proposed str~ toward the south could be sev~e and impact ~.isting r~idants with flooded houses should tho draining water bo in excoss to curl~ and d~signed water dotentian arcos. What factor of safffff was ased in det~'mining thc wat~ dff~mt/an area? How will the storm wat~ detention area affect the water table? The development doesn't disallow the lots to be trailer houses or modular homes. We are opposed toailowlowanststart~h~nes. What ere the solllng pricos ofprolx~Sed dwellings? Dupl*xtmits? Condominiums (units and complox)? How high will each oondominium sa'ucturo be allowed to be consmmted? We object to Woods Way (as a major arteay to the subdivision) being allowed a varia~co to deviate from 49 feet to 37 fcot. This is a deviatian of about 25% over normal City rcquiremcms. We see this vafianco as an impact to vehicle, pedestrian, and resident safoty. Sidewalks should be required on both sides of Woeds Way. Tho developer state~ (Item 2a Paragraph 3 of the 2 11. 12. 13. Subdivision Improvements Agreement) the Woods Way alignment to Maryland Lane to be a '"major collectoW. Is it appropriate to allow a deviation to streets that are deemed "~major enllectors" by a developer and negatively impact the community even before a project is constructed? A Special Improvement Dislrict (sID) is proposed even before this development is approved thus imposing future tax increases on the local residents. Will this be imposed involuntary on neighboring subdivision residents too? Is this fair to future property owners and will this be adequately explained to all future property owners of the subdivision? Because these proposed new streets will connect Maryland Lane to OoffCourse Road via Woods Way, will SID luxes be forced an neighboring subdivision land owners? Will the future proposed bridge crossing over Big Ditch be 37 feet wide too? Will the future bridge allow for City utilities into the area too? Will Con~nents on the Environmental Assessment (EA) be forwarded to the Montana Department of Envirc~-nental Quality (DEQ) or will we be required to submit them independently? What is the due date for comments to the EA? 14. Comments on the Environmental Assessment (EA): a. The EA failed to address our hrigation waste water ditch rights to access Big Ditch. The statement in the EA that discusses no irrigation ditches are affected is incorrect. We object to the comment ofltem lID that states "All minor on-site h'rigation ditches will be relnoved, as they will no longer be necessary." We are directly affected by this inaccurate and erroneous statement. We have water rights to Big Ditch and High Ditch. Further, we understood from Bruce Wagner that other propcrties in our subdivision would have irrigation water fights too. Historically our property has had irrigation rights that had ditch rights onto the Elena Subdivision for waste water. Recently the property was fanned and the fenner has plowed in the ditches which need to be reopened by next sprfu$ b. Has a wetland inventory from the Corp of Engineers or Fish and Wildlife a~aahase maps been used to make the statement of Item A on "no natural water systems ....or marshes, exist on sro? Further, Item D -has a study been performed to determine removed irrigation ditched to downstream users or up ~enm users? What mitigation is planned far correcting the Big Ditch embanlrment adjacent to the subdivision caused by eroalan? Section 11I and IV paxagraph C - The discussion on ground water is incomplete. No discussion is presented to the test wells and the test well logs developed over the past several years and (.presumed) submitted with the first filing of Elena Subdivision. No disenssion on thls subject appcers anywhere~ Test wall PVC tlser pipes were removed the Spring 2004. We've observed the monitoring of these test wells during our time in the house and Bruce Wagner expressed a concern with high ground water levels which was not discussed in this EA. 1 also discuss with the test well driller this issue of the high ground water about a year ago and tmderstoed the Elena Subdivision had a high water table issue ... where is this addressed in the EA? Please explain what became oftRo test well logs over file past two years. Further, the residents of the subdivision south of the proposed Elena Subdivision expr~enco high water table problems with leaking basements and crawl spaces. As expressed to me, sump pumps are constantly running and this fact was conveniently missing from this report. A survey should be conducted of all surrounding land owners to determine whether they experience high water problems and a study should be conducted to determine the effects of this subdivision on centrthufing to a high water table problem. In additi~, the past ground water test logs should be address for this subdivision. To andit well logs of suxroonding protmrty owners fails to address the actual property issues of tho 28 a~es. Section VI - Oivon the observed owls in the mca end the annual hatchlings of owls, has a ' study been performed to determine whether these are ground owls or what type of owls may be affected by the Elena Subdivision? What study was performed to determine no critical or key wildlife areas are '~ot impacted"? It would ses~ an enviromnentsl impact study (ELS) is mere in line with determining wildlife impacts titan a less inlrusive envirounenatl assessment. What studies have been perfot~ned to addr~sed mosquito borne diseases as wall as other insect infestations from proposed water retention areas. We do not see eny discussion on the effects of such mosquito berne (er other insect) diseases es west Nile virus have been discussed that may affect the existing residents. Section VII - Was a strtey performed [Class 1 (lim-etm~ search) er Class 3 (ground survey)] to draw this conclusion? g. Section VIII - The visual impact section states "this development is expected to be high quality in nature md will be typical of that found in foe developments within the s~rounding areas? This slatement is misleading end mm'ue. The surrounding subdivisions are on larger lots (in stone cases at least c~e a~xe) and single family dwellings. What is proposed with the second filing of Elam Subdivision are mult/family dwelling homes, commercial property, lower income ~amilies, ~ 10ts sllbstantially less than one acre. The selling price of the proposed subdivision homes will not be in line with homes in the SmTounding subdivisions. It is obvious from this second filing the subdivision is focused toward low income families in the Laurel area end NOT TYPICAL OF THAT FOUND IN THE DEVELOPMENTS WITI-m~ TIIE SURROUNDING AREAS. Fur~er, this EA fails to discuss the proposed commercial lot reserved (Lot 1, Block 6) for neighborhood commercial activities with is NOT in line with the sun'ounding eranmmlily developments, lhe EA needs to reflect the feets as they are presented with this second filing end not make misleading and inaccurate statements. Please explain foe subjective statemant ". ..high quality in nature ..." which is not substantiated with any documents released with this second filing of the Eleon Substation. "High quality in onturo" is whet currently exists, not what is proposed when the Etena Subdivision, second filing, which is focused toward low~ income families. Section IX directly contradicts Section VIII in discussing the condominiums end a mix of single family dwellings and duplex units. Whea-e does this same mix exist in the surrounding developments? It doesu't. The neighl,ug a in the smrounding subdivisions, move to the rural area to escape city life. This second filing of Elena Subdivision proposed what we end o~r neighbors looked to escape from.., the city life; not at all what is stated in Section IX as "home owners who wish to live in a taral area with city ?vieas" given the City will annex this subdivision into the city. Again en EA that is maccawate, misleading, end deceptive by selling opinion as facts. Section IX staUm~ont of"unique building sites for home owners who wish to live in a rural area with city services..." contradicts the statement in Item 2 which states "lots will be comparable to lots being sold elsewhere inside the Laurel City limits..." How is a living in a rural area and lots being sold elsewhere inside lhe Laurel City limits the same? This is a dichotomy. How ate multifemily dwellings comparable to single family dwelling lots being sold elsewhere inside the Laurel City limits comparable? They are not, again en inaccurate, misl~ing, and sobject/ve opinion statement versus faets. i. h the Elam Subdivision going to be annexed into the City of Lat~el? 4 jo Section X -- All landowners w~e not eo~taoted affected by this public notice. Tax records were not used in determining affected property ownership and the Plat Map is incorrect showing tho neighboring prope~y ownership. Sonae data is over a year old domons~rating inaeem'acies in eontaotlng land owners. Section XI paragraph D- The lots norlh, south, and west are single family dwellings with larg~ lots that the second filing ofElean Subclivision proposes, and are high~ l:~ieed homes. State~nents made in this section are inaccurate and misleading. Further, is this land or soil types listed as prime farm land? ffso, has this been properly addressed? Section Xrll paragraph B - The besis for much of the second filing documents are based on 47 lots, however the EA shows 40 condominima units.., so the effective subdivision size is at least 87 fnmilies which is not in line with the development density of the surrounding subdivisions ct houses. Ail reports should reflect at least 87 living units for at least 87 families which could be larger given the plat ck~awing stating block 2, block 5, mad block 6 zoned as RESIDENTIAL MULTIFAMILY (RMF). This second filing is in line with Billings, Donwr, ct Phoenix, but not rural Laurel, Montanm Water use and sewer assumptions (per day) for family occupancy seems under estimated for usage given the proposed zoning changes tO RMF, condominiums, and dense single family residents. What does the DEQ estimate for a three bedroom home when dotennining septic system tank size and occupancy and is this same criteria being used h~e for proposed sewer usage? Will existing home owners in adjacent subdivisions be required to involuntary hock up to City water and sew~ now or in the tht~re; and if se at who's cost? m. Section XVI paragraph A- the 3-inch thick asphalt is under designed given the conslnnt large garbage Iruc~ usage over time. Paragraph D - the roads should be designed to cona'ol storm water runoff that could have a flooding effect on the subdivision south of the proposed Elona Subdivision development. With sudden rain outburst and the slope of the s~eets, the existing residents south of the Elena Subdivision coRld experience flond'mg. Section XIX paragraph B - Is the 9nRlyeis renilstic ibr only 40 students added to the school system given at least 87 dwelling units and RMF proposals to Ihree Blocks (2, 5, and 6)? Asstmaing two children per family at 87 dwellings would 174 children in the school system ... more than three times the estimated value. The value of 40 is under estimated. How does this analysis compare to the Saddlchack Ridge subdivision and students added to the school system? Has an study or analysis been performed to lank at these additive/connected gaetors and~he affeots tO school lmssing, tun,at bonding issues. and schonl planning? This has not been demonstrated with the current docmnants. Section XX paragraph A - The EA is misleading and deceptive to state on the one inmd the proposed second filing of Elana Subdivision is rural yet damonslrato in another the City aon~ion~ Paragraph C - The land use is not in line with the cu.~t surrounding subdivision given the proposed zoning for nmltifamily versus single family, lot size, comme~'ial, and r~al nature of existing property owners. p. Where does the EA addreas construction dust abatement and measures while cons~ruotian activities are underway? Further, given the prevailing winds what abatement is proposed for trash blowing into and damaging houses south of the proposed Elean Subdivision during conslrucfion and after construction? Where is gro~mdwater pollution from home owner use addressed given the additive effect and over .~ge ofpeaticides and chemicals from individual land owners (residantial) over agricultural land usage? r. Section XXIII paragraph C - What effec~ will ~he subdivision have on adjacent land owners with tax increases? 15. Tho traffic study was based on 47 lots developed not 87 f~mqies. It looks like the lraflic vms onder evaluated. Addad larg~ fa-ack ~'affic with associated air pollution ii'om solid waste disposal wasn't discussed and should be studies. 16. Appendix A Paragraph I A 2a- We ~e affected with our irrigation waste water ditch that flows into Big Ditch. 17. Idave the County Commissioners approved this plan? 18. What is the schedule for this proposed developmant? C~mpletion date of road work, Phase I and Phase II? 19. What is the structures height be for the proposed coMominiums? 20. What is the proposed selling price be for single family and multi-family dwellings? 21. What is the antidpatad dwelling size in square f~t per flock; are basements allowed (given a higha' water table)? 22. What covenant resl~i~.-tion ere pl~mn~t for the subdivision? 23. What environmental studies have been performed to discuss the economic and environmental impact to local property owners on the proposed high dansity housing developmant you propose? We have seen no indicat~m where a proposed zoning change to allow fi~r the dense single and multi-family dwellings proposed in the second filing. Is lhis meoting intended to serve a dual purpose including zo'~ing changes and the proposed development? 25. Will a seperate public notice ct mailing be sant to adjacant landowners to proteat multi.fnmily dwellings? 26. Will comments involving the anvironmantal Imsessmant be forwarded to the DEQ? The following items would help mediate our concerns with tho firat filing or second filinE for Elana Subdivisian, but is not to say we will accept the second filing for El~a Subdivision: A. Colaslruotien ofa 9 foot painted ascetically pleasing (and adjacent proptm'y owner approved) block wall with engineered foundation betweea o~ subdivisions for either filing of the Elena Subdivision. B. Elimination of all mulfifamily dwellings and return to a ona acxe per single family dwelling proposed un&r the first filing as submitted prewionsiy. C. Revise all drawings to show the irrigation waste water ditch on the plat map for our property and the neighboring lots. It seems the developer has placed greed above neighboring properties and neighboring subdivisions with this second filing of the Eleua Subdivision development project. The developer has demonstrated a lack of concern for other property owner concerns to in proposing such a developm;mt over the first filing of Elena Subdivision that was previously approved. The affect on our quality of life, rural setting, and potential fm;mclal propert~ losses should be enough for the Laurel Planning Board to disapprove this project in lieu of a superior development plan previously submitted ;md approved under the first filing. Given the inaccurate and misleading statements made in the EA, one is led to question the validity of any statements made in the EA for accuracy and trusted reliability. Opinions are sold as facts and unsubstantiated in the EA. Facts are not facts and the EA needs to be critically reviewed by the DEQ with a cxitical eye to accuracy. It would seean an EIS is more appropriate than an EA. We did not move to the rural Laurel area and place roots into this commonity to lose it to a developm;mt such as proposed with this second filing. We could have got this in Billings. We were looking fur a quiet, family friendly community with low population density to raise our children and f~lt rural Laurel provided this enviromnent. We do nat support the Elena SuMivision, s~cond filing and ~ recommend, ;md urge, the Laurel Planning Board to rejeet this development plan based on the merits outlined in this lett~. Respectively, C. Sam Miller Selina Miller 1045 Golf Course Road Laurel, Mt 59044 We believe there are several reasons why the subdivision should be denied. If this is not acceptable then at a minimum the request for a zoning change fiom single-family dwellings to multi-family dwellings should be denied. First, there has never been a study undertaken which demonstrates the cumulative impacts fi.om Saddleback Ridge, which your committee recently approved, and this subdivision. All studies we are aware of address future impacts fi.om the standpoint of those that would result with the development of the Elena Subdivision. It is the cumulative impacts of things such as traffic caused by the influx of individuals building in both of these developments, which pose the biggest problem. Second, the proposed multi-family dwellings are not consistent with existing covenants binding on adjacent residences. These covenants were included in present owners titles by the previous developer of this same subdivision. There is no question that the attraction of the large lot size along with the area being zoned as single-family dwell/rigs contributed to the price these individuals were willing to pay for their lots. Third, the proposed development is not consistent with the previously completed Managed Development Study. This study was undertaken to prevent developments like these fi.om causing future problems, which have to be resolved at taxpayer's expense. As we stated earlier we again urge your committee to either deny the subdivision, or at a minimum to deny the request for a zoning change fi.om single-fl~mily to multi-family dwellings. October 4, 2004 City of Laurel planning Board P.P. Boxl0 Laurel, MT 59044 Dear Planning Board, We respectively object to the second filing of the Elena Subdivision. When we purchased our home in June 2003 we were told what the plans were for the land behind our house. It was described to us just as the first filing of Elena Subdivision describes. There would be 17 homes with approximately the same size lots aa ours and the homes would be comparable to ours in size and value. We moved out to this area to get away from densely populated neighborhoods and high traffic areas. We want to raise our children in a neighborhood where we safely walk up and down the streets not having to worry about hundreds of cars while we do it. The second filing will destroy property values of lots and homes for several blocks in each direction. The second filing will over populate already maxed out class rooms in the Laurel schools. The second filing will create unsafe conditions with the amount of traffic it will bring. The second filing will completely and negatively alter the way of life we moved here to enjoy. The second filing goes again~ the life style this whole area is being created for. The second filing is based completely on profit and ignores the building of communities that cities and counties are for. We oppose any changes to the first filing and vehemently oppose any considexation of the second filing. Dirk and Jamie Moler 1107 Golf Course Road Laurel, MT 59044 406.628.8040 OCT - 4 2004 CITY OF LAUREL We the undersigned protest the proposed Elena subdivision and wish to express our objections both in writing and orally at the Laurel-Yellowstone City County Planning board meeting set for October 7, 2004. Name Add~ress ~)' Date ' Date Na~e Name' ' Name I?'~1 ~ c), ~., h,.~ In ~'.;~¥ Address ~; ~m~¢ Date Add~s Date Address / Date October 6, 2004 Council Chambers of Laurel City Hall 115 West 1st Sta-eet Laurel, Mt 59044 Dear Public Works Secretary, This letter is in regards to the zoning change that is being considered for the 27 acres that sits behind 1107 and 1045 Golf Course Road on Paynes Place. Terry and I are against the zoning change. We moved out of the city of Laurel, after 22 years, to get away fi:om densely populated neighborhoods and high traffic areas. If this zoning were changed, there would be considerably more traffic in our area and many more people. We enjoy the quietness of being out the city. We are also very concerned about our property value declining, if the zoning was changed to allow multi-family dwellings. We understand that this property will eventually be developed, and would welcome nice single family dwellings on some type of acreage, with good restrictions. Similar to the homes that have akeady been built in OUr area, Thank you for your time. .~d~ / 3~G~lf'Cobzs~ l~oad Laurel, Mt 59044 406-628~7821 OCT - 7 2004 k OlTY OF LAUREL Jim Beehner 1123 Golf Course Rd Laurel MT 59044 October 5, 2004 Public Works Secretary I 15 W. Fkst St. Laurel, MT 59044 oc'r - 6 2oo4 CITY OF LAUREL Laurel-Yellowsone City-County Planning Board Re: Elam Subdivision, Second Filing As a resident adjacent to this subdivision I am totally opposed to the proposed changes. First, I feel the proposed lot size, density and zoning would not be compatible with any of the property surrounding it. It is surrounded by single family properties. Secondly, the increase in traffic with the new proposal would be too much for the area. The increase in traffic with the current zoning will be stressful enough. Thirdly, reducing lot sizes and changing the zoning to multi-family will have an adverse effect on the surrounding properties. By approving the proposed changes, you will be hurting the taxpayers and voters of the adjacent properties to the financial benefit of the developers. I urge you to not approve any reduction of lot sizes, nor multi-family zoning. October 6, 2004 Public Works Director 115 W 1st Street Laurel, MT 59044 This letter is in reference to the proposed zoning change for acreage East of Golf Course Road and North of W 9th Street. Our property is located at 1405 West 9m and we also lease the acreage to the west of our property. We are very much against the zoning change and any building whatsoever in this area. The reasons are as follows: 1. Property values. Historically, multi family homes will decrease property values. 2. Traffic. We already have a huge traffic problem. The city is very well aware of this problem. What is this many more homes and people going to do to the problem we have today? 3. Water. These homes would put exlreme pressure on the irrigation rights of those of us that use irrigation as a means of supporting our property. (The developer was out here last summer and mentioned to a friend who does not live here that he did not care what happens to the ditch and he is coveting it up so he can build his properties. The friend said, "You cannot do that!" He said, "Watch me!" We personally saved for years to buy property with acreage that would allow horses. Of course our dream would be to live further out aga]nat state land so we would not have to worry about things like this but for the average Montana blue collar worker that is unaffordable. This developer cares nothing about the other land owners or the impact it would have on the community. His first and foremost position is to make a lot of money, which he already has in the same area. What impact do you think this would have on the school system? We already are having overcrowding problems in the schools. What impact will it have on the homes that are sitting vacant in town? They may sit vacant much longer if people can buy a new condo cheaper. What about our roads in town? The roads in Laurel are extremely bad with no plans to repair or funding to do that. These new homes will not pay for that, they will just stress all these situations. We understand that change has to happen and we cannot prevent growth. This zone request will just cheapen our community and make a developer a lot of money. As a city, do we really need this? Do we need to increase all these problems and increase crime? Leave things as they are and allow the expansion to happen where it already is allowed. Please listen to us! Thank you for your time, Gerald and Kathy Barta OCT - 6 2004 CITY OF LAUREL Oepartrn*nt of ¢ornm~rce To: Applicants for the Eincoln Institute Planning Program From: The Community Technical Assistance Program Montana Department of Commerce Date: February21, 2003 Re: Web s~e access Thank you for your interest in the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy on-line planning education course. Your application has been accepted. To access the program, log on to the Lincoln Institute on-line education site at: http://lincolneducationonline.or.q/. Once there you will need to Iogin. Simply key the "Login" button, then enter the username mmckinney~state.mt, us. Next enter the password 6288. Now click on the "Planning Fundamentals" door and begin the first lesson. As a condition of access to this site, the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy asks that all participants complete the course. Upon completion, you will be asked to fill out a course evaluation. There is no deadline for completing the course. If you have any questions regarding the course or the website, please contact Gavin Anderson, CT/U= Planning Manager at (406)841-2783.