HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Minutes 11.16.2004MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF LAUREL
November 16, 2004
A regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Laurel, Montana, was held in the
Council Chambers and called to order by Mayor Ken Olson at 6:30 p.m. on November 16, 2004.
COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT:
Dick Fritzler
Kate Stevenson
Gay Easton
Jennifer Johnson
Doug Poehls
Mark Mace
Daniel Dart
John Oakes
COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: None
Mayor Olson led the Pledge of Allegiance to the American flag.
Mayor Olson asked the council to observe a moment of silence.
MINUTES:
Motion by Alderman Poehlg to approve the minutes of the special meeting of October 28,
2004, as presented, seconded by Alderman Mace. A roll call vote was taken on the motion. All
eight aldermen/women present voted aye. Motion carried 8-0.
Motion by Alderman Dart to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of November 2,
2004, as presented, seconded by Alderman Poehls. A roll call vote was taken on the motion. All
eight aldermen/women present voted aye. Motion carried 8-0:
coRREsPONDENCE:
Cable Montana: Service Reports for September 2004.
Montana Department of Commerce: Letter of November 4, 2004 regarding applications for TSEP
grants.
Montana Department of Commerce: Letter of November 6, 2004 regarding DNRC applications for
wastewater system improvements.
PUBLIC HEARING: Zone change from Residential Tracts to R7500 and Neighborhood
Commercial for proposed Elena Subdivision, 2"a Filing, an addition to the City of Laurel and
being Lot 5, Block 1, Elena Subdivision, First Filing.
Mayor Olson stated that staff would present the recommendation of the City-County Planning Board
before the public heating began.
Cai Cumin, City Planner, stated that this is the second public hearing duly advertised in the local
newspaper concerning the requested zone change for proposed Elena Subdivision, 2na Filing. This
comes from the Planning Board, which held the first initial public hearing with a recommendation to
approve. The two other functions with this plat, the subdivision and annexation, will not be
considered tonight.
Montana law requires that, when local governments consider zoning, they include and consider the
purposes of Zoning. He read those: "Such regulations shall be made in accordance with the
comprehensive plan and designed to lessen congestion and streets; to secure safety from fire, panic,
and other dangers; to promote health and the general welfare; to provide adequate light and air; to
prevent the overcrowding of land; to avoid undue concentration of population; to facilitate the
adequate provision of transportation, water, schools, Parks and other public requirements. Such
regulations shall be made with a reasonable consideration among other things to the character of the
district and its peculiar suitability for particular uses and with a view to conserving the value of the
buildings and encouraging the most appropriate use of land throughout such municipality."
The recommendation for approval from the Planning Board came with an extensive list of
conditions, many of which came out of the first public hearing. The first condition is that the
Council Minutes of November 16, 2004
Neighborhood Commercial lot be moved from its original location into the interior of the lot, so
there would be a separation between existing houses and a new development. This was done in the
revised drawing. The proposed Residential Multi-Family lots were moved to the interior of the
subdivision so the lots do not back up against any existing development. The Planning Board also
required that the lots be limited to Residential Limited Multi-Family, which is a lower density than
Multi-Family. The developer moved it entirely since there was so much comment about the Multi-
Family, which is an important point to remember. The third condition on the list was also regarding
Multi-Family, and the developer removed the Multi-Family and proposed R6000 zoning. The
proposed condominium area is planned as one and two-family townhouses or similar structures.
Because this was an unknown, the Planning Board put on a requirement of a maximum number of
units under the R6000 zone. Planning Board also recommended that the subdivision preliminary
plat not be approved until the city has approved the proposed zoning. The sixth condition was to
require the developer to construct a sound barrier fence along the road in back of the existing lots.
The actual street is West Maryland, so these lots become double frontage. The developer has agreed
to do that. Another concern from the people was irrigation rights and the location of irrigation
ditches. The developer has basically said that he would guarantee the integrity of the irrigation
systems. When the developer says that, the city follows through on the process and it becomes
written into a contract. The eighth condition was regarding the lot which is proposed as park land
and also a storm drainage construction retention pond. The city does not want to take care of that, so
it will be the responsibility of the homeowners' association. All the streets, street widths, rights-of-
way, and ADA requirements must meet the standards used by the City Public Works Department,
and the developers agreed to that without any variation request. The requirements of the fire
protection for the Laurel Volunteer Fire Department must be met. Requirements for weed control
will be met, and the easements requested by the utility companies will be provided on the final plat:
The Planning Board also noted that there is a valid legal protest against this zoning, which will
require a super majority of the city council to approve. The approval of the subdivision, the zoning,
and the annexation are also contingent upon the provision of city water, city services, and
construction of a bridge across Maryland that meets city and county bridge standards. This is not
going to happen next summer, but the project is getting things in order. A huge piece of land has to
be developed first or the easements have to be provided, and this developer will have to pay all the
costs of the bridge, the water, and the sewer. Because one of the conditions of approval is that it is
an annexation to the city, water? sewer, and a bridge are required before the project can move
forward.
Cai explained the confusion about Elena Subdivision, 1st Filing, which was developed by Mr.
Wagner. He developed the subdivision and called it Elena Subdivision, 1st Filing. Mr. Wagner then
prepared another subdivision, which was approved through the Planning Board and the City Council.
However, he never filed the record and it never became official. Mr. Wagner stopped his project
with Elena, 1st Filing and sold the land to the present developer. Cal stated that there is a break
between Elena, 1st Filing, and Elena, 2nd Filing. There are also questions about why the covenants
used by Elena, 1st Filing, are not being used by Elena, 2na Filing. Cai stated that there is no
connection, as it is a different developer and a different owner. The city does not get involved in
covenants, as those are private property issues. All these homes out there will be brand new, and
there will not be any modular or factory built housing.
Mayor Olson asked the council if they had any questions.
Alderman Oakes stated that the lots would be quite large, so there would be quite a bit of yard left
after the house and garage were built. He asked if they would be two-car garages.
Cai stated that it has not been planned to that level of detail.
Alderman Oakes is concerned about the character of the subdivision after it is completed. He
questioned how the city would preven~ a pole barn from being built out there if there are no
restrictions. He stated that the character is the main issue, and many subdivisions have lost their
character because of loose ordinances and regulations.
Cal stated that the city does not allow pole barns in the city. Cai said that this is a proposed new
housing development and the homes will be brand new. He does not think pole barns would be
constructed in addition to the $150,000 homes.
Alderman Poehls asked if the subdivision would have boulevard sidewalks or curb sidewalks. Cai
answered that they would be boulevard sidewalks, which are more expensive.
2
Council Minutes of November 16, 2004
Alderwoman Johnson asked what would hapPen if the present owner decided to sell the property
before the project is completed.
Cai stated that, if the present owner files the final plat of the development with the city's conditions
for approval, the land would be locked into that approval process. Any changes would have to be
presented to the Planning Board and the City of Laurel.
Mayor Olson asked if the council had any other questions. There were none.
Mayor Olson opened the public hearing on the zone change from Residential Tracts to R7500,
R6000, and Neighborhood Commercial for proposed Elena Subdivision, 2na Filing, an addition to the
City of Laurel and being Lot 5, Block 1, Elena Subdivision, 1st Filing.
Mayor Olson stated that he would ask for the opponents first, and that three minutes would be given
to each person. He asked each individual to give their name and address and explained that any
questions would be written down and given to staff for a response.
Mayor Olson asked if there were any opponents.
Sam Miller, 1045 Golf Course Road, owns one of the properties that abut the new subdivision. He
had several comments. First, state law says overcrowding of land. When comparing the new
subdivision as proposed, there is overcrowding with respect to the surrounding properties. Sam
purchased the property with the full knowledge that the subdivision would be developed into
seventeen lots behind them. Secondly, he said that it was not fair that the property owners did not
have ample opportunity to review the changes and be able to comment on them. He said that the
information was totally different from what was presented to the Planning Board, so he is
uncomfortable going through his notes from the first meeting~ Sam and his wife are in opposition.
The density proposed is not in line with the surrounding properties and houses. The multi-family
units have been pulled out, but not the condominium units, which he considers to be multi-family
because of the dense population allowed. In their opinion, the quality of life and rural country living
would be degraded because there would be a much denser population in the lots behind their
property than was presented to them when they purchased their home. The commercial lot is not in
line with the surrounding houses. He thinks that there are a lot of ambigaities in the environmental
assessment documents that need to be addressed. The Planning Board committed to address every
one of the property owners' issues, but they have not seen anything in writing or had any
communication with the Planning Board on any of these changes. Sam wanted to go on record as
opposing this filing. There was no opposition to the first filing, which he stated indicates that the
people living adjacent were supportive of the first filing, but not of the second filing. Sam said that
most of his other comments were washed because he did not have an oppommity to review the
changes. He thanked the council for the opportunity to speak.
between large lots, small lots, higher density, and a commercial
3
Doug James, Box 2559, Billings, is an attorney with the Moulton-Bellingham Law Firm and deals
with land use issues all the time. He attended the public hearing on behalf of the Molers to express
their opposition and to share his perspective as a real estate attorney. Mr. Cumin had mentioned
some of the statutory criteria that Montana law specifies need to be considered in making a decision
regarding this application. One of these, item number eight in Montana Code Annotated Section 76-
3-102, requires the council to consider protecting the rights of existing property owners. Mr. James
asked the protesting people to stand so the council could see how many opposed it. He said that
consideration of the character of the neighborhood is also part of the requirement. Mr. James stated
that people live in Montana for a reason. He could go to Chicago and make a lot more money than
he makes in Billings. People live here because of the kind of community this is and because of the
kind of people here. When the Molers contacted him, he said they needed to sit down and talk with
the developer. He suggested that if they could be flexible and compromise, and maybe if the
developer would compromise a little bit, they could give up the valid protest and come up with a
plan with which everybody could live. He contacted the developer's engineer on several occasions
and asked for information and discussion. The response was that the developer refused to meet with
them. Mr. James stated that that is unacceptable and cannot be allowed into this community. In all
the years he has been doing real estate development, this is the only time a developer would not meet
with the neighbors. If they will not talk now, he questioned what kind of neighbors and developers
they would be in the future. He stated that this is not in keeping with the character of the
neighborhood and of the community in which they want to live. The statutes that Mr. Cumin quoted
and the ordinances require various objective criteria to be considered. One of them is whether new
zoning gives reasonable consideration to the character of the neighborhood. With the difference
lot in a residential neighborhood, he
Council Minutes of November 16, 2004
stated that the objective criteria simply have not been met. Covenants are a private contract, but they
are generally imposed to protect the existing and surrounding neighborhoods and to protect the city.
He pointed out the overwhelming opposition to this, and he believes that annexation is premature.
As a matter of law when property is annexed, services must be provided or there must be a plan to
provide those services. He has not seen anything that suggests that there is a plan to provide those
services in the immediate future. Mr. James thanked the council.
Mayor Olson informed the audience that, in order to keep within the allotted timeframe, he would
raise his hand after two and a half minutes, allowing thirty seconds for the speaker to finish
speaking.
Jamie Moler, 1107 Golf Course Road, submitted a signed petition of opposition from forty-four
neighbors that will be impacted by this. The property owners understand the need for development,
but they do not think this is the right way to go about it. Jamie gave the petition to the council
secretary.
Michael Cantrell, 820 7th Avenue, read a letter that his mother wrote. His mother, Juanita Cantrell,
lives at 1625 Wembly Place in Billings and owns three adjoining lots in this area. The letter stated:
Dear City Council:
I want to express my reservations regarding the current plotting of the Elena Subdivision,
located at Golf Course Road and Paynes Place. As owner of three adjoining lots, I am
requesting consideration for a buffer zone of larger acreage lots behind my three lots on Golf
Course Road, size of at least one-half acres would probably be satisfactory. The number Of
units planned appears to be too dense for the access capacities and multi-family units, and a
commemial establishment would most certainly devalue my property. Please take my and
other adjoining property owner's concerns into consideration before approving this
subdivision.
The letter was submitted to the council secretary.
Mike stated that the three lots are part of the family estate. He eventually intends to build a house on
one Of the lots, and he shares her concerns. He questioned the proPosed use for the area zoned
R6000 and asked if it would be reserved for another subdivision filing later.
Mayor Olson stated that it would be addressed later, as the questions brought forward would be
given to staff for a reply as soon as possible.
Roy Thurman, 1807 West Maryland Lane, and his wife, Susan, attended the meeting. He.stated that
the meeting began with the pledge of allegiance to the flag, which talked about liberty and justice.
He thinks that everybody here is seeking liberty and justice. Roy referred to the mention of Montana
law and the rights of existing property owners, which he said are not being protected. His house is
located behind the orange area on the zoning exhibit, and he pointed out that the planning board
talked about no multi-family units. The Condominiums and multi-family units would drastically
drop the value of his property. He questioned When the sound barrier would be constructed and if it
would protect his property or his neighbor's Property. He suggested that there are some very serious
issues with the actual construction. The existing bridge is not built to transport all the equipment
needed for construction. He very much opposes the proposed subdivision because it is premature
and is a grandiose plan with no specifics. In his opinion, the most important issue is to conserve the
quality of life of the property owners. He stated that they have been flooded by water before, and
there are no provisions or guarantees to protect them from being flooded again. He asked for justice
in this matter. Roy submitted a letter of protest from a neighbor who could not attend the meeting.
Ruby Hanson, 1745 West Maryland, spoke regarding groundwater. In 1985, they were flooded out
by water from a flash flood when the High Ditch went over. About 3,600 gallons of water were
pumped out of their basement. Now the developer is saying there will be a detention area. If there is
another flash flood and the detention area has a lot of water in it, the water will go back down into
their basement. Ruby passed around a picture that showed how low they are from the field, probably
a good five feet or more. They were told that there would not be a water problem when the farmer
quit irrigating, but that was not true. Last sunmaer; Mr. Miller had a pond and the pond water came
down into their area. (Ruby mentioned that Mr. Miller stated a lot of good things about water in his
letter to the Planning Board.) The Thurman's basement was flooded, and the Hanson's two sump
pumps ran continually until Mr. Thurman fixed the head gate. The Hansons had asked Mr. Wagner
4 7<
Council Minutes of November 16, 2004
to fix it, but he would not answer their phone calls or accept a letter they sent him. The water kept
flooding them, and finally Mr. Miller fixed the head gate. Ruby questioned what would be done
with the water that will sink down and head south toward them. She does not think the detention
area will keep the water away from them, is very concemed about all this water, and wonders if the
developer will pay for any damage from flooding. Ruby is opposed to this subdivision because of
the water.
Mike Taylor, 1818 West Maryland, and his wife, Janice, are opposed to the zone change. One thing
he noticed that had not been pointed out was that the existing house on the corner of West Maryland
and Golf Course Road would be bordered by three streets if Woods Way is extended all the way to
Golf Course Road. He could not think of another example where a landowner's property is bordered
by three streets, with two of them being through streets. He did not know if a city ordinance or the
building code addressed that.
Martha Kennedy, 1123 Golf Course Road, had a couple letters of opposition to the proposed second
filing due to the decrease in property values of the surrounding properties. She also had a letter from
her father, who co-owns the property at 1123 Golf Course Road, and has been in the building
business for over forty years. He is opposed because of the decrease of property values. Another
concern is the additional traffic on the roads in the subdivision and on Golf Course Road. Because
of the subdivision north of the golf course, the increased traffic and the speed of the traffic on Golf
Course Road really needs to be addressed. Cars have been seen drag racing up and down the road.
She thinks that including this in the city would be a concern regarding patrolling and other issues,
and she stated her objection to the proposed subdivision.
Dennis Allwin, 185 Golf Course Road, and his wife are opposed to this mainly because of the
density of the housing and the traffic on Golf Course Road. During the first filing, the engineer said
that the impact of Golf Course Road would be another nine hundred cars going down that road every
day. He cannot imagine that, thinks that would really impact their property, and would be like living
on 24th Street in Billings. Woods Way and West Maryland are supposed to go through, but the
developers do not own the land and do not have any way to get from Cherry Hills Subdivision to
Elena Subdivision. Therefore, the proposed bridge could possibly not exist. Since everything is
going to come down Golf Course Road, he asked for consideration about the traffic issue.
Rod Berger, 1775 Duval Drive, and his wife strongly oppose the proposed subdivision because they
live in Montana for a quality of life. He lived in the City of Laurel for over ten years and moved out
for a reason. He wanted to go on the record as strongly opposing the proposal.
Kathy Barta, 1405 West 9th Street, and her husband, Gerald, live south and east of the proposed
property. They are very much in opposition to this. Kathy was bom and raised in Montana, and her
dream was to own acreage. Finally they saved enough to buy irrigated property. They have horses
and live outside the city limits. If the proposed property is annexed into the city, they are right
between and will probably be put into the city limits eventually, and they would lose their dream.
Regarding irrigation, an associate of hers talked to the developer, who said he was going to build all
those houses. When the developer was asked what would be done about the ditch, he said he did not
Care about the ditch and the people south of there and they were going to cover it. Kathy stated that
they have enough problems with getting the water to everybody when needed without having to fight
with forty other homeowners. Kathy owns a business in the city limits and pays taxes. She stated
that the city streets and the water and sewer problems cannot be handled now, and she questioned
where the additional funds would be found. She questioned who would take care of the extra traffic.
Kathy stated that their quality of life would go further down. She knows that expansion cannot be
prevented, but she would like to keep it to a minimum. Kathy again stated her opposition.
Nick Detiene, 2125 Saddieback Drive, thinks that a happy medium needs to be found because many
people are opposed to this. He personally feels that some people would be happier if the multi-
family and condos were taken out, as the traffic concern would decrease. Nick moved to Saddleback
Estates last year right before the snow came, and once he had to pull a car out ora snowdrift on Golf
Course Road. Although it is the county's responsibility to plow that road, it was not plowed for at
least three days. During that time, people could only travel that road with a four-wheel drive
vehicle, and it was dangerous for two trucks to meet on the road. With more vehicles traveling up
and down that road, it would be a problem in the winter when the snow comes across those empty
fields and hits G01f Course Road. He also questioned the value of the homes. Cai mentioned that he
thought the homes would average $150,000, but Nick remembered the developer saying the homes
would range from $250,000 to $270,0001 He would like to know of a condominium or a town home
that would draw that kind of price. The homes around this subdivision are worth a lot of money, and
Council Minutes of November 16, 2004
people have invested a lot of money.
definitely impact all of them.
Nick stated that having condominiums that close would
Dawn Stahl, 1728 West Maryland, and her husband purchased their property about fifteen months
ago with the knowledge that this would be developed. She does not have a problem with
development. They were told that it would be around seventeen one-acre lots, which would cut
down on the traffic. They pumhased on West Maryland because it is a dead-end, gravel road. They
are absolutely opposed to the proposal and making West Maryland a through street, and they want to
be left alone.
Denise Kaupish, 1340 West 9th Street, hopes that the council listened to the comments of opposition.
She has lived here for about twenty-five years and the lifestyle they have is exactly why they moved
out there. There is a lot of traffic on West 9t~ Street, and people think it is a 45 or 50 mph zone. She
cannot imagine having more traffic on West 9th Street. Children will ride their bikes in even mom
danger with more traffic on the road. She sincerely hopes that the council listened to what people
said tonight.
Rod Frank, 1831 West 9th Street, wanted to go on record as being opposed to this, and he wants to be
kept informed about what is going on. He thinks a lot of people would feel better if the lots were
proportioned to the size of the lots in the surrounding areas.
Jim Creecy, 1807 West 9th Street, stated that the traffic is his biggest objection to this. The sheriff
will not patrol West 9th Street and Golf Course Road, as he said it is not in his books to do it. Jim
thinks that this is going to present a real problem. He categorically rejects this whole subdivision in
its entirety, and he thanked the council for listening to him.
Jim Beehner, 1123 Golf Course Road, is opposed to increasing the density. He realizes that
development is going to happen, but he feels that it is not compatible with the neighborhood. He
asked the council to take that into consideration.
Ruby Hanson asked Mayor Olson if she could speak again. Mayor Olson stated that he would afford
that this time, but it was his intent to allow only one opportunity to speak.
Ruby Hanson has lived on West Maryland since 1979 and has watched water irrigation in that field.
They have never had a problem before except for the flooding in their basement. This sunxmer when
the perk tests were put in, a man put bentonite around the pipes, which she believes is to stop the
water from going into the pipes. When she questioned the man about the water, he told her that the
pipes were full. Ruby thinks that is why the developer wants city services. Ruby wrote to Ted
Kylander at the City-County Health Department in Billings: Ted informed her that the department
would not be involved after it is connected to the city. Ruby has been really concerned about the
high water. Laurel has very high water content, and they seem to be getting most of it.
Gloria Allwin, 185 Golf Course Road, stated that her biggest concern is the traffic on Golf Course
Road. Since Saddleback Estates was bUilt, there has been a constant fluctuation of cars by there.
The pollution from the dust, the roads, and the concrete tracks has been atrocious. Their five
grandchildren cannot be in the front yard because of the traffic; and cars go in and but of their
driveway all the time. She feels like it is not even going to be a peacefUl place to live anymore.
They might as well move to Billings and live in the big city.
Mayor Olson asked three times if there were any other opponents: There were none.
Mayor Olson asked if there were any proponents.
Pat Davies, an engineer with Engineering Inc., 1260 South 32® Street in Billings, represented the
applicant, Dave Bequette. He said that the planning Board has recommended conditional approval.
Pat reinforced that the applicant is agreeable to and will comply with those conditions. The
applicant believes that adjustments have been made to the zoning to help decrease the density, which
was a concern of the neighbors. There has to be some level of understanding that, since this is a city
subdivision, the density is going to have to be more than typical in order to pay for the city services
that are going to be constructed in the subdivision. Pat addressed a few things that some people
questioned. The big orange area on the zoning exhibit is intended to be a mixture of single family
and duplex town homes. The reason it is being looked at as a condominium type development is to
provide a mixed use out there where some people prefer to live in an area with an open or common
space between the units, and that is what the applicant is after there. In regard to providing services
I!
Council Minutes of November 16, 2004
to this property, the owner is currently working with the adjacent landowner to establish easements
to get the services. The adjacent landowner has indicated his intention to develop at some future
point. The applicant will pay for the water, sewer, streets, roads, and everything that goes in the
subdivision. In regard to storm water issues, Pat knows there are some concerns for the property
owners to the south. Right now there are no structures or facilities that control where that storm
water goes. As part of this subdivision; the applicant would be required by the city to control that
storm water in order to mitigate off-site impacts to the landowners. The engineers will have to prove
that to the city before those improvements are built. In regard to the traffic, any time a subdivision is
added to an area, the traffic levels increase. He pointed out that a detailed traffic study was done to
look at the impacts of this subdivision. Although traffic would increase, studies show that the
impacts would be minimal as compared to standards that are nationally recognized when looking at
safety and traffic impact from subdivisions. Pat offered to answer any questions from the council.
Mayor Olson asked three times if there were any other proponents. There were none.
Mayor Olson closed the public hearing.
The zone change from Residential Tracts to R7500, R6000, and Neighborhood Commercial for
proposed Elena Subdivision, 2na Filing, an addition to the City of Laurel and being Lot 5, Block 1,
Elena Subdivision, 1st Filing, will be on the December 7, 2004, council agenda.
CONSENT ITEMS:
· Clerk/Treasurer Financial Statements for the month of October 2004.
· Approval of Payroll Register for PPE 11/07/04 totaling $122,455.12.
· Receiving the Committee Reports into the Record.
--Public Works Committee minutes of October 12, 2004 were presented.
--Swimming Pool Committee minutes of October 14, 2004 were presented.
--Budget/Finance Corn rnittee minutes of October 19, 2004 were presented.
--Emergency Services Committee minutes of October 25, 2004 were presented.
--Cemete.5.~ Commission minutes of October 28, 2004 were presented.
--City-County Planning Board minutes of November 4, 2004 were presented.
--Council Workshop minutes of November 9, 2004 were presented.
The mayor asked if there was any separation of consent items. There was none.
Motion by Alderman Mace to approve the consent items as presented, seconded by Alderman
Oakes. A roll call vote Was taken on the motion. All eight aldermen/women present voted aye.
Motion carried 8-0.
CEREMONIAL CALENDAR: None.
REPORTS OF BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS: None.
AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION (THREE-MINUTE LIMIT): None.
SCHEDULED MATTERS:
· Confirmation of Appointments.
Cemetery Commission:
Mayor Olson removed Dan Dart and Mark Mace from the Cemetery Commission, as Laurel
Municipal Code allows only two council members on the commission.
7
Council Minutes of November 16, 2004
Mayor Olson appointed Mayor Ken Olson to the Cemetery Commission~ as required by Laurel
Municipal Code.
Motion by Alderman Oakes to approve the appointment of Mayor Ken Olson to the
Cemetery Commission, seconded by Alderman Dart. A roll call vote was taken on the motion. All
eight aldermen/women present voted aye. Motion carried 8-0.
Board of Appeals:
Mayor Olson appointed Dick Clayton, Marvin Carter, Bob Western, and Miles Walton to the Board
of Appeals for two-year terms ending June 30, 2006.
Motion by Alderwoman Stevenson to approve the appointments of Dick Clayton, Marvin
Carter, Bob Western, and Miles Walton to the Board of Appeals for two-year terms ending June 30,
2004, seconded by Alderman Poehls. A roll call vote was taken on the motion. All eight
aldermen/women present voted aye. Motion carried 8-0.
Local Government Review Commission:
Mayor Olson appointed Todd Linder and LuAnne Engh as members and Jennifer Johnson as the ex-
officio member on the Local Government Review Commission.
Motion by Alderman Easton to approve the appointments of Todd Linder and LuAnne Engh
as members and Jennifer Johnson as the ex-officio member on the Local Government Review
Commission, seconded by Alderwoman Stevenson. A roll call vote was taken on the motion. All
eight aldermen/women present voted aye. Motion carried 8-0.
· Resolution No. R04-117: A resolution increasing City of Laurel wastewater rates and
charges to all users.
Motion by Alderwoman Johnson to approve Resolution No. R04-117, seconded by Alderman
Oakes.
Mayor Olson stated that Larry McCann and Erl Tufie were available at this time to answer any
questions from the council.
Alderwoman Johnson stated that, as responsible council people, she does not see how the council
cannot approve this.
Alderman Mace commented regarding a statement made at the public hearing that it costs more to
get rid of the water than to get the water to the house. He thinks the city needs to know the worst
conditions in the city and attack those and not necessarily base it from anything else. Someone said
something about the streets tonight, and we are working on those. We have an increase in the street
maintenance to do that. We need to tell people that the mason for the increases is because of the
deplorable conditions in the sewer system. There seems to be a misconception that one thing is more
important than the other, but that is not really the case. It is whether it is in the worst shape at the
time, and he realizes there could be an argument that everything is in bad shape right now.
Alderman Poehls commented that nobody wants to raise the rotes, and he does not appreciate it
when he has to pay his bill. He commended the staff and the people used to assess the situation and
to determine what needed to be done to resolve the issues. Long-term maintenance can be done so
the city does not have to face this issue again some day. He thanked the staff for all the work done
to provide that information.
Alderman Oakes said that the staff, the council, and the mayor have a Capital Improvement Plan to
spend the money. The water plant was nearly collapsed before improvements were made. If it had
collapsed, it would have been a reactive move to rebuild the plant. Now we are on a proactive basis,
and he thinks this rate increase is necessary to be proactive for maintenance of equipment,
infrastructure, streets, and everything else.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion to approve Resolution No. R04-117.
aldermen/women present voted aye. Motion carded 8-0.
All eight
l!
Council Minutes of November 16, 2004
· Resolution No. R04-118: Resolution authorizing the Mayor to sign an agreement to
provide health services with St. Vincent Healthcare of Billings, Montana.
Motion by Alderman Fritzler to approve Resolution No. R04-118, seconded by Alderwoman
Stevenson. A roll call vote was taken on the motion. All eight aldermen/women present voted aye.
Motion carried 8-0.
Resolution No. R04-119: A resolution authorizing the Mayor to sign a Memorandum of
Understanding to the Union Contract on behalf of the City of Laurel pertaining to the
city court clerk positions.
Motion by Alderman Poehls to approve Resolution No. R04-119, seconded by Alderman
Oakes. A roll call vote was taken on the motion. All eight aldermen/women present voted aye.
Motion carried 8-0.
Resolution No. R04-120: A reSolution authorizing the MayOr to sign a Memorandum of
Understanding to the Union Contract on behalf of the City of Laurel pertaining to the
utility worker positions.
Motion by Alderman Mace to approve Resolution No. R04~120, seconded by Alderman
Fritzler. A roll call vote was taken on the motion. All eight aldermen/women present voted aye.
Motion carried 8-0.
Ordinance No. O04-08: Ordinance amending certain sections of Chapter 8 for the
purpose of revising the procedure the City utilizes to establish the nonresidential
garbage fees and rates in the Laurel Municipal Code. First reading.
Motion by Alderman Dart to adopt Ordinance No. 004-08, seconded by Alderman Oakes. A
roll call vote was taken on the motion. All eight aldermen/women present voted aye. Motion
carried 8-0.
Mayor Olson stated that the staff has requested more time to review the ordinance, and the public
hearing would be set at a future date.
· Special Review for a day care center at 921 12' Avenue North. (Planning Board
recommended approval of the day care center without holding a second public heating.)
Motion by Alderman Easton to approve the Special Review for a day care center at 921 12th
Avenue North, seconded by Alderw0man Stevenson.
Alderwoman Johnson and her daughter recently visited the Kid Kountry in Billings. She stated that
the day care center is more like a pre-school, and they were impressed with the organization. The
teachers are all college graduates, and Alderwoman Johnson thinks it would be a positive addition to
the city.
A vote was taken on the motion to approve the Special Review for a day care center at 921 12t~
Avenue North. All eight aldermen/women present voted aye. Motion carried 8-0.
ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA: None.
COMMUNITY ANNOUNCEMENTS (ONE-MINUTE LIMIT):
Erl Tufie, Morrison-Maiefle, stated that he has worked in four communities and with dozens of
communities, and it still gives him a sense of pleasure when he sees councils that do the tough
business of dealing with issues such as utility rate increases. He knows it is not pleasant, but the
council did the right thing. He complimented the council for that and thanked them for the
opporttmity to work with them.
COUNCIL DISCUSSION:
Alderwoman Stevenson recently attended four hours of orientation for the Yellowstone City-County
Health Board. She stated that the Health Board provides many benefits to the City of Laurel
9
Council Minutes of November 16, 2004
Alderwoman Johnson attended the Big Sky EDA meeting last week. At the meeting, there was
discussion about the proposal to convert the resort tax into a local option sales tax. Joe McClure has
been working on that. If it went through, cities would be able to take their sales tax and spend it any
way they wanted. That it is the process, and the details are still being worked out.
Alderwoman Johnson mentioned that Ron Sexton, MSU-Billings, was at the BSEDA meeting. He
asked her about the progress of establishing a MSU-Billings office in the City of Laurel. She had
previously given the information to the Chamber of Commerce, and she contacted them again. Bob
Carr and Alderwoman Johnson will attend the Chamber of Commerce meeting on December 9th to
present the idea. Alderwoman Johnson plans to visit the office in Red Lodge soon. She thinks it
would be a great addition to get the university involved in our city, and she stated that the city may
need to be proactive in order to do so.
Alderman Mace thanked Alderwoman Johnson for the report on Kid Kountry.
Alderman Mace read a letter from Fire Chief Terry Ruff regarding the repairs that several firemen
completed on the tank on Engine No. 3. The estimate to repair the tank was $5,000 to $15,000, but
the members repaired it at a minimal cost. He suggested that other departments could save money if
they looked for similar opportunities. Alderman Mace asked that a letter be sent to thank the
firemen for their service in this regard.
Alderwoman Johnson stated that the fire department is a volunteer department. It has been a
tradition to treat the firemen to steaks if they were called to a fire at a fireman's home. Alderwomma
Johnson suggested that this seemed like a "steak" moment.
Mayor Olson stated that this type of brotherhood and sisterhood is developed over many years of
participation, and it is encouraging to see that the community recognizes that. He thanked Alderman
Mace for bringing it forward.
Mayor Olson mentioned that we are looking at getting the elected legislative officials together in the
near future to explain the League's legislative agenda. He would like to promote the fact that the
City of Laurel brought forth the proposal to increase the amount from $25,000 to $50,000 as a cap
for projects of construction. Counties have that, but cities do not, and that is the question that will be
stressed. There will be more discussion at council workshops.
UNSCHEDULED MATTERS: None.
ADJOURNMENT:
Motion by Alderwoman Stevenson to adjoum the council meeting, seconded by Alderman
Poehls. A roll call vote was taken on the motion. All eight aldermen/women present voted aye.
Motion carded 8-0.
There being no further business to come before the council at this rime, the meeting was adjourned at
7:50 p.m.
Cind~cretary
Approved by the Mayor and passed by the City Council of the City of Laurel, Montana, this 7th day
of December, 2004.
Attest:
~nneth E. Olson, Jr., M~yor
10
November 2004
Laurel City Council
Laurel, Montana 59044
Dear Council Members:
I want to express my reservations regarding the current
plotting of the Elena Subdivision, located at Golf Course
Road and Paynes Place.
As owner of three adjoining lots, I am requesting considera-
tion for a buffer zone of larger acreage lots behind my
three lots on Golf Course Road, size of at least ½ acres
will be satisfactory. The number of Units planned appears
to be too dense for the access capacities and multi-family
Units~ and a commercial establishment would most certainly
devalue my property.
Please take my and other adjoining property owner's concerns
into consideration before approving this subdivision.
Thank You,
JUANITA CANTRELL
1625 Wembly Place
Billings~ Montana 59102
As a homeowner within the Hudson Subdivision we are opposed to the approval of the
Elena Subdivision, and in particular, the request for a zoning change from single family
to multi-family residential. We believe a change to multifamily zoning is not consistent
with the surrounding area, and would lead to future traffic problems above what the
present system can handle.
Richard and Susan Blaskomch
1740 West Maryland Ln.
Laurel, Montana
Laurel City Council
115W lStSt
Laurel, MT 59044
Gary and Martha Kennedy
1123 Golf Course Rd
Laurel, MT 59044
November 16, 2004
Dear City Council,
The purpose of our letter is to protest the Second filing of the Elena Subdivision.
We are co-owners of 1123 Golf Course Rd, Laurel, MT that is adjacent to the Elena
Subdivision.
Experience has shown that multi-family zoning depreciates property values in the immediate
area. The proposed zoning change is not compatible with the homes that are around it.
Many of these homes are the nicest in Laurel. Large single family properties surround this
development.
We strongly urge you to not approve the proposed changes to the Elena Subdivision. Doing
so will have a negative effect on taxpayers and voters adjacent to the subdivision, only to the
benefit the developers.
If the proposed zoning changes take place, with smaller lots and multi-family lots, there will
be increased traffic on a road that is becoming unsafe for pedestrians, pets and wildlife.
Already cars and trucks speed up and down Golf Course Road getting to "a slower pace of
life" as a near by subdivision calls it. Cars have also bean seen drag racing down Golf
Course Road.
A lower speed limit on Golf Course Road is an issue that must be addressed by the
Planning board now. We can't imagine what it would be like with a multi-family subdivision
with 75-100 more cars added to this traffic.
Who will be responsible for extra traffic control that will be needed on near-by streets of the
Elena Subdivion? There has already been fatalities on these roads!
For these important reasons, please DO NOT approve the smaller lots and multi-family lots
to Elena Subdivision!
Respectfully,
Gary and Martha Kennedy
Peter J Beehner
1123 Golf Course Rd
Laurel, MT 59044
Laurel City Council
115 W 1~t St
Laurel, MT 59044
November 16, 2004
Laurel-Yellowstone City-County Planning Board
My name is Pete Beehner. I am co-owner and live at 1123 Golf Course Rd,
Laurel, MT.
I am writing this letter to strongly protest to the proposed zoning change for
the Elena Subdivision for 2 reasons.
First, it has been my experience in over 35 years as developer and home
builder in Madison, Wisconsin, that smaller lots and multi-family lots will
depreciate the value of homes that are near by.
Second, it would not be right or fair to the families surrounding this
subdivision that have purchased homes in the last couple of years, some in
the range of $300,000. to have their homes depreciated because of multi-
family zoning. The zoning change is not compatible for this area.
I hope that the members of the Laurel-Yellowstone City-County Planning
Board will DENY the request for a zoning change for this area.
Sincerely,
Pete J. Beehner
We, the undersigned, object to tile proposed EIE
We respectfully request that the Laurel City Council deny the dl
Print Name Address
2.
3.
4.
{a ~ubdi,~isioh. 2004
;velC~pment of_t~i~., ,hdi~isiol
E!T'' ~ ! :'
29.
32. .~.
33. ,t ,,
34.(
Yellowstone
City- Coun. ty o, °4oo
o~ oo
Healtlt
~ ~° ~ O Phone: (406) 247=3200 · Fax: (406) 24)-3202
l~ep~l~llle~l[ :[ 123 South 27th. P.O. BOX 35033° Billinss, MT 59107
October 26, 2004
Bob and Ruby Hanson
1745 W. Maryland
Laurel, Montana 59044
RE: Elena Subdivision, 2nd Filing (Proposed)
Laurel, Montana
Dear~r:and:Mr~iB0bHanson: --¥ ....... : : : v ~ : ~: :: ....... :
The Yellowstone City-County Health Department has received your letter dated October 18, 2004 indieat'ing your concerns
about th~ potential runoff from the proposed Elena Subdivision, 2~d Filing. Hopefully I can answer some of your questions that
you posed in your letter.
The first filing of Elena Subdivision was reviewed by the Yellowstone City-County Health Department and approved by the
Department of Environmental Quality. All aspects of this four (4) lot subdivision were reviewed including the storm water
retention plans. All subdivisions, as a part of the review process, must submit data concerning the retention of storm water
The proposed Elena Subdivision, 2nd Filing~ is proposing to connect to the City of Laurel Public Water and Sewer Systems. The
Yellowstone City-County Health Department does not review or approv~ subdivisions that are being Connected to public
systems, therefore Elena Subdivision, 2ad Filing will not he reviewed by this department.:
This subdivision is currently undergoing review at the local planning board level. I believe tha~ there is a Second public hearing
scheduled for early November. You may need to check with the Laurel City Planning Department to find out the exact date and
nme.
I have contacted Pat Davies with Engineering, Inc. and related your concerns to him. I also sent him a copy ofy0ur letter. He
said he would review your concerns and address your concerns at the next public hearing.
~h~ on-sit~ typc~f-sto~, water retention mea~ hav~been disoussed in the past concernLn~ fhen~ being potential rnO~qaito
breeding areas. These are designed to be short term facilities and not to hold much water for any length of time.
Hopefully you will attend the next public meeting and voice your concerns. If you have any further questi6ns that Z may be able
to help you with, please call 256-2770. :
: : :
R.S.
Director, E.H. Program ' :::
cc: Bill Kenndey, YelloWstone Co. comm/ssioner, Courthouse, Billings, MT.
~Ken Olsen, Mayor, City of Laurel, Laurel City Hall, Laurel, MT. File
E:H. Reading File
Environmental Health Program · Courthouse Room 308 · Phone: (406) 256-2770 ~ Fax: (406) 256:2767
BRENT R. CROMLEY
GERALD B. MURPHY
K. KENT KOOLEN
GREGORY G. MURPHY
W. A. FORSYTHE
DOUG JAMES
BRAD H. ANDERSON
THOMAS E. SMITH
JOHN T. JONES
HARLAN R, KROGH
DUNCAN A. PEETE
BERNARD E. LONGO
OF COUNSEL
Law Offices
MOULTON, BELLINGHAM, LONGO & MATHER, P.C.
SUITE 1900, SI-IEP~TON PLAZA
27 NORTH 27TH STREET
P. O. BOX 2559
BILLINGS, MONTANA 59103-2559
Telephone (406) 248-7731
Fax (406) 248-7889
www. moultonlawfirm. EGm
MICHELE L. JENSEN
THOMAS A. MACKAY
MICHAEL E. BEOLEY
WILl JAM O. RYAN. JR.
JEFFG SOREN$ON
JESSICA T. KOBEG
FREDRIC O. MOIJLTON
[1912-1989]
W. S. MATHER
[1922-1998!
WM. H, BELLtNGHAM
[1920-2002.]
November 11,2004
Alderman John Oakes
2317 East Maryland
Laurel, MT 59044
Re: Elena Subdivision, Second Filing
Zone Change Request
Annexation Request
Dear Alderman oakes:.
We represent Mr. Dirk Moler in the above-captioned matter. We ask you respect the
wishes of the surrounding homeowners and reject the proposed zone change and annexation
requests. Them is a valid pm test. A substantial number of the neighboring property owners
protest and object to the proposed annexation and zone change.
Unfortunately, the developer has been unwilling to meet with us to discuss our concerns.
We attempted on several occasions to arrange a meeting between our client, the developer, and
his engineer. We hoped that with open communication the parties would be able to achieve a
compromise that would be beneficial to all parties. Unfortunately, however, the developer would
not meet with us. We believe that the developer's recalcitrance and unwillingness to meet with
his neighbom to discuss this development is further grounds to deny his annexation and zone
change applications.
The reasons for our objections to this subdivision am many. You have already read the
lettem from several of the surrounding homeowners in which they have voiced their strenuous
objections to this project. In addition to the compelling quality of life issues raised by the
homeowners, I wish to emphasize other factual and legal masons why the City Council should
disapprove of this project. It should be noted that due to the overwhelming community protest
concerning this project, sufficient opposition exists to constitute a "valid protest" for which a
supermajodty of the City Council must consent in order to approve the project.
First, the surrounding homeowners who purchased lots in the original Elena Subdivision
did so with assurances from the developer that any future development in nearby areas Would be
November 11,2004
Page 2
consistent with that of the First Filing of the Elena Subdivision, as articulated in the Covenants,
Conditions, and Restrictions (CCR's)filed in Yellowstone County on June 18, 2002 (See letter to
Planning Board from Molers, October 4, 2004; See also letter to Planning Board from Millers,
October 1, 2004). Specifically, paragraph 1 of the original CCRs limits development in the
subdivision to only single family residences, not multi-family dwellings of any sort. Paragraph 2
of the CCRs specifically excludes duplexes and any other multiple dwelling units in the
subdivision. The proposed Second Filing of the Elena Subdivision seeks to deviate from the
original CCRs by permitting far smaller lot sizes which will lead to far greater housing density.
Such a proposal is inconsistent with the original developer's verbal assurances that the
surrounding property would be developed in a manner consistent with the original subdivision,
meaning single family residences on lots of one acre or more.
If this project is approved in an amended form, the City Council should compel the
developer to adopt the CCRs from the First Filing (filed as document #3180965), for use in the
Second Filing in order to preserve the continuity and integrity of both subdivisions. Additionally,
a minimum lot size requirement, of at least one-half acre, should be added to the CCRs to respect
and memorialize the developer's assurances and to avoid congestion and density problems. The
CCRs for the Second Filing should also include a prohibition on mobile homes and multi-family
dwellings. Further, the proposed commercial lot in the Second Filing should be eliminated to
preserve the residential nature of the subdivision as set forth in paragraphs #1 and #2 of the
original CCRs.
In addition to broken verbal assurances made to homeowners in the first Elena subdivision,
this new high-density subdivision is generally incompatible with the existing neighborhood. As can
be discerned from the concerned homeowners' letters, and as is generally the case for
homeowners throughout America, a family buys a home not just for the lot, the view, or the
physical house, but for the atmosphere, the surroundings, the neighbors, and the overall quality
of life afforded by living in a particular community or a particular part of a community. The overall
quality of life in which a homeowner invests is secured in part by a subdivision's CCRs and by the
assurances a developer makes to the homeowner.
Of course, there is no absolute guarantee that the flavor and character of a particular
,neighborhood may not change over the course of the years or the generations as the community
in general changes. The homeowners objecting to this subdivision are not opposed to
development per se. However, change needs to be controlled, and it needs to be consistent. The
average American's biggest asset is his or her home and the majority of the average American's
wealth is locked up in this asset. The homeowners' concern that the value of their homes will be
diminished by the creation of this new subdivision is real and it is legitimate. I do not need to
reiterate the homeowners' concerns on this issue in detail. They have been well articulated in
their letters to the Planning Board. Smaller houses on smaller lots lead to more congestion which
diminishes the overall attractiveness of a neighborhood. Decreased property values and more
traffic in the surrounding areas are a natural consequence of this kind of planning.
Although the developer has recently made some concessions with respect to the proposed
multi-family dwellings, they are insufficient. The overall structure of this subdivision, with its high
November 11, 2004
Page 3
number of dwellings in a small area, falls to preserve the standards and the quality of life in which
the homeowners of the Elena Subdivision, First Filing, have invested and they fail to honor the
mandates of the CCRs upon which the odginal homeowners have depended.
The proposed Second Filing of the Elena Subdivision might be appropriate and serve the
needs of the community if it were not located where it is. Due primarily to the reliance of the
homeowners in the Elena Subdivision, First Filing, on assurances by the original developer as
expressed in the CCRs of the First Filing, it would be unfair and inappropriate to completely alter
the nature of the neighborhood by allowing this kind of proposed development.
For all of these reasons, I urge you to reject the proposed zone change and annexation
requests for the Elena Subdivision, Second Filing. If the City Council is in favor of allowing this
annexation and zone change, then we ask that annexation be specifically conditioned upon the
following additional grounds:
The developer must adopt and record CCRs for the Elena Subdivision, Second Filing, that
are consistent with the CCRs for the Elena Subdivision, First Filing.
2. Modular homes and mobile homes should be prohibited.
The allowed use should be strictly for single family residences. All multi family housing
should be prohibited.
All commercial development should be prohibited. This is a residential neighborhood and
the residential character of the neighborhood should be preserved.
Sincerely,
MOULTON, BELLINGHAM, LONGO
& MATHER, P.C.
~O-13'~-J A IVI'E S
DJ:ssm
cc: Cai Cumin, Planning Director
F:\Users\DJ~Moler~C[ty Council.ltr. wpd
BP,~ H. ANDERSON
JOHN T. JONEE
Law Offices
MOULTON, BELLINGHAM, LONGO & MATH ~:R, P.C.
SUITE 1900, SHERATON PLAZA
27 NORTH 27TH STREET
P. O. BOX 2559
BILLINGS, MONTANA $9103-2559
Telephone (406) 248-773 !
Fax (406) 248-7889
www. moultonlawfirm.com
FREDNIC D. MOUtTON
[1912-19ag]
W, S. MATHER
[197.2-1~]
WM, H, BELJ. INGHAM
[1920-2002]
November 11, 2004
Pat Davies
Engineering, Inc.
1260 South 32"d Street West
PO Box 81345
Billings, MT 59108-1345
Re:
Our Client: Dirk Moler
Matter: Elena Subdivision-Annexation and Zone Change
Dear Pat:
As you know, we represent some of the neighbors who are protesting the annexation and zone
change for the Elena Subdivision, Second Filing. Enough of the neighbors have protested to create a valid
protest.
I contacted you last week in hopes that we could set up a meeting between the developer and
some of the neighbors. I have encouraged everyone to be a good neighbor and to be willing to
compromise. In that spirit of compromise, I thought a meeting would be beneficial for all parties. Our
clients have expressed a willingness to compromise. If the developer was willing to compromise a little
bit, I think we could come up with a plan that everyone could support.
Under these circumstances, I am shocked that the developer has refused to meet with us. In all
the years that I have been doing real estate development work, I cannot think of a single other instance
where the developer has refused to meet with his neighbors. Actions clearly speak louder than words.
In this case, the developer's refusal to meet with us speaks volumes about the type of developer he is
going to be and about the type of neighbor he is going to be.
Please know that we seriously regret the developer's unwillingness to meet with his neighbors.
Sincerely,
DOUG JAMES
DJ:ssm
cc: Laurel City Mayor and Aldermen
Cai Cumin
We the undemigned object to the proposed Eene Subd V S on
We mspe(~ffully request that the laurel City CoanCll deny the deve epment of this subdiv~lm~
Pr/~t Name Address S/nnature /' Pete
\ ~ ~' '~ ' - .' ' J '~. ~ n ~'~ . ' ¢. · '
.'~ . . ~ ,', , , . . ~ . '~ .
12.. ~ ~ C/1~.,,~ -,]", }*' ." ~ ].""~"kO. ~ ,~,-'~I~ ~ ,':~"~'*';' ''
ENGINEERING INC.
Consulting Engineers and Lend Surveyors
November 5, 2004
Mr. Cai Cumin, AICP
Planning Director
City of Laurel
115 West First Street
Laurel, MT 59044
Reference:
Elena Subdivision, Second Filing
E.I. No. 00017.03
Dear Cal:
In regard to the 12 conditions outlined by the Laurel-Yellowstone City-County Planning Board,
we offer the following:
The neighborhood commereial zoning has been removed fi'om Lot 1, Block 6.
Lot 1, Block 3 is now proposed for the neighborhood commercial zoning.
The proposed residential-multifamily zoning has been removed fxom Lots 2
through 8, Block 6. The proposed zoning for Lots 2 thxough 8, Block 6, is now
R-7500. Residential-multifamily is no longer proposed for any lots.
The residential-multifamily zoning for Lots 4 through 6, Block 2, has been
removed. These lots are now proposed for R-6000 zoning~ which is more
restrictive than the residential limited mulfifamily zoning requested by the
planning board.
The requested zoning for Lot 1, Block 5, has been changed to R-6000 as
requested by the planning board.
It is understood that the preliminary plat will not be approved until the city
council has agreed with the proposed zoning.
The applicant will construct a sound barrier fence along the south side of Woods
Way to comply with this condition.
1260South32ndS,eetWest · Billiags, NIT 59102 · Phone(406)656-5255 · [ax (406) 656-0967 · w~.enginc.cam
Mr. Cal Cum/n, AICP
Planning Director
City of Laurel
November 5, 2004
Page 2
o
Existing irrigation rights and irrigation ditch rights will be addressed by the
applicant prior to final plat approval.
The park area proposed for stormwater detention has been revised to be Lot 16,
Block 2. By removing this area from Park ~V2, the park dedication of 1.20 acres is
still met by the combination of Park #1 and the revised area of Park #2 (area along
the Big Ditch). Therefore, no improvements to the park areas or cash-in-lien of
land should be required. A homeowner's association will be created prior to final
plat approval for maintenance of the stormwater detention areas.
All streets, street widths, fights-of-way, and ADA requirements shall meet the
standards utilized by the City of Laurel. The slreet widths and right-of-way
widths shown on the revised plat meet the City of Laurel requirements.
10.
The applicant agrees to meet the requirements of the Laurel Volunteer Fire
Department.
11.
The applicant agrees to meet the requirements for weed control as outlined by the
county weed department.
12.
All easements, as requested by the utility companies, will be provided on the final
plat.
We have enclosed 15 copies of the revised preliminary plat and 15 color copies of the zoning
exhibit which details the current proposed zoning. Please feel free to comact me if you have any
questions.
Sincerely,
Patrick Davies, PE
Senior Engineer
/jnp
c: Dave Bequette, Owner
P:C:00017_03_Cumin 01