Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity/County Planning Board Minutes 08.20.2015 • MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING LAUREL CITY-COUNTY PLANNING BOARD AUGUST 20,2015 10:00 AM COUNCIL CHAMBERS MEMBERS PRESENT: Kathy Siegrist, Chairman Dan Koch, City Rep. Judy Goldsby,County Rep. Lee Richardson, County Rep. Hazel Klein,City Rep. Greg Nelson,City Rep. OTHERS PRESENT: Monica Plecker, Contracted City Planner CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Siegrist called the meeting to order at 10:00 am. ROLL CALL: Members present were Koch, Goldsby, Richardson, Klein, Nelson and Siegrist. OLD BUSINESS: Zone Change Request: North Magelssen Road Ag Open to Residential Tracts Monica Plecker presented the updated staff report with new findings since the August 6, 2015 meeting. UPDATED STAFF REPORT: Engineering West has submitted an application for zone change on behalf of Tim and Sean Russell. The affected parcel is located in Yellowstone County. The general location is approximately two road-miles east of Laurel on North Magelssen Road,%mile north of the intersection of South Laurel Road and North Magelssen Road. The legal description of the property is Parcel 1:511,T02 S, R24 E, E2SESE. The parcel is approximately 20 acres in size. The existing legal access is North Magelssen Road and is vacant land. The existing zone is Agricultural Open. The proposed zoning is Residential Tracts. The proposed land use is single-family dwellings, Minor Subdivision. Land to the north is zoned Agricultural Open with a land use of agricultural. Land to the south is unzoned with the land use of Agricultural and SW is residential. Land to the east is zoned Agricultural Open with the land use of agricultural and residential. Land to the west is zoned Agricultural Open with the land use of agricultural. The owners of the property are Tim and Sean Russel from Columbus, Montana. Concurrent Application: There is no concurrent application, but a forthcoming subdivision application is mentioned in the zone change application materials. 1 STAFF FINDINGS: 1. LMC 17.72.030 requires a pre-application conference for persons or parties interested in submitting an application for zone change. A pre-application meeting was held on June 10, 2015 prior to the submission of the application. The Planning, Public Works and County legal were in attendance. 2. The application, aerial map and zoning map have been attached. 3. The existing zoning of Agricultural Tracts requires a minimum of 20 acres for one dwelling unit. The proposed Residential Tract designation requires only 1 acre for 1 dwelling. 4. The application refers to a forthcoming subdivision application. At the pre-application meeting the applicant's agent stated the application would contain 5 lots. 5. The applicant has stated there are no covenants or deed restrictions on the property. 6. The parcel is currently vacant. 7. The lot has existing legal and physical access. 8. This parcel has not been identified on the Future Land Use map adopted as a part of the Growth Management Plan. The future land use map only identified areas adjacent to Laurel City Limits. Generally,the growth management plan supports fostering natural resources like agricultural property while recognizing the need for house. FURTHER STAFF FINDS: 9. The Planning Board voted to delay action until August 20,2015, at which time a special meeting will be held. 10. During the public hearing held on August 6, 2015,comments were received stating the approval of this zone change request would be illegal spot zoning. There are existing agricultural and residential uses in the area and an established residential neighborhood within close proximity. The proposed use does not differ significantly from the already existing uses within the area. The Planning Board should consider existing uses and proposed uses, impacts,compliance with zoning amendment criteria,and the growth management plan when making a recommendation. a. The property is wholly surrounded by agricultural open zoned properties, however,this alone does not support a spot zoning claim. The existing uses in the area should be considered as well. b. Laurel Municipal Code 17.12.030 defines the Agricultural-Open Space zone is"intended to preserve land for agricultural and related use. Land within this zone is usually unsubdivided and with a minimum of roads,streets and other utilities. It may be cultivated acreage or land less suitable for cultivation,yet suitable for various agricultural enterprises using the broadest scope of the agricultural definition. Land within this zone may be located adjacent to highways and arterial streets. The AO zone is further intended to discourage the scattered intrusion of uses not compatible with an agricultural rural environment." c. Laurel Municipal Code 17.12.034 states"This residential zone is designed for single- family residential homes on a minimum of one acre of land. Livestock is limited to two livestock units per area with additional units allowed per additional half acre increments" d. Residential Tracts and Agricultural Open zoning designations appear to be compatible in the sense of transitional zoning. Both allow for livestock and dwellings. 11. It was also discovered that the subject property was a part of a zone change request in 2008. 2 a. In 2008 Frank and Doyletta Zweifel applied for a zone change on a parcel located at 2845 S. Laurel Road. The parcel was 40 acres(this current zone change request of 20 acres was part of that 40 acres). It was determined by the planning board that residential use was not compatible with the Growth Management Plan at that time, citing loss of prime farmland, incompatible uses adjacent uses. b. Currently,the Laurel City-County Planning Jurisdiction is operating under the Growth Management Plan which was adopted in 2013. The 2013 plan does not include restrictive language for agricultural property and clearly defines a need for residential housing. 12. It was also noted during the public hearing that there was a gravel pit within close proximity to the subject property. Staff research concludes that the inactive pit site had a reclamation date of 2011. After speaking with the Department of Environmental Quality the permit holder could apply for amendment at any time to continue the use. Staff was told that permit amendments are denied when environmental factors like water contamination or others are present in the area. Proximity to housing would not be a reason to deny a permit amendment. Any amendment must be in compliance with the open cut mining laws. It should be noted and assumed that gravel pit mining can resume and therefore the compatibility of neighboring uses should be considered. a. The existing mine site is located approximately%2 mile from the subject property and approximately 2 road miles from the southern portion of the subject property to the entrance of the gravel mine. 13. A map showing prime farmland has been attached. The subject property is not classified as prime. 14. The Laurel City-County Planning Jurisdiction is operating under the Growth Management Plan which was adopted in 2013. The 2013 plan does not include restrictive language for agricultural property and clearly defines a need for residential housing. ZONING COMMISSION CONSIDERATIONS AND RECOMMENDATION: Montana Code Annotated 76-2-304 states that 1. Zoning regulations must be: a. Made in accordance with a growth police; and b. Designed to: i. Secure safety from fire and other dangers; ii. Promote public health, public safety and the general welfare;and iii. Facilitate the adequate provision of transportation,water, sewer, schools, parks and other public requirements. 2. In the adoption of zoning regulations,the municipal governing body shall consider: a. Reasonable provision of adequate light and air; b. The effect on motorized and non-motorized transportation systems; c. Promotion of compatible urban growth; d. The character of the district and its peculiar suitability for particular uses; e. Conserving the value of buildings and encouraging the most appropriate use of land throughout the jurisdictional area. As per LMC 17.72.060 the Zoning Commission shall make a recommendation to the City Council to: 1. Deny the application for amendment to the official map; 3 1 • 2. Grant action on the application for a period not to exceed thirty days; 3. Delay action on the application for a period not to exceed thirty day; 4. Give reasons for the recommendation. PROCEDURAL HISTORY: 1. June 10, 2015—Pre-application meeting. 2. July 16th and July 23`d 2015 Public hearing noticed in Laurel Outlook(Certified Mailings) 3. August 6th 2015 Public Hearing and Planning Board Recommendation. Chairman Siegrist told the audience that even though the public hearing was held on August 6, 2015 and this is not a public hearing she will allow audience members to speak for no longer than three (3) minutes. Audience input: Forrest Mandeville of Engineering West out of Columbus, Montana spoke. He is the agent for applicants Tim and Sean Russell. Forrest thanked the board for allowing his input again and for all the work Monica did on the application between the public hearing and now. He went on to state that he does not believe it is spot zoning as spot zoning has a very specific definition that has to be a completely different use than what is being proposed. This proposed use is a very acceptable use to the nearby agricultural properties. This proposed use is not detrimental to any of the surrounding properties and will enhance and not detract from the area properties. It will be good for the Laurel area. Chairman Siegrist asked if there were any other audience members wishing to speak. There were none. Judy Goldsby made a motion stating after having weighed the information presented by staff,the applicant and the public, specifically Mr. Burdette's comments she moves to recommend approval of the zone change request for the property legally described as S11,T02S, R24E, E2NESE 20 acres from Agricultural Open to Residential Tracts. The motion was seconded by Hazel Klein. BOARD DISCUSSION: Judy Goldsby asked for clarification as to whether the gravel pit is on the map that was handed out. Monica set up the projector to help with the clarification of the location of the gravel pit and to show photographs of the surrounding area by the proposed zone change. The existing mine site (gravel pit) is located approximately Y2 mile from the subject property and it is approximately 2 road miles from the southern portion of the subject property to the entrance of the gravel pit. Monica showed the map and photos of existing residential uses currently within the area of the proposed zone change. Monica pointed out 3 existing residential uses in the area of which 2 are currently inhabited and one is not inhabited but could be in the future. One of the residential uses is connected to an agricultural use. 4 There are several dwellings on South Maggelsen that are obvious residential uses and not related to any agricultural use. There is also a dwelling that is not within Laurel's zoning but is approximately 1/8 of a mile away from the proposed zone change. The residential uses are closer to the property requesting the zone change than the gravel pit is. Monica did speak with DEQ and was told that even though the gravel pit is not currently used and its reclamation year on the gravel pit permit was 2011 the permit can still be amended and permitted for use in the future. It is legal to amend the permits an unlimited amount of times. Judy Goldsby asked if putting residents on the proposed property would have any bearing on the possible re-opening of the gravel pit. Monica stated that only environmental factors would keep the gravel pit from being issued an amended permit. The proposed residential zoning has no bearing on a permit being issued. The DEQ representative Monica spoke with said there are many gravel pits within the state that are in close proximity to residential areas. Hazel Klein mentioned that on 72nd Street West in Laurel there is a gravel pit in close proximity to the Linley Lakes subdivision. Dan Koch asked if the property proposing the zone change and currently used for agriculture has livestock on it. Monica stated when she was at the property a week ago there was no livestock being kept on the property. It is not being farmed and it is vacant. It is un-grazed pasture land with a combination of weeds and grass on it. This proposed zone change would definitely not take 20 acres out of any type of farming/ranching production. Greg Nelson asked where the property for CHS Refinery is in relation to this proposed zone. Monica stated that without the ability right now to search property records to the best of her knowledge she thinks the CHS property is quite a distance to the west between Lindy Lane and Strauch Road. To the east of the property Circle Land Management, Inc. owns the property and she believes that company is associated with the CHS property. Lee Richardson asked if the board had to base their approval on sewer and water issues for the subdivision. Monica stated this is a zone change request and water and sewer issues are looked at during the subdivision review process. Monica stated that the board is looking at whether or not this will impact the surrounding properties should the zone be changed. Because the property is within close proximity to the City of Laurel the next appropriate zone would be to move to Residential Tracts as it would be the least impactable zone change to the surrounding area. Kathy Siegrist stated that this proposed change will not have a big impact on surrounding agricultural use. Judy Goldsby stated that had the land been good for farm use it would still be farmed. 5 Chairman Siegrist quoted an article from Billings which says that the City of Billings faces exponential growth. Our growth rate would not be achieved unless approximately 22 dwelling units were added each year. The City of Laurel is probably not meeting that growth but it is something to be considered. Monica stated the current Growth Management Plan plans for a 1.75%annual population growth rate. The language in the Growth Management Plan far supports residential development as opposed to what would be a loss to agricultural property on this particular parcel. Hazel Klein spoke. Hazel is a Laurel realtor. She stated the Laurel real estate market is currently showing about 80 active listings with about 40% under contract. In past years it has been running 110 to 115 listings with 20%being under contract. If you look at today's housing demand it is low on inventory and up on sales.Those numbers indicate a need for residential housing. This past spring and summer the realty market has seen an increase in the purchase of lots to build new housing because there is not enough existing housing available. She thinks that there is a demand for more housing within the city limits and the outer one-mile zoning jurisdiction. Judy Goldsby stated that her initial concern was losing farmable agricultural land. With this land obviously not prime farmland she is no longer concerned with this proposed zone change. Lee Richardson asked if there was ever and/or is still irrigation available to the land. Forrest Mandeville,agent for the land owner stated that there are water rights associated with the land and he believes the owners plan is to split the existing water rights between the future lots. There is also a drainage ditch that runs along the north side of the property but the owners have not encountered a lot of water,to date, in the ditch. As far as the irrigation ditches along the property it is limited to laterals off the main ditch which is located to the west. The proposal for the subdivision is for individual wells and a community drain field. It will all be subject to DEO approval. Chairman Siegrist stated there was discussion at the public hearing that because of the close proximity of the railroad and interstate this is not prime residential property but with proposing small acreage lots she feels they are suitable for residential use. Monica stated that past comments were made that this would not be a suitable area for residential use because there is a rail yard with noise and lighting in close proximity. She reminded the board that Laurel was built on and around the rail yard. Chairman Siegrist asked for more discussion. There was none. At this time the motion was voted on and passed by a unanimous vote of 5-0. The meeting was adjourned at 10:43 am. Respectfully submitted, Cheryll Lund,Secretary 6