Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity/County Planning Board Minutes 09.01.2005DRAFT MINUTES LAUREL-YELLOWSTONE CITY-COUNTY PLANNING BOARD SePtember 1, 2005, 7:00 pm Council Chambers Members Present: Others Present: Gerald Shay, Chairman Bud Johnson, City Rep. Ed Thurner, City Rep. Todd Linder, City Rep. Dan Koch, City Rep. Greg Johnson, County Rep. Dan Ruff, County Rep. Rick Flanagan, County Rep. Cai Cumin, City Planner Cheryll Lund, City Secretary Clarence Eastlick Chad Eastlick There was a lengthy discussion regarding recommendations that the Planning Board pass along to the City Council. The board is confused and is requesting that the City Attorney advise the board as to what form of motion he recommends. Motion by Rick Flanagan, second by Dan Ruff, to update the minutes from the August 4, 2005 Planning Board meeting to reflect the boards intention; the board recommends that the City Council deny the application as submitted by Patrick Mullaney for zone change request, and to direct that the application be resubmitted to reflect single-family zone of R7500 on the lower parcel and RLMF on the upper parcel; and, that a larger, more legible map of the property be submitted. Motion carried by a vote of S-1, with 1 member abstaining. (Thurner voted nay and Bud Johnson abstained). Motion by Rick Flanagan, second by Dan Koch, to update the minutes of the August 4, 2005 meeting to recommend to the City Council that the zone change request not be approved for 1303 Old Hwy 10 West. Motion carried by a vote ors-1 with 1 member abstaining. (Thurner voted nay, and Bud Johnson abstained). Motion by Rick Flanagan, second by Dan Ruff, to accept the August 4, 2005 minutes as amended. Motion carried by a vote of 5-2. (Thurner and Bud Johnson voted nay). Public Hearing - Variance - Eastlick at 1102 Montana Avenue - Allow 3% Over Lot AllowabL Lot Coverage in R-7500 Clarence Eastlick, 1102 Montana Avenue, read his letter verbatim to the board (see attached letter). Clarence added that since he has applied for this variance there have been several properties that have changed owners. He has contacted those new property owners and they have signed the petition in favor of this variance request. This needs to be added to Letter F in his letter. OPPONENTS: There were no opponents to this variance. The public hearing was closed at 7:30 pm. Cal stated that he sympathizes with the applicant but variances deal with the land and not the people that own the land. Cai read L.M.C. 17.08.12. Variance. "Variance" means an adjustment in the application of the Specific regulations of this title to a particular piece of property which property, because of special circumstances applicable to it, is deprived of privileges commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same vicinity or zone." Cai went on to state that this variance does not meet code and does not meet the requirements ora request for a variance. Professionally he cannot recommend approval of this variance for Mr. Eastlick. A question was raised on the board's recommendation the first time Mr. Eastiick's variance request came thru the Planning Board. It was stated that the bOard made a motion to approve the variance application, but the motion failed. The variance went on to the City Council and at that time Mr. Eastlick brought forth information that had not been brought up at the Planning Board meeting. Therefore, the City Council sent the variance application back to the Planning Board for the holding of another public hearing and a recommendation. Discussion. Todd Linder stated that his opinion of why a board like this exists is the spirit of why we have freedom in this country. The board is made up of people from the town and the county that review issues that have different letters of the law; and, we have professionals that are here to help us interpret the law. But, sometimes issues come down to, and this is what makes our country free and different is that there may be times when board members have to decide if this is a bad thing. Todd referred to 17.04(B) that talks about promoting: 1) Health, safety, and general well being; supplying adequate open space - light and air; and, does it facilitate economically to the city and community? Todd went on to say that when the board makes these decisions/recommendations they can look at what the law says, and it's definitions, but also ask what is the spirit of it? Is the spirit to have these issues so we can just blatantly deny everything that comes before the board because of the law? On the~downside to the board interpreting what it feels, because we all own property, is that we might open Pandora's box as the Public Works Code Enforcement suggests. The board members have to ask themselves these questions, and bend, if they feel the need. Cai stated that the intent of the 30% lot coverage is for considering public health & safety, fire, density, and noise problems. 2 Bud Johnson stated that the information presented by Mr. Eastlick suggests that this applicant has a situation that pulls it as close to consideration as it can be. Bud's concern is that when situations get adjusted as a mater of course, when a decision is made to move away from the rules, someone is at a focal point of that consideration. It is not an easy consideration for the board, on a humanistic side, but the city and community also deserve consideration. Thirty percent is hardly anything, but 30% is 30%, not 30% plus or minus. There are both sides that need to be looked at. Motion by Todd Linder, second by Rick Flanagan, to recommend approval to the City Council for only the 3% excess lot coverage that Mr. Eastlick requested for his address of 1102 Montana Avenue. Rick Flanagan pointed out that there have been no opponents to this request, and that there is enormous support from the neighbors; that this new construction will enhance the property and neighborhood; that the.clearances and setbacks fall within the code; and, he would not be afraid of saying no to other variances. At this time the question was called and the motion passed by a vote of 5-2 (Thurner and Bud Johnson voted nay). Cai stated that the board would hold a public hearing at the October 6, 2005 meeting concerning corner lot setbacks. Public Input None. The meeting was adjourned at 7:50 pm. Respectfully subm~ed, Cheryll Lund, Secretary 3 CITY OF LAUREL 1i5 W, 1st P.O. Box 10 Laurel, Montana ,59044 CiTY OF LAUP~EL, MONTANA City-County Planning Board -~_PP~ZCATZON POP. v3u~z~cz This applicasion covers appeals from decisions of the City Building Inspector and for requests for variances concerning setbacks, structure heights, lot coverage, etc. but not for variances that change allowed land uses. The undersigned as owner or agent of owner of the following described property requests a variance to the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Laurel as outlined by the laws of the State of Montana. !. Legal descriptionof property: ~D~ /~~/~ ~ 2. Street address and general location: 3, Present zone classification: 5. Artec p -- wi 9 ' g- / g , - parking, existing building locations (use solid ~!ines), proposed building additions (use dashed lines), and other info,etlon relevant to.the vari~ce. Agent ( s ) (.telephone) (address) (telephone) 7. Provide copy of covenants or deed restrictions on property. I understand that the filing fee accompanying this application is not refundable, that it pays part of the cost of processing, and that the fee does not constitute a payment for a variance· I also understand I or my agent must appear at the hearing of this request before the Board of Adjustment. Ail of the information presented by me is true and correct t~ the best of my knowledge. Fee paid ($ 150.00 '~' Date application received: I (WE) THE UNDERSIGNED HAVE NO OBJECTIONS TO CLARENCE EASTLICK BUILDING A NEW GARAGE AT 1102 MONTANA AVENUE NAME ADDRESS I 0/~/E) THE UNDERSIGNED HAVE NO OBJECTIONS TO CLARENCE EASTLICK BUILDING A NEW GARAGE AT 1102 MONTANA AVENUE ¢-4ME , , / . Clarence Eastlick request for allowing more than 30% coverage at 1102 Montana Avenue Lots size is 7,043 square feet 30% coverage = 2112.9 square feet house size - 1535.0 square feet left to cover 577.9 square feet proposed new garage size 832 square feet Over allowable Coverage of 30% by: 254.1 square feet llSW. 1ST ST. PUB WORKS: 628-4796 WATER OFC: 628-743 I COURT: 628-1964 FAX: 628-2241 City Of Laurel P.O. Box 10 Laurel, Montana 59044 June 30, 2005 TO: Laurel City County Planning Board FROM: Gary Colley, Code Enforcement RE: Clarence Eastlick Variance DEPARTMENT Mr. Eastlick proposed a garage to be constructed on his property at 1102 Montana Avenue in Laurel, Montana. In reviewing his requested I discovered that with this additional structure he would exceed the maximum lot coverage of 30% outlined in Laurel Municipal Code Chapter 17.16 for property zoned R-7500. It is my recommendation that this variance be disallowed. Allowing this variance would open the door for noth/ng but a string of such variances. It would set a precedence that would be ongoing for years to come. S~(~Lrely' Gary A_ Colley Code Enforcement Officer City Of Laurel is an EEO Employer Equal Housing Opportunity Clarence Eastlick 1102 Montana Ave. Laurel, MT 59044 8EP 1 2005 CiTY OF LAUREL To start with I would like to apologize for having to come before this board again. I am learning how this process works and was clearly not prepared at the last public hearing concerning my request for a variance to exceed the allowed lot coverage in my subdivision. The allowed coverage is 30% and I am requesting to cover 33%. I am approaching retirement age and would like to have room to do metal working and wood working. Also, I have recently been diagnosed with Enteropathic Spondyloarthropathy. It is an auto- immune disease similar to Rheumatoid Arthritis. It entails me having arthritis, sometimes debilitating, in several joints in my body, as well as some involvement with my internal organs. On bad days it is difficult for me to get in and out of my vehicles while parked in the garage as there is not enough room to open the driver's door. Therefore, we have to crawl across the seat and get out on the passenger side. It would make getting in and out of vehicles a lot easier for my wife and I. My Rheumatologist, Dr. Arguelles has told me that it is imperative that I stay active and having the space to "hobby" would allow that. Also, he has stated there is a very strong possibility I will be disabled before retirement. I have photocopied the code for when or why a variance is granted. On several occasions throughout this process, Mr. Cumin has stated that there "is not a hardship in this case". The way that I read the code and with clarification from the City Attorney Mr. Painter, variance requests are not solely granted on a hardship basis. There are other factors or considerations to be made regarding the request for a variance. These are outlined under 17.64.150 VARIENCES - GRANTED WHEN on page 435. There are seven points under that heading to consider, lettered A through G. I feel that the points that are pertinent to my case are: Letter B, C, E, F and G. · Letter B should be considered because of the arthritic condition that I outlined earlier. · Letter C should be considered because a denial of this variance request would definitely contribute to a decrease in my physical activity levels by not being able to remain active year round. · Letter E should be considered for this variance request because I feel that by allowing this variance it would help me make improvements to my lot. It would be a nice addition to an already well cared for property. · Letter F should be considered for this request because I have acquired all but 2 of the required signatures of property owners within 300 feet of mine. One is in Texas with family and the other last lived in Belgrade and I was unable to locate them. Also, I am requesting to go over the allowed 30% lot coverage by another 3%. ! don't feel that this is that much of unreasonable request. I am not asking to cover 50 % of the lot. · Letter G should be considered in this variance request because my wife and I have owned this property since Memorial Day Weekend of 1973. The original code was enacted in 1979 and later amended in 2001. So I feel that I should be "Grandfathered in" so to speak. I thank you for your time in considering this matter. If you have any questions, I would be happy to clarify any concerns you have. Thank you. 17.64.010 Chapter 17.64 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Sections: 17.64.010 17.64.020 17.64.030 17.64.040 17.64.050 17.64.060 17.64.070 17.64.090 17.64.100 17.64.110 17.64.120 17.64.130 17.64.140 17.64.150 17.64.160 Established-- Composition. Removal of members-- Vacancy. Meetings--Process and procedure. Appeals procedure. Hearing procedure. Authority. City council authority. Requirements for decision. Certified copies of decision appealed from. Petition to court of record when. Court of record--Writ-- Restraining order when. Court decision review-- Testimony required when. Costs against board allowed when. Variances~ranted when. Variances~Council authority when. 17.64.010 Established---Composition. A board of adjustment is established as provided by statute. It shall consist of five members appointed by the mayor, subject to the approval of the council, for a term of three years. (Ord. 01-3 (part), 2001: prior code § 17.12.010) 17.64.020 Removal of members-- Vacancy. A member of the board of adjustment shall be removable for cause by the mayor, subject to the approval by the council upon written charges and after public hearing. Vacancies shall be filled for the unexpired term of any member when the term becomes vacant. (Ord. 0 I-3 (part), 2001: prior code § 17.12.020) 17.64.030 Meetings---Process and procedure. The board shall adopt roles in accordance with the provisions of any ordinance adopted pursuant to the business regulations or zoning. Meetings of the board shall be held at the call of the chairman and at such other times as the board may determine. Such chairman, or in his absence the acting chairman, may adminis- ter oaths and compel the attendance of wit- nesses. All meetings of the board shall be open to the public. The board shall keep min- utes of its proceedings, showing the vote of each member upon each question, or if absent or failing to vote, indicating such fact, and shall keep records of its examinations and other official actions, all of which shall be immediately filed in the office of the board and shall be a public record. (Ord. 01-3 (part), 200I: prior code § 17.12.030) 17.64.040 Appeals procedure. Appeals to the board of adjustment may be taken by any persons by filing with the city a request for variance on the appropriate form therefore. (Ord. 01-3 (part), 2001: prior code § 17.12.040) 17.64.050 Hearing procedure. The board of adjustment shall fix a reason- able time for the hearing on the application and give the public notice thereof, as well as 43 3 (~a~,l 7-02) 17.64.050 due notice to the parties of Lnterest, and decide the same within a reasonable time. Upon the hearing any party may appear in person or by attorney. (Ord. 01-3 (part), 2001: prior code § 17.12.050) 17.64.060 Authority. The board of adjustment shall have the fol- lowing powers: To authorize upon application, not includ- Lng or involving requests for changes in land use under the zoning district in which the property lies, such variances from the tenns of this title as will not be contrary to the public interest, where, owing to special conditions, a literal enforcement of the provisions of this title or regulation will result in unnecessary hardship, so that the spirit of this title shall be observed and substantial justice done. (Ord. 01-3 (part), 2001: prior code § 17.12.060) 17.64.070 City council authority. The board of adjustment shall not have the power to grant or consider appeals or requests involving changes of land use under the spe- cific zoning district in which the property lies. The city council reserves to itself the power to consider, grant or deny such application after receiving a recommendation from the city zoning commission under Chapter 17.60 of this code. (Ord. 01-3 (part), 2001: prior code § 17.12.065) 17.64.090 Requirements for reversal decision. The concurring vote of four members of the board shall be necessary to decide in favor of the applicant on any matter upon which it is required to pass under any such ordinance, or to effect any variation in such ordinance. (Ord. 01-3 (part), 2001: prior code § 17.12.080) 17.64.100 Certified copies of decision appealed from. The board of adjustment shall not be re- quired to return the original papers acted upon by it, but it shall be sufficient to return certi- fied or sworn copies thereof or of such por- tions thereof as may be called for by such writ. The return shall concisely set forth such other facts as may be pertinent and material to show the grounds of the decision appealed from and shall be verified. (Ord. 01-3 (.part), 2001: prior code § 17.12.090) 17.64.110 Petition to court of record when. Any person or persons, jointly or severally, aggrieved by any decision of the board of ad- justment, or any taxpayer, or any officer, de- partment, board or bureau of the city, may present to the court of record a petition, duly verified, setting forth that such decision is il- legal, in whole or in part. and specifying the grounds of the illegality. Such petition shall bc2 presented to the court within thirty days after the filing &the decision in the office of the board. (Ord. 0 I-3 (part), 2001: prior code § 17.12.100) 17.64.120 Court of record---Writ-- Restraining order when. Upon the presentation of such petition the court may allow a writ of certiorari directed to the board of adjustment to review such deci- sion of the board of adjustment and shall pre- scribe therein the time within which a return must be made and served which shall not be less than ten days and may be extended by the court. The allowance &the writ shall not stay proceedings upon the decision appealed from, but the court may, on application, on notice to the board and on due cause shown, grant a (Laur~] 7-02} 434 17.64.120 restraining order. (Ord. 01-3 (part), 2001: prior code § 17.12.110) 17.64.130 Court decision review-- Testimony required when. If, upon the hearing, it appears to the court that testimony is necessary for the proper dis- position of the matter, it may take evidence or appoint a referee to take such evidence as it may direct and report the same to the court with his findings of fact and conclusions of law, which shall constitute a part of the pro- ceedings upon which the determination of the court shall be made. The court may reverse or affirm, wholly or partly, or may modify the decision brought up for review. (Ord. 01-3 (part), 2001: prior code § 17.12.120) 17.64.140 Costs against board allowed when. Costs shall not be al lowed against the board unless it appears to the court that it acted with gross negligence, or in bad faith, or with mal- ice in making the decision appealed from. (Ord. 01-3 (pan), 2001: prior code § 17.12.130) 17.64.150 Variances--Granted when. The board of adjustment may only grant variances: A. When the denial would constitute an unnecessary and unjust invasion of the right of property; :< B. When the grant relates to a condition or situation special and peculiar to the applicant; % C. Whenthe basis is something morethan mere financial loss to the owner; D. When the hardship was created by someone other than the owner; '/ E. When the variance would be within the spirit, intent, purpose, and general plan of this title; F. :When the variance would not affect adversely or injure or result in injustice 'to others; and G. Ordinarily when the applicant owned the property prior to the enactment ofth~ or- dinances codified in this title or later amend- ments. (Ord. 01-3 (pan), 2001: prior COde § 17. I2.140) 17.64.160 Variances---Council authority when. Under no circumstances shall the board of adjustment grant a variance where prohibited by ordinance. The council may by ordinance, reserve the right to grant specific requests for a variance; unless specifically reserved to the council for determination, the decision of the board of adjustment is not appealable to the council. (Ord. 01-3 (part), 2001: prior code § 17.12.150) 435 (DaureI 7-02)