HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil Workshop Minutes 01.12.2016 MINUTES
COUNCIL WORKSHOP
JANUARY 12, 2016 6:30 P.M.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
A Council Workshop was held in the Council Chambers and called to order by Mayor Mark Mace at
6:30 p.m. on January 12, 2016.
COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT:
_x Emelie Eaton _x_Doug Poehls
x Bruce McGee _x_Richard Herr
x Chuck Dickerson Scot Stokes
x Tom Nelson x Bill Mountsier
OTHERS PRESENT:
Heidi Jensen, CAO
Kurt Markegard, PWD
Noel Eaton, City Planner
Monica Plecker, CTA
Kara Hergenrider, Acting Ambulance Director
Public Input (three-minute limit.
Curtis Lord, 418 West 12th Street, reported on the Laurel Rod and Gun Club's recent trap shoot event
and thanked the council for allowing the club to hold the event.
General items
There were none.
Executive Review:
• Resolution- Task Order No. 37 with Great West Engineering
Heidi explained that Task Order No. 37 is for replacement of about 300 feet of waterline on the west
side of First Avenue from Mountain View Lane to 12th Street. The line has broken four times in
recent years and there have been problems in the area. The public works director plans to budget for
this project in the upcoming year.
• Ordinance- Changes to LMC 17.42 Sign Code
Noel Eaton stated that Monica and the Planning Board started an extensive review of the sign
ordinance last June. The sign code was not up-to-date and did not comply with current standards.
Noel asked Monica to present the changes to the council.
Monica Plecker explained that the Planning Board worked on an extensive rewrite of the sign code
and the biggest change is how the sign code is going to function. In the past, the sign code was not
part of the zoning ordinance, as it was in a different chapter. The Planning Board could not review or
make decisions on variances, etc. The sign code is now in the zoning chapter in Laurel Municipal
Code.
Council Workshop Minutes of January 12,2016
Monica stated that, instead of having a blanket ordinance or a "one size fits all" sign code, the
Planning Board decided to break it up into a way that functions like zoning functions. Page 6 of the
ordinance includes a table of"signs by zoning district", which is a table format that is already used in
the zoning code. The initials at the top of the table stand for the different types of zoning districts in
the city. The list also shows every sign that is defined in the sign code and in which zoning districts
they are allowable, not allowable, or allowable by special review. Monica stated that is the most
significant change. She gave the example of a wall sign, which may not be allowable in a residential
professional zone, but would be allowable in a highway commercial zone. The things the city tries to
protect and value related to residential professional properties are different than the way to advertise
to highway vehicle travelers.
Monica stated that the elephant in the room in the sign code is digital signs. Proposed definitions are
stated on page 2 of the ordinance, where 17.42.040 addresses an animated sign. The new definition
says this is "a sign depicting action, motion, light or color change or that change the sign displayed
through electrical or mechanical means. Animated also includes signs that use blinking, flashing or
scrolling or other special effects to depict motion."
Since the industry is saying that pictographic changeable copy signs are needed, those signs are
further defined on page 3 for changeable copy signs and on page 4 for pictographic changeable copy
signs. The table shows where these types of signs are allowable and certain places where they should
not be allowable. Page 7 shows that a Pictographic Changeable Copy Sign would only be allowable
by Special Review in Highway Commercial, Light Industrial and Heavy Industrial zoning. It is not
allowable in Entryway Zoning District or the Downtown or Southeast Overlay Districts. The
Planning Board spent a lot of time on this particular topic throughout the months. The board decided
that, by making these Special Review and because the city does not have a lot of them in town and
does not know what the safety standards are, the city can at least have an opportunity to recommend
and place conditions to make sure that these types of electronic signs develop in a way that fits the
City of Laurel through Special Review.
Monica spoke regarding a second table on page 10 that addresses the sign requirements, the types of
signs, requirements for permits, whether or not illumination is allowable, the biggest sign, etc. She
explained that the last sign code created a lot of problems with permitting things consistently because
one part of the code would allow a sign but a different section of the code would be contradictory.
The table is meant to streamline that and put everything in one place so that issues cannot get
convoluted as permits are issued for signs. Monica stated that the proposed structure puts staff in a
better place to know what is being permitted and how it is being permitted. She encouraged the
council to read through the ordinance and to review the Planning Board's minutes relating to the
ordinance.
Chuck questioned why fines are not attached to the ordinance in case the sign code is not followed.
Monica stated that fines were not contemplated in this. The rest of the zoning code does not
specifically call out fines for separate violations. Zoning violations are dealt with like all other code
enforcement issues. Although the Planning Board would not necessarily be opposed to putting fines
in the ordinance, Monica thinks that the city attorney would need to be involved in that since zoning
does not have a structure set up for fines.
Chuck stated that he would like to have the city attorney involved before the ordinance goes forward.
2
Council Workshop Minutes of January 12,2016
Monica explained the process for zoning violations. If there is a zoning violation, people get a letter
telling them exactly what their violation is and how much time they have to comply with the
particular zoning ordinance. She gave the example of mobile homes on lots where it is not zoned for
mobile homes. The owner would have a period of thirty days to remove the mobile home. The same
applies for a sign. If someone puts up a sign that does not comply with their permit or their
conditions, the city's recourse is to have them take it down, construction wise, which is in place with
current zoning.
Chuck questioned how many times they get their hands slapped before they have to get some type of
an issuance.
Monica stated that the process moves pretty quickly when it is a serious issue. The city has to give
reasonable time, but it is very clear language. Although she has never dealt with it for a sign, the city
has found success in the thirty days of having structures on lots that are not allowable. She would
hope for a similar reaction with signs.
Chuck commented that the council has seen a back door approach to signs that are going up right
now, and they were all surprised that it happened.
Monica addressed the issue of the sign that was recently placed by Rimrock Chevrolet. A permit was
issued by the building official in December. Several conversations took place over the course of the
summer between Monica, the city attorney, the building official, Rimrock Chevrolet and their
attorneys and a scenario came up which was basically according to the existing code. The only reason
Rimrock Chevrolet came to the council for a variance in the first place was because they had two
freestanding pole signs and wanted to put up a third one, which has been constructed at this point.
Rimrock Chevrolet needed a variance because they could not have more than one. Through the
course of this, a plan was presented for them to take down the two freestanding pole signs that were
there and to move one over to the Burger King property, which is a totally separate parcel. Then they
would be left with one freestanding sign, which would be the one along the interstate. The conditions
that the building official put on the permit for Rimrock Chevrolet said they could not illuminate and
use the sign until the freestanding pole signs came down. The intent was to make sure that the
freestanding pole signs came down. Technically, the sign, as long as it is still and does not meet the
definition of our current animation defmition, would be allowable if it were the only one freestanding
sign on that property. Monica stated that conditions on that permit are in place to have the other
freestanding pole signs come down, which means they will only have one. A permit amendment was
issued last week that puts a 30-day timeframe on the removal of the two signs.
Chuck asked if the Burger King property is a separate entity property from Rimrock Chevrolet.
Monica explained that it is a totally separate parcel. She does not know how their structure works
corporate wise or if they have a different division for used cars. The city has been told that they plan
to use the Burger King property for their used car sales. The current sign ordinance talks about poles
per parcel, not poles per business. So if it is the same business license covering both parcels, the city
could not address that in the existing code or the proposed code. In those types of situations, the city
encourages a "common signage plan", which is still in the proposed code. A common signage plan is
what the ACE Hardware Plaza area has where the one main sign has several different individual signs
within the monument. Walmart would be another example.
3
Council Workshop Minutes of January 12,2016
• Ordinance- Changes to LMC 17.26 Entryway Zoning
Noel stated that, with the updates to the Sign Code, the Entryway Zoning Ordinance excludes on
premise signs, which is most common in entryway zoning. On premise signs need to be incorporated
into the sign code so they work together.
Monica explained that, through the last few months, it was discovered that the Entryway Zoning
District said that any of the sign requirements in the Entryway Zoning District only apply to off
premise signs. Off premise signs are basically billboards. Any other kind of sign in the Entryway
Zoning District was not being regulated by that ordinance. By striking number 1 in the current
ordinance, it basically removes that and says that signage within the Entryway Zoning District has to
comply with these regulations because the Entryway Zoning District is an overlay district. An
overlay district means that it is in addition to the underlying zoning regulation. Now all signs,
whether on premise or off premise, are going to be governed by Entryway and the Sign Code
together.
• Resolution of Intent - Schedule of Fees and Charges
Heidi explained that the schedule of fees and charges is reviewed annually and updated to reflect the
cost of doing business with the city. There are some substantial changes this year. She reviewed the
proposed changes by the Fire Department and the Ambulance Service. The Ambulance Department
added fees for the EMT Class and the Advanced EMT Class.
System development fees have been increased substantially, as they were very low when compared to
Montana cities of similar size. Any meter larger than 4 inches must come to the city for a special
review, as the city might be able to install it or hook it up, but might not be able to serve it. The
system development fees are for commercial development.
The Park Board recommend increasing fees for shelter reservations and special events in parks. Other
changes include changes to the cemetery schedule, the addition of fees in the Planning Department for
subdivisions for rent or lease, and the fees for mobile home blocking and water meter inspections.
Emelie stated that the Public Works Committee heard the information about the increases for the
public works department. The committee was in favor of the increases and was impressed with the
amount of effort that went into coming up with the new rates.
Chuck spoke regarding the Park Board's recommendations to increase the shelter reservation fee from
$25 to $40/day, the one-day special event in the park fee from $30 to $50, and the two-day park fee
from$50 to $75.
Heidi stated that the recommended fees were already listed in the schedule of fees and charges.
Bruce stated that, although it might be too late for this schedule of fees and charges, he would like to
have the council consider adding a $50 fee for landlords to have the police department run
background checks on possible tenants. Programs like this have worked in communities like
Moorcroft,ND, so he suggested that the council consider it for next year or in the future.
Kurt distributed handouts of information he received regarding fees from Billings, Lewistown,
Belgrade, Livingston, and Dillon. The City of Laurel went to an EDU (equivalent dwelling unit)
4
Council Workshop Minutes of January 12, 2016
system about four years ago for the water rates based on the water service line. He stated that the fee
increases are long overdue, as the city has big expenditures at the water and sewer plants. The fees go
towards development of new and larger size of waterlines for new homes, new businesses and new
development. The fees will not raise the rates for any citizen.
• Resolution- Easement with the Howreys (Special CC meeting following workshop)
Heidi explained that the resolution with the Howreys is for the easement for the underground utilities
and the .2 acre for placement of the control building on their property for a total price of$76,500.
Heidi received verbal confirmation today from the city attorney, who received email confirmation that
the city is allowed on the property to survey this week. Great West started surveying on the CHS
property today. Once the surveying is done, the city can submit all final documents and plans to DEQ
and the Army Corps to receive those fmal permits. The resolution authorizes the Mayor to sign the
fmal easement document as soon as it is received from the Howreys. The document will then be filed
with Yellowstone County immediately.
• Resolution- Easement with CHS Refinery(Special CC meeting following workshop)
Heidi stated that there is no cost to the city for the easement with the CHS Refinery for the
underground pipeline. The original documents are on Pat Kimmet's desk waiting for signature, as
they are waiting for Exhibit 1 for from the city's engineers. The document should be ready for
signatures by tomorrow. Like any other bidding document, as soon as the originals are here and the
mayor can sign them, they will be filed with the County. The city has all of the easements needed to
construct the new intake and the waterline from the new intake to the water treatment plant.
Bruce asked regarding the easement document with CHS Refinery, which starts with "for a valuable
consideration". He asked if the city did not have to pay anything for the easement.
Heidi stated that the city did not have to pay.
Bruce stated that the valuable consideration is that the city helped them have water.
Richard asked regarding creating a dead head line in order to put water out to the west end of town.
Heidi said that the final plans are not available yet.
• Council Issues:
o Update on Chevrolet dealership sign(Richard Herr)
There was no further discussion.
o Lease Task Force update
Heidi mentioned that the Laurel Jaycees have not signed their lease yet, as they are having a hard time
getting someone to city hall during normal business hours. Hopefully, the lease will be signed soon.
o Update on 2011 Yellowstone River flooding event
Heidi stated that the resolutions are on the special council agendas tonight. Once the easements and
the surveys are complete, Great West can get the fmal plans done within thirty days. With the final
plans submitted, the project is on track for the bidding phase this spring or early summer to start
construction.
5
Council Workshop Minutes of January 12,2016
Richard asked if the weir is working, as there is a lot of ice in the river.
Heidi stated that the weir is working.
Other items
• Resolution- Agreement with St. Vincent Healthcare Occupational Health Services
Heidi explained the yearly agreement with St. Vincent's to provide services for the city's random
drug screenings.
Review of draft council agenda for January 19, 2016
There was no discussion.
Attendance at the January 19, 2016 council meeting
All council members present will attend.
Announcements
There were none.
Recognition of Employees
• Stan Langve 16 years of service on January 5th Police Officer
• Gary Colley 13 years of service on January 6th Code Enforcement
• Kurt Markegard 11 years of service on January 3`d Public Works Director
Mayor Mace stated recognition for the employees' years of service.
The council workshop adjourned at 7:10 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
•
Cindy Allen
Council Secretary
NOTE: This meeting is open to the public. This meeting is for information and discussion of the Council for the
listed workshop agenda items.
6
mmoo) oo 0
F r. CI3 - C
c M 3' t0 0
sv c tD m 0 to
0
su
Co co0o- <
orn5rne
-• (I) tci
CD
91 * LQ rt A -1 ce cc csa0
m m m s rn co m
,, tnpn) c-. .Awry -. w Dan
1
a � 3 p "6 M
N
o vao , *
+ to 0 CD 3 N ( �.
• 3 m —I
OD m m
C rn a to
' CD n su m v)
c tc <
ascm scum m
3 � :, r .
N c ? = O
0 0 13 ' = -ee to 69 {fl �i9 {f3 su = m.
+ oa •� � m
i '° fig ? j m Z
CO Co = a) 4 o tr 01 0 11
O -1
m aDOQ •-• O `
M
0 C z Co O ( t O U cn
cri yo at
O. N co =
-
o was =
o a, -, m
* = CD c
0 m rn c
co 33m
vNi (b a
Co
IV = o CO
o 4. � P CD D C_
CD �, o 1
1 CA n o C 1
O w O
r-. N 1
N N 0 CD Q
.O 9 f O
�i c —
fD = O- 0 cil at
Q. ° a < CD <
CD ,,.
sir a % '11 g a) co - CD M
C CC] ) CD = 0 co
N CD Q CD --/ 3 . W N _a i � C
o N. c Q CD B * _ - = N = Cn co co Cl)
-0 co a * CO`` ' rn m
CD 1< co A vrl , Q E. 3
rn * = D cn
Q CO
aCr o, c CD 5 - h9hat9 t 69 , 111
_ „*, N O 0) Ccs 0 Q
= c ,C z- NI N N N N N W
A CD m Cv NVNNi.Nt3N.3 ? C '
Q - .p 01 0T1 C``I71 01 01 C0J1 g Z LJ
0 In ° -4 U
co (13 m
o Ca CA m
1:3O m X30 �� � � � � om (/)
Vs om CD g 3
3 . O = '
CSD- D m
O
C CD WN0) N -1W 7 0
01 114 CA
0 O CD o - 01C11CA) m' -
8 ,O< vim, c C) 01 C) C) 3
•Z . a)- s
CD < a'
m
m 40, 4A 44 44 69 4
m
W CO 4a N -. CO
Q 011 V W -.•1 W CO O
IV -& -051.3 cn Q
W OD -.k 01 N C.4
CJ1 d 01 01 01 01
,ec, I
Impact Fees Belgrade, Montana
Maximum Supportable Impact Fees
Figure 4 provides a schedule of the maximum supportable impact fees for the City of Belgrade.
If elected officials adopt lower fees,it may be necessary to revise the corresponding capital
improvement plans or provide additional non-impact fee funding. For residential development,
impacted fees will be imposed per housing unit. Water and sewer impact fees for nonresidential
development are based on water meter size. The fee schedule provides a reasonable impact fee
determination for common types of development. For unique development types,the City may
allow or require an independent impact fee assessment.
Figure 4—Maximum Supportable Citywide Impact Fees e`1 Ye, J v
ITE _ 5%
C144 1
Code !Parks k• ' �l, Seiler r :f. . Adm 7OTXL
Residential Per housing Unit
210 Single Family Detached `C1$831 $2,708 °' _° $672 $14,112
230 All Other Housing Types .:4:579', 87 Ai . • a $452 $9,492
Nonresidential Per!Sitter Size
0.75" $2,708 $391 $8,227
* Water and sewer s..% 1.00" REM $4,604 $666 $13,987
fees for nonresidential 1.50" rim°�
.� $8,937:: $1,292 $27,151
development are based•I 2.00" kiTMO.41 $14,354; $2,076 $43,608
water meter size. 3.00" %€e. $28,979 $4,192 $88,040
4.00" $45,229. $6,543 $137,409
Per , t(la
820 Commercial/Shop Or 50,000 SF or 1: �°: ° $0.53 $11.24
820 Commercial/Shop Or 50,001-100,000 SF :.''s $0.44 $9.37
820 Commercial/Shop Ctr 100,001-200,000 SF ,' ,
� �° � � '1 0 $038 $8.02
770 Business Park 0 ; $0.09 $1.92
720 Medical-Dental Office ,• $039 $8.26
710 Oral Office 25,000 SF or less '0,'0 $0.19 $4.18
iMtrr d i
710 General Office25,001-50,000 SF 1%' 0, $0.17 $3.57
710 General Office 50,001-200,000 SF o $0.14 $3.01
610 Hospital ;-) $0.19 $4.01
151 Mmi Warehouse w $0.02 $0.55
150 Warehousing 5'3 $0.05 $1.13
110 Light Industrial •••.-i
° $0.07 $1.58
520 Elementary School ), $0.10 $2.18
Other Nonresidential Per Demand Unit
620 Nursing Home(bed) $25 $541
565 Day Care(per student) Kat. } . $23 $491
530 Secondary School(per student) $13 $280
520 Elementary School(per student) A .._-. $9 $194
320 Lodging(per root ) _i $61 $1,289
5 TischlerBise
0
Impact Fee Rates
Parks&
Police Fire/EMS Transportation Recreation
Residential Per Unit 229.00 128.00 601.00 145.00
Commercial Per 1,000 Sq Ft 218.00 70.00 1,057.00 -
Industrial Per 1,000 Sq Ft 68.00 22.00 437.00 -
I
Inches water sewer
5/8 — 3/4 $1,040 $1,094
1 $1851 $1.947
1 1. $2,880 $3.030
1 $4.159 $4,376
2 $7,392 $7.778
2 $11,562 $12,165
3 $16.636 $17.504
4 $29570 $31. 14
• o III
1 10
APPENDIX A-WATER& SEWER MONTHLY RATES AND FEES 2015
Customer With Water and Sewer
Water Usage $2.00 per 1000 gallons usage
Sewer Usage $2.75 per 1000 gallons usage for Dec,Jan, Feb average water use,
1000 gallons minimum (no water usage will use average
residential, see Sewer Only below)
Water R&D $3.42 per EDU Unit
Sewer R&D $3.42 per EDU Unit per sewer connection
2015 Bond Payment $29.91 per EDU Unit per sewer connection
Customer With Water Only
Water Usage $2.00 per 1000 gallons usage
Water R&D $3.42 per EDU Unit
Customer With Sewer Only
Sewer Usage $2.75 per 1000 gallons based on average water usage for all
residential users during Dec,Jan,Feb with 1000 gallons minimum
Fire Protection $5.09
Sewer R&D $3.42 per EDU Unit per sewer connection
2015 Bond Payment $29.91 per EDU Unit per sewer connection
System Development Fees
Sewer Development $1120 per EDU Unit
Water Development $725 per EDU Unit
EDU Multipliers Sd -
0°
5/8-inch Water Line 1.00 / /a o . �`�`� "
3/4-inch Water Line 1.00 11 2-o a a 7 5 , v
1-inch Water Line 1.79 c,„ ' a 9�° 7 5
1.5-inch Water Line 4.00 4/ 'noq a 9 60, 00
2-inch Water Line 7.14 7/1106: ' " 5/ 176 . S o
3-inch Water Line 16.0 / 7 goo /
ao / /
4-inch Water Line 28.57 / 72- tic) o/
7 / 3
Other Fees
Late Payment $15.00
Notice of Termination $25.00
Second Notice of Termination $55.00
Restoring Water Service after Non-payment Shutoff $50.00
Service Reconnection $250.00
Insufficient Funds Check $25.00
Purchase Water in Bulk $10.00 plus$4.00 per 1000 gallons
DEQ Annual Fee per Connection per Year $2.00
Resolution Adopting Water and Sewer Fee Changes Page 6 of 6
w` S--1-a w
Water Fees
Tapping Fee
Include a CORPORATION STOP, CURBSTOP VALVE, CURBSTOP BOX WITH ROD and 15
FT TYPE K COPPER PIPE. Per City Code 3-3-11(D)and are 1.20 x the material cost.
These costs will be evaluated December 1 and will be set for the following calendar
year.The most common are 3/4 and 1 inch.
FOR AL¼"WATERLINE
Tapping Fee ....................$275
Connection Fee.. ............. $200
FOR A 1"WATERLINE
Tapping Fee ....................$325
Connection Fee.. ............. $350
Connection Fee
%" $200 11/2" $750
1" $350 2" $1000
1 %" $500
For service lines exceeding 2 inches in diameter the fee will be equal to the 2" plus an
additional $loon for every inch over 2 inches
Connections Fees are set by City Code 3-3-11 (D).
` •
/-12.,LA./ Nn..)
r
•
Sewer Fees
Contractors make the actual tap to the sewer main,therefore only a connection fee is
charged. Public Works does inspect these connection. Connection fees are set by City
Code 4-6-9(D)
Residential
4 inch service $300.00 for a single-family residence. For a two-,three-, or four-
family residence, $300.00 plus$200.00 for each residence beyond
1.
6 inch service $400.00 for a single-family residence, plus$200.00 for each
additional residential unit.
Commercial
Fees are based on the size of the water service line.
%"Service $200
1"Service $300
1 %"Service $400
1 %" Service $500
2" Service $1000
For service lines over 2 inches in diameter, $1,000.00 will be assessed, plus $1,000.00
for each additional inch over 2 inches.
The EDU for each size of service line is multiplied by the charge for a 3/4" water service
Proposed Water System Development Fees
Size of Service EDU's Per Service System development Charge
3/4" 1 $1,500.00
1" 1.79 $2,685.00
1 1/4" 2.78 $4,170.00
1 1/2" 4 $6,000.00
2" 7.14 $10,710.00
3" 16 $24,000.00
4" 28.57 $42,855.00
6" 64.29 $96,435.00
8" 113.78 $170,670.00
10" 177.78 $266,670.00
Proposed Sewer System Development Fees
Size of Service EDU's Per Service System development Charg e
3/4" 1 $1,000.00
1" 1.79 $1,790.00
1 1/4" 2.78 $2,780.00
1 1/2" 4 $4,000.00
2" 7.14 $7,140.00
3" 16 $16,000.00
4" 28.57 $28,570.00
6" 64.29 $64,290.00
8" 113.78 $113,780.00
10" 177.78 $177,780.00