Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity/County Planning Board Minutes 12.02.1999• • MINUTES LAUREL-YELLOWSTONE CITY-COUNTY PLANNING BOARD December 2, 1999 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers Members present: John H. Smith, Chairman Gerald Shay, Member-at-Large Ed Thurner, City Rep. Laurel Haggart, City Rep. Ziggy Ziegler, County Rep. Kate Stevenson, City Rep. Betty Hart, County Rep. Clarence Foos, County Rep. Others present: Cal Cumin, City Planner Cheryll Lund, City Secretary Motion by Ed Thurner, second by Ziggy Ziegler to approve the minutes of the November 4, 1999 meeting. Motion carried. At this time the Planning Board meeting was closed and the Zoning Commission was open for a public hearing on a zone change application. Zone Change _ Public Hearing - Kukes This application is for a zone change from Residential Tracts to Residential Manufactured Homes on Lot 3, Block 1 of Rossmoor Subdivision. The request also asks for a 300-foot strip along Old US Highway 10 to be changed to Highway Commercial zoning. PROPONENTS: Sandy Fischer of Fischer and Associates in Billings presented the Master Plan for the proposed zone change review. The Master Plan shows the plan for all 3 parcels owned by Mr. Kukes. The zone change proposed tonight is just for the first phase of the project. The proposal is for 27-30 home sites with access from 6`, Avenue. They have consulted with Larry McCann and Cal Cumin over how to incorporate some of what the city requirements would be. There is an arterial street the City adopted, long-range Transportation Master Plan adjacent to the east side of the property. A 100-foot right-of- way was left in the plan to accommodate this arterial in the future. That road would also serve as a buffer for the adjacent neighbors. Currently a Transportation engineer is re- evaluating the location of this Westside arterial, and its exact location may change. The parcels along Highway 10 are envisioned as commercial land uses. The previous subdivision of this site limited access from Highway 10 to only two locations as shown on the Master Plan. The first phase of development will be accessed off of West Fourth Street. There will be a park within the first phase of 27-30 units. The entire Block 1, Lot 3 parcel could have 115 units, which is approximately 4.5 units per acre, below what Laurel City code requires. City code requirements a maximum of 8 units per acre. The Master Plan has considerations for developing "neighborhoods" within the development. There are plans for a "gated" secured senior community for retired folks who can travel to warmer climates each winter. There are also plans for providing recreational amenities for the entire Laurel community. This project is envisioned as providing affordable house for Laurel residents. There are existing power line easements that will remain. There is long-term drainage plans for the Westside that will also be incorporated in the project. Sandy states that this is the Master Plan for the development but not necessarily the final plat for the development. 0 Marvin Brown spoke regarding the proposed zone change. He specifies that they are only asking for a zone change for a small parcel of land. Access to the lots will be easy and the lots will be larger than a normal "trailer court" setting. The manufactured homes will be either double or triple wide homes (done through covenants for the subdivision). Dave Waller spoke regarding this proposed zone change. He sells manufactured homes and he sees an overwhelming such housing. The problem seems to be that there are not many areas that allow manufactured homes within the local area. He states that predictions indicate that within the next 10 years about 70% of home sales will be manufactured housing because of the high cost of housing at this time. Manufactured homes are well built and an affordable alternative for people who cannot afford a stick built home. OPPONENTS: Sue Cazier, Old US Hwy 10, is not for or against the proposal but had some questions on whether or not the development would be hooking into the existing private water and sewer lines in the area. Cal stated that the questions Sue is raising will be dealt with during the subdivision process. 2 Marilyn Wold of 1224 W. 4th is against the proposal. She stated that she submitted a list of 60 people that are opposed to this zone change. She sees a big impact on traffic, West School enrollment, and the care and maintenance of the irrigation ditches. She feels that there are no positive factors in this proposed zone change. Life as her and her neighbors have known all of these years will change. Leonard Lawver, W. 4th Street, is against the proposal. He is wondering how this will impact the livestock that he keeps on his property. He is also opposed to the annexation and the increased traffic. Tim Kaupish, 1340 W. 9th Street is against the proposal. He doesn't want a trailer court and he would like to see the existing quality of home continued. The population would increase and he would like to see nicer homes than a trailer court be built in the area. Linda Sturman, 1009 W. 9th is questioning what will happen to the irrigation ditch that goes through the property. She states that Mr. Kukes' ditch collapsed some years back and he was given the right to use the irrigation ditch that she uses until he could rebuild his ditch. He has not ever rebuilt his ditch, and she has heard that he is selling the piece of property with water rights. Cal states that the issue of water rights will be addressed through the subdivision process and has to be addressed properly. John Hempkis, W. 9th Street is not opposed to mobile homes but questions if they will be put on permanent foundations. He wants to see the west end of Laurel expand. with nice homes and keep the mobile homes on the east end. Paul McConan (can't hear tape) had some questions on the boundary line on the west existing fence and the drainage on the property. Cal states these concerns will be addressed during the subdivision process. David Smith, 10 W. 15th Street is opposed to the type of homes being put in. He feels that any development in the west end should have to match the same quality and type of home that is there now. He states that we need to be careful and discreet in using the land God has given us. He encourages the council to allow it with some stipulations on the type of housing that is put on the land and to keep it a safe development by not packing so many people in to one development. He wants to see it mesh together and match the caliber of existing housing. Peggy Lawver, W. 4th Street is against the proposal. She feels that trailer courts are too crowded and they shouldn't be allowed in between the type of homes existing in the area now. She feels they will not enhance the neighborhood. The street on W. 4th is not wide enough to for the amount of traffic, and she will lose trees if more street is widened to handle the extra traffic. She is concerned with the safety of children around the existing ditch. Tim Casey, 1129 W. 9th Street, is against the proposal. He thinks this would be a step backwards in that area. He is concerned with the additional traffic because of the fatality that happened on the highway this past summer. He would like to see covenants to allow nicer homes in the area. David Bare, 1113 W. 4th Street, is concerned with the additional traffic generated by this proposed zone change. He grew up in the area and wants his kids to have the same benefit of the 7 acres of land his home is placed on. He feels there is some potential disaster that could come of this proposal, but does state that there could be some unknown benefit also. Question on what it is zoned now? The zoning on the property is Residential Tracts, not agricultural as stated on the application. Residential Tracts allows a single-family dwelling on a minimum of 1 acre of land. Frank Wheeler, 1019 W. 4t6 ° is against the proposal. He is wondering why the city raised all the ruckus regarding the trailer home placed on the west end and now they are stating that this is a desired type of housing for this area in question? Bob Smith, 928 W. 01 Street, is against the proposal. His main concern is the high amount of people this proposal will bring in. He feels the land will not sustain as many homes as is proposed and is wondering if anyone has tested the soil in the area. He thinks the future of Laurel is in the kids and he would like to see kids raised on larger lots, not smaller pieces of property. He has a big investment in his land and home and does not want to give it up. Tim Miller, W 9th Street, is wondering how he can make an educated decision on this proposal when he doesn't have all of the information. He is wondering who is responsible for obtaining the information on this proposal. Cal states that it is the responsibility of the public to dig out the information. This process is formal and some of the information will be brought out during the next process that this proposal has to go through. The Planning Board is an advisory board comprised of lay people and they are called on to review different types of proposals and report their findings to the City Council. The City Council has the last say. Before the Council makes any decision they will hold another public hearing. During each public hearing and review process, more questions come to mind and more study is done on each proposal before the final decision is made. Mr. Miller questions the process of a zone change and feels the cart is being put before the horse. Cal states that he can come and get information on how the process works. Mr. Miller states that he doesn't want his property devalued by this proposal, and it should be placed in another part of town, not where he lives. 4 Mr. Bare, W. 4th Street, is against the proposal. He is concerned with future traffic problems that this new development will create. Bob Smith, 928 W. 4th Street, questions whether or not the developers have done a soil percolation test on the property? Julie Miller, W. 9th Street, is opposed to the proposal. They bought a larger parcel of property for the space and she does not want to see a trailer court put in. Mary Thompson, 1404 Old Highway 10, is opposed to the proposal and questions the drainage the property will create. PROPONENTSREBUTTAL: Doug Hanson stated that all of the objections that were raised here tonight have to do with the physical development of the property. At this time they are only establishing usage of the land. Once the usage has been established then the physical development of the property will be discussed and all of the objections and concerns that were raised will be addressed. If some of the issues such as traffic, perc tests, land size, and water and sewer concerns cannot be resolved then the development will not go through. The proposal is to provide an affordable type of housing for Laurel. Right now there are many people that cannot afford a stick built home, and this is an alternative for those people. He feels the timing is right for this project. Mr. Hanson states that yes, they are doing this project for profit and because of that they are taking their time in the development of the property so things are done right. The public hearing was closed at 7:53 p.m. DISCUSSION BY BOARD: Cal stated that most of the questions and issues brought up tonight are addressed through the subdivision process. He went on to state that the board cannot deny a manufactured housing development on the west end of Laurel because it might devalue the property of others. This is dangerous ground due to the fact that the federal government has found that manufactured homes are sound, safe houses. The government would not hesitate to take the City of Laurel to court on that issue. Cal's written recommendation (as required in the Zoning Ordinance) was not done for this meeting tonight, because he wanted to hear the presentation of both sides. 10 Question on the status of the road that is in Laurel's Master Transportation Plan: does the board need to address that? • Cal states that it is an adopted Master Plan and the City of Laurel has to live with it at this time. However, the City is addressing this issue and there is a study that will come out before a decision is made on this proposal. Question on whether or not this has to be annexed into the City to be viable. Yes, it does due to the size of the lots, type of development proposed, and the need for water and sewer services. They have to provide an environmental impact statement that deals with traffic, schools, water/sewer, and police and fire protection before the subdivision can be approved. In the analysis, if something cannot be supported then the developer has to have a plan, and pay for any need or issue that arises. Question on whether or not this is a "donut hole" annexation. Cal states, that if this was a request for an area smaller than a city block, it could be considered "donut hole" annexation. This is a not "donut hole". Cal also noted that because there is more than 25% of the property owners that are protesting this application (that has not been established yet) then the City Council must approve the application by a super majority, which is a 2/3 vote in favor The park requirement is 1/9 of the net residential area. Question on whether or not the lots will be sold? The lots will be owned by the development, and the people leasing the lots will own the homes. There will be leases and permanent leases on all of the property. Permanent leases will require permanent foundations, which will then enable the homeowner to acquire 20-year financing. The desired size of the homes is going to be double and triple wide units. Question on the standard size of the lots? They will be approximately 8700 square feet, which is larger than most lots within the city. Question on who will maintain the roads within the subdivision? Cal states that some of the roads will be private and maintained by the developers and some will be public and the city could maintain those. Cal recommends that this proposed zone change be tabled until the January 6, 2000 meeting. 6 • Motion by Gerald Shay, second by Ziggy Ziegler to table the zone change application 99-12-2 for Kukes until the January 6, 2000 meeting. Motion carried. OTHER BUSINESS: Cal stated that the City Council sent back the Home Occupation request from Julie Roma because they were concerned with the possible fire hazard from her paint products. The Board felt the Council just should of denied the request instead of sending it back for review. Julie has contacted the Public Works secretary and stated that she is looking into renting space in the downtown business district and will contact us again if she needs to follow through with the home occupation request. The Ziegler's have invited the Planning Board to a "January" Christmas party at their home in Billings. Details will follow at a later date. Comment on why we don't provide more information to the people who attend the public hearings. 9 Cal states that there is nothing that we can put together that would fit every application the same. It would be pretty impossible to do. The meeting was adjourned at 8:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Cheryll Lund, Secretary CJ 7