HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity/County Planning Board Minutes 09.01.2016 Minutes of the City/County Planning Board
September 1, 2016
Members Present:
Dan Koch, Hazel Klein,Judy Goldsby, Lee Richardson, Ron Benner
Members Absent: Kathy Siegrist,Clint Peck
Others Present:
Noel Eaton,City Planner
Cheryl) Lund, Planning Board Secretary
Monica Plecker,CTA
Vice President Goldsby opened the meeting at 10:00. After a formal roll call Vice President Goldsby
introduced the first item of business,approval of minutes. Dan Koch moved to approve the minutes as
submitted and Hazel Klein seconded. All members voted aye.The minutes were approved as submitted.
Vice President Goldsby introduced items under new business,a Public Hearing for the Annexation of
Regal Community Park.Vice President Goldsby opened the public hearing and first asked staff to
introduce the topic. Noel presented the staff report for the request for Annexation for"Regal
Community Park an Addition to the City of Laurel"that contained the application,general information,
staff findings,conditions of approval,and planning staff recommendation.The staff report is attached.
Vice President Goldsby opened the public comment portion of the public hearing.She presented the
procedure for commenting and asked for proponents.There were none.
Vice President Goldsby asked if there were any opponents. There were none.
The public hearing was closed.
Hazel Klein moved to approve the request for annexation including the staff report,findings of facts,and
conditions of approval for the purpose of discussion. Dan Koch seconded.Judy asked if there was any
discussion.
Lee stated that it appears to meet the City's criteria of the annexation policy.
Noel stated the applicant has met the criteria outlined in the annexation policy.
At this time the board voted on the motion to approve the request for annexation for the Regal
Community Park an Addition to the City of Laurel. The motion carried 5—0.
Vice President Goldsby introduced the second item under new business,a Public Hearing for the
Preliminary Plan Approval and Variance request for Regal Community Park.Vice President Goldsby
opened the public hearing and first asked staff to introduce the topic. Noel presented the staff report
for the Preliminary Plan approval and Variance request from LMC 16.24.020.6.2 for "Regal Community
Park an Addition to the City of Laurel"that contained the application, plat information,staff findings,
conditions of approval,and planning staff recommendation.The staff report is attached.
Judy asked if the applicant would like to say anything.
Mike Balch from C&H Engineering 1091 Stoneridge Drive, Bozeman MT. He is the engineer for the
applicant. He stated that this plan is very similar to the plan of Moore Subdivision that was approved
about two years ago for preliminary plat approval. One difference being that this is not a subdivision
but a development from rent or lease with a site plan;this has driven the variance request.The
applicant would like to mimic the previously approved subdivision but since this is a site plan and a
private development LMC does not allow sites to access a public street.
Mike stated that he sees three benefits for the City of Laurel with this development. One being they
consider this to be an infill project and improve the tax base within the City.
They are also improving the neighborhood and adding access to the park with the sidewalks along Date
and also sidewalks within the development.The applicant is also providing cash-in-lieu for parkland
dedication.
Finally the applicant is providing critical Right Of Way to the City.There will be 27 feet of ROW along
Date Avenue and 40 feet of ROW along E Maryland Lane for future expansion of both roadways.
The applicant Dan Wells, 1812 66th Street West,stated he appreciates the consideration and states it
will help bring an infill project into the tax base and provide a need that's out there for housing.
He stated that the variance helps in the overall picture of safety and cleaning up the area.Sometimes
there are these great plans in the City that don't fit just right with the codes and this is why there are
variances.They are looking to improve the flow of the neighborhood and connectivity to other areas
and make the street a better use to the public.
Vice President Goldsby opened the public comment portion of the public hearing. She presented the
procedure for commenting and asked for proponents.There were none.
Vice President Goldsby asked if there were any opponents. There was one letter submitted from Mr.
Leroy Haack from 918 Date Ave.The letter is attached.
Noel stated the letter is in opposition.She says the applicant originally thought this application was for a
zone change. This applicant had originally applied for a zoning variance however is not at this time there
for the opposition in zoning density and zone change is not something to be reviewed at this time as the
application is in compliance with zoning regulations.The letter also states the development needs to be
a drug free and predator free zone. Noel stated that the city cannot require that.
The letter also stated that the streets need to be paved. Noel mentioned that both 8th and Maryland are
paved.The developer will be paving the private Regal Avenue and a Waiver of Right to Protest will be
signed for future creation of an SID for Date Avenue.
Vice President Goldsby asked three times if there were any other opponents that would like to speak.
There were no others.
A motion was made by Dan Koch to approve the preliminary plan with the staff report,findings of fact,
and staff suggested conditions for the purpose of discussion.The motion was seconded by Hazel Klein.
Lee asked if Elm Avenue Borders this development
Noel stated Elm is located to the south east of this development.
Lee asked if Date Avenue will be widened.
Noel stated that condition#2 will force the applicant to provide the additional 27feet of ROW to create
the 67 feet of total ROW.
Lee asked how wide Regal Avenue would be.
Noel stated that Regal will be 28 feet. Noel stated that with these developments for rent or lease, LMC
requires everything within the development to be private,the streets are private,the water and sewer
within the development are private and the parks are all private.
Lee asked about on street parking on Regal Avenue.
Noel stated that the City can no regulate on street parking within the private development. However the
applicant has provided the necessary guest parking spaces.
Ron asked about emergency services and the parking on Regal Avenue.
Noel stated that she spoke with the fire department and they have asked for no parking signs to be
placed by the fire hydrants within the development(Condition#9).
Mike Balch stated there will be no on street parking on Regal Avenue. Each site has three parking
spaces,two which are required for the site and one for guest parking.
Ron asked about police enforcement on the private street.
Noel stated that the police can't enforce traffic or parking violations within the development since it is
private.
Mike stated he doesn't anticipate anyone parking on Regal Avenue as you would need a little smart car
to fit in between the sites approaches.
Ron asked about the widened cement area near the mailbox.
Mike stated the USPS asked for the turn out area in front of the mailbox to eliminate safety concerns
with individuals stopping to get their mail. Ron asked if that was still in the ROW. Mike stated that it is.
There was some clarification as to where to ROW was shown on the site map.
Ron asked if the ditch that runs along E 8th Street would remain the same condition.
Mike stated there will be no changes to the ditch just re-seeding grass where they may disturb the
ground.
Ron stated his concern about the lack of sidewalks along E 8th Street.There is no way for kids to go east
and west without walking on a very narrow road. Ron suggested it would be a good idea to start a
sidewalk with this property development.
Mike said because there are no other sidewalks in the area that creating an SID for the sidewalks in that
area would be the best option.The SIA includes a waiver of right to protest the creation of any SID.
Ron asked if the City is interested in creating sidewalks in this area.
Noel stated there is the Bike/Ped plan that identifies trails within the City. Like Mike had mentioned
there is no other sidewalks currently in the area so creating an SID would be the best option to get a
network started in this area.
Ron suggested this be something the City Council look at. Every enjoyable community has places to walk
around and get to and from parks. It seems we are adding to the problem and we have a chance to add
in those sidewalks now.
Dan asked about the access onto Maryland specifically with the church wanting access to E Maryland
without it being expanded yet.
Noel stated the applicant is providing the necessary dedicated ROW. It will look similar to Mogan
Subdivision with gravel and curb and gutter at the property line so that in the event E Maryland is
expanded roadway won't have to be ripped out.
Monica Plecker clarified some of the confusion with the curb and gutter along Maryland that Dan had
asked about in reference to the special review of the church. Monica stated that since the neighboring
properties of the church did not have curb and gutter already and because E Maryland is an urban route
that there could be some safety concerns. Also with Maryland being an urban route there are addition
state funds for that street.
Ron stated another concern he has is the corner on E Maryland. He questioned where the stop sign
would be located.
Mike stated he would talk with Kurt with Public Works to determine where they would like the stop sign
placed.
Ron stated there could be many accidents at that corner and the corner could create cars to run off into
the ditch. It is a safety concern.
Noel stated that the Subdivision Regulations state that 100 mobile units require a traffic study however
this development falls under that threshold. Noel stated the City is updating their regulations and would
like to lower that threshold for the future.
Noel stated the development has created the transition into the curve to alleviate some of the safety
concerns with the corner.
Ron stated there is a lot of dirt and debris beyond that corner and wondered who is responsible to clean
up that mess.
Noel stated she thinks it is City property she would talk with Kurt about that concern.
Ron asked about the Cash in lieu for the parkland. He asked if the money from this development could
be allocated directly to the park adjacent to this development.
Noel stated she would talk with Kurt however she believes the money goes into the entire park fund to
maintain all City parks.
Dan asked about the 6 inch water line. He wants to know why the development isn't a looped system.
Mike stated they were asked by public works to not have a looped system with one meter going into the
development.
Noel stated that with this being a private development the City has one meter that they bill each month
and the development bills each site on their own.
Dan said the looped system will prevent the dead end pressure.Why are we not providing a looped
system?
Mike stated it was by request of Public Works.
Dan stated he would not vote for this because it does not have a looped system.
Mike stated there is a water design report with fire and peak flows calculated. Everything has been
modeled.
Ron asked about the provision with picking up trash.
Noel stated condition of approval#13 covers that.She stated that in about 2011 a bill was passed that
when a development is annexed into the City they are able to pick any solid waste carrier they would
like.
Dan asked about Date Avenue being a dirt road. It connects to two paved roads. We have something
somewhere that states if a road connects to two paved roads it should be paved.
Monica Plecker stated she believes since it is currently gravel and if this developer was responsible for
paving half of the street it would be a safety concern. People would end up only driving on the paved
side.With the lack of improvements on the west side, it would be ideal to wait and do the whole street
at once.
Mike stated that again an SID would be the best option for Date Avenue.
Dan asked if they were going to pave half the road.
Mike said no.At the request of Public Works they are installing curb and gutter along the east side and a
waiver or right to protest will be signed by everyone in the development. So the entire street can be
done at once.
Ron stated another concern he has is the agreement with the property owner's states "when the lots
are sold"however these lots won't ever be sold,just rented or leased.
Mike stated none of the lots going to be sold so everything(curb,gutter, and sidewalk)will be installed
before final plan approval.
Ron stated the covenants don't state that.The covenants are confusing all together.
Mike stated this is probably a carryover template from a previous subdivision.
Ron asked if he could have an additional condition of approval that brings the covenants into
compliance and states that it is the developer's responsibility to put in all said improvements prior to
final plan approval.
The motion was clarified to conditionally approve the application with the staff report,findings of fact
and conditions of approval with Ron Benner's amended condition that clarifies the covenants to state "it
is the responsibility of the developer to install sidewalks and also clarify that there are not individual lot
owners but one owner for the development on lots 7&8".
Ron asked if the looped water system should also be looked at.
Noel stated that she would get a letter from public works to clarify the request of not having a looped
system.
Mike stated the system they have designed meets DEQ requirements for fire flow and water supply.
Noel stated she will talk with Kurt about the system. However he has already requested this specific
design.
At this time the board voted on the motion to conditionally approve the preliminary plan application for
Regal Community Park an Addition to the City of Laurel with the staff report,findings of fact and
conditions of approval with Ron Benner's amended condition that clarifies the covenants to state"it is
the responsibility of the developer to install sidewalks and also clarify that there are not individual lot
owners but one owner for the development on lots 7&8". The motion carried 5—0.
Vice President Goldsby introduced the next item under new business,subdivision regulations update.
Noel stated that in July 2015 the City of Laurel applied for a Community Development Block Grant to
update the Subdivision Regulations.The total amount for the project is$24,000, CDBG requires a 3:1
match CDBG is contribution $18,000 and the City of Laurel is contributing$6,000.The City of Laurel has
contracted with CTA Architects to proceed with the update. Monica Plecker is leading the project.
Noel read the needs assessment from the original application.The regulations have not been updated
since 2006, since then there have been several legislative sessions and bills passed that effect land use.
Planning staff has found several inconsistencies with state statues.
In the recent years several comprehensive plans have been adopted including the 2013 Growth
Management Plan,the 2014 Long Range Transportation Plan,and the 2015 Laurel Gateway Plan. It is
crucial for the continued growth of the City to update these regulations.
Noel stated the deadline for this grant is October 6th,however the City will be asking for an extension
and has been working with CDBG and Noel doesn't see an issue with granting the extension.
Monica stated there was a kickoff meeting a couple weeks ago involving City staff. Monica has prepared
a memo for the preliminary analysis requirement in the RFP.
Monica walked through her memo with the Board.
Current adopted policy and plans of the City of Laurel. Zoning,there are some overlap with zoning and
the subdivision regulations especially with mobile home parks.There are some inconsistencies with
setbacks which could be conflicting with subdivision for rent or lease.
Laurel Municipal Code Chapter 16,Zoning:There is a need to identify a clear process that needs to occur
when a development is dependent on a zone change. It is wise to have a zone change sometimes go
first especially if there are capacity concerns or safety concerns.Sometimes having everything go
together at once is not in the best interest of the public.Sometimes there needs to be a determination
of the zone change first.
City of Laurel Annexation policy:there are no inconsistencies in the policy itself however creating a clear
process if annexation is not something that is in the best interest of the city.
Standards for Public Works Improvements(2003):There are some conflicting policies within those
standards and subdivision regulations such as road classifications like collector versus arterial streets
what the required road way widths and ROW widths.There are a few conflicting numbers in Kurt's
regulations but there should be no reason why subdivision regulations say one thing and his standards
say another.
Rules and Regulations Governing Utility Services and Streets: Monica has not been able to identify any
inconsistencies however the City has these regulations adopted and developers need to be aware and
reference these policies.
Dry Hydrant Recommendations from Laurel Fire Department: Beneficial to not only this City but the
County too is the Laure Fire Department and their Dry Hydrant systems.They are able to review the
systems within the subdivision regulations.While the City doesn't have a standalone policy there is a
packet that the Fire Department would like to see. Created more of design standards with our
regulations where everything has improved within the last ten years. Language involving RSID-
maintenance district for the dry hydrants as conditions of approval needs to be added as well so that it
is not an optional standard but a required condition.
International Building Code:Subdivision regulations are completely separate regulations and won't be
looked at with the division of land.
Hazel mentioned a case where the clear process of annexation and zoning would be ideal so that a
landowner isn't stuck with land that is just annexed.
Monica stated there is an opportunity for annexation and zoning to run through at the same time and
leave the subdivision process for later.The annexation policy suggests there will be a zone change.
Dan asked about the maintenance of the Dry Hydrants
Monica stated it is on the home owners to check up on their dry hydrants for maintenance with the
County.
Dan remembers times when dry hydrants haven't had water.
Monica stated we can only hope HOAs work the way they do. If a community chooses to ignore their
responsibilities of maintaining their dry hydrants there isn't much we can do.
Monica stated it's important for our standards to conform to state statutes and best management
practices.
SB 40 Date of Delivery:has not been an issue with the City. Often times when a locality gets sued on a
subdivision issue it's the technicality such as holding onto an application for too long or missing two
property owners within 300 feet.
SB 293 related to multiple user water facilities, including the public service commission to get involved.
SB 316 well isolation zones. It was that for an isolation zone you needed one acre. If you are able to
demonstrate you have enough room for the drain field, replacement drain field,and well isolation zone,
then maybe you don't need a full acre and DEQ will approve it.
Definition changes to townhouse.
Small changes related to language clarifications
Other update considerations:
Outlining procedures with a subdivision requires a zone change or annexation
Geotechnical report for minor subdivision:The rest of Yellowstone County does not require a geo-tech
report for minor subdivisions.
Traffic Study thresholds:The current threshold is not what Laurel is seeing. We haven't had an 80 lot
subdivision in many many years.A mobile home park of 54 lots,can those local streets handle that
capacity?We have to assume so since it doesn't meet the threshold of a traffic study.This is a large
ticket item and it will serve Laurel well to amend for public health and safety.
Judy asked what Monica thinks a target number would be,
Monica stated that any major subdivision should require one. Creating a radius where a subdivision is
coming in where there is already development in the area. Monica stated looking at off street
improvements needs to be something that is done we don't have the language yet.We only have
signing a waiver of right to protest of creating an SID.
Hazel stated the concern of when Walmart went in and now there are no sidewalks and traffic concerns.
Monica stated stronger language will help with requiring developers to contribute more.
Supplemental requirements in subdivision applications and being able to ask for more information from
developers.
Parkland dedication: Historically the City hasn't been given the most suitable parkland. Is the public
benefitting from linear parkland or swampland?Missoula regulations outline what is suitable for
parkland and what is not. Our developments are only going to be as good as our regulations.
Evaluate format and structure: can't see changing the format because the rest of Yellowstone County
has very similarly formatted standards.
This list isn't black and white and isn't everything it is just the bigger ticketed items.
Judy stated these updates will make the Boards job a lot easier.
Monica stated she is underlining and striking through the text document of the Subdivision Regulations.
She has gone through the document a few times and has it as a working draft that will be presented very
similarly to the sign code updates.We're hoping to have final adoption mid-January.The planning board
will have to h9ld the only public hearing.
Hazel asked if we could have a meeting before the public hearing.
Monica stated number 5 and 6 of her timeline allows for Planning Board to review the draft.The board
will have time to review it and comment on items for a few weeks. She wouldn't just give the board the
draft and then have the public hearing. Monica also mentioned there will be a lot of work with staff, fire
department and of course the City and County Attorneys.
Judy asked if there was any old business.
Noel stated Entertainment Park subdivision has submitted their final plat that will go to Council and then
be routed through to get filed at the county.
Just stated the next meeting will be scheduled for October 6th
Noel stated with our new member Ron Benner helps with our quorum issues. Ron will not be able to
make the next meeting.
Hazel asked about our member Clint Peck. Noel stated he is with the Conservation District. Our bylaws
require us to have a seat from the Conservation District. If we were to remove Clint we would still have
issues getting anyone to fill that seat.
Noel stated we still need two City board members to fill the open seats.
Noel stated she would like the Local Government Center to come and help all of us learn a few things.
Ron asked for some calcifications of the limits of the Planning Board. Noel stated having the Local
Government Center will help with that.
Hazel made a motion to adjourn. It was seconded by Dan.The meeting adjourned at 12:08pm
Respectfully S .. 'tted, /
1
Noel aton,Ci Planner
wolf
r (� "°
I
411111114,
LAUREL CITY-COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
TO: Planning Board
FROM: Noel Eaton,City Planner
RE: Application for Annexation
HEARING
DATE: September 1,2016
INTRODUCTION.
Regal Land Development- Dan Wells has applied for annexation of his property located north of
East 8th Street and East Maryland along Date Avenue.The property is legally described as
NUTTING BROS 2ND FILING, S 10,TO2S,R24, LOTS 7&8.
r ,
�.,'DINGS: ,n.,".�`�:
1. Regal Land Development- Dan Wells is requesting the annexation of his property
identified above.The property is zoned Residential Manufactured Homes. The property
is 7.85 acres in size and is currently vacant land.
2. The application identifies the future use as a 54 site Development for Rent or Lease for
manufactured homes.The applicant has also submitted an application for preliminary
plan for Regal Community Park an Addition to the City of Laurel.
3. The application for preliminary plan provides a detailed Subdivision Improvements
Agreement, which satisfies the development agreement improvement.
4. A letter was provided to the applicant from Great West stating the City has the capacity
to serve Moore subdivision. The letter states the City has the capacity to serve 0.212cfs
the proposed Regal Community Park will have less with a total of 0.0853cfs at peak flow.
This is a requirement of the Annexation policy.
5. The application conforms to the goals of the City of Laurel Growth Management Plan.
The Future Land Use map identifies this area as Residential Manufactured Homes.
6. This application in conjunction with the application for preliminary plan meets the
requirements of the City of Laurel Annexation Policy.
7. As per the annexation policy requirements adopted by Ordinance No. 008-02,the
planning board shall conduct a public hearing and forward a recommendation to the City
Page 1 of 3
Council.The public hearing has been advertised and scheduled at a regular Planning
Board meeting to be held September 1, 2016.
A:The City Council shall consider the following criteria when it receives a written petition for
annexation:
• The property must be located within an area identified by city staff as a location for future city
annexation or annexation of the property will promote orderly growth of the city to protect the
health,safety and welfare in areas intensely utilized for residential,commercial,institutional
and governmental purposes.
• The city must be able to provide adequate city services within a time period mutually agreed to
by the property owner requesting annexation and the city;
• Existing or proposed public improvements within the area to be annex must meet all city
standards. If the public improvements are not constructed at the time of annexation,the
property owner shall provide the city a bond or letter of credit that equals 125%of the
estimated engineering costs for the construction of improvements. If the property owner fails to
construct the improvements or to obtain the agreed upon engineering,the city shall utilize the
bond or letter of credit to pay for the construction,including engineering;In accordance with
GASB-34,the Developer of Landowner shall provide the city the total cost and/or value of the
improvements including, but not limited to,parks,sidewalks,curb and gutter,lift stations,and
sewer and water lines,that are conveyed to the city;
• All property owners within the area to be annexed must sign a Waiver of Right to Protest the
creation of Special Improvement Districts for engineering and construction of improvements
including,but not limited to,streets,sidewalks,curb and gutter and the creation of a Park
Maintenance District,in a form acceptable and approved by the city;
• Residential densities within the area to be annexed must be rezoned at a minimum density of R-
7500;and
• The proposed land use within the area to be annexed must conform to the goals of the Laurel
Yellowstone City-County Planning Board Growth Policy.
B:The City Council may decide to either condition the approval of the annexation in order to meet the
criteria listed in Section A herein or require an annexation agreement.The conditions of approval must
be clearly stated in the resolution of annexation or if required,the annexation agreement. If the
property to be annexed is not developed,the conditions of approval or annexation agreement shall
include a requirement for:
• A development agreement prior to the issuance of a building permit;
• A subdivision improvements agreement at the time of final plat approval,if applicable and
• An executed Waiver of Right to Protest creation of Special Improvement Districts for
engineering and construction of improvements including,but not limited,streets,sidewalks,
curb and gutter and the creation of a Park Maintenance District,in a form acceptable and
approved by the City.
1. In the event public improvements have not been completed at the time a building permit is
applied for,the applicant shall provide a development agreement.
Page 2 of 3
2. A Subdivision improvements Agreement shall be executed with Final Plan approval.
3. A waiver of right to protest shall be executed and filed with the Clerk and Recorder at the
time of annexation approval.
Page 3 of 3
CITY OF LAUREL
REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION
AND PLAN OF ANNEXATION
1. Only parcels of land adjacent to the City of Laurel municipal limits will be considered for
annexation. "Adjacent to"also includes being across a public right of way. If the parcel to be li
annexed is smaller than one city block in size(2.06 acres), the City Council must approve
consideration of the request; the applicant must make a separate written request to the
City Council stating their wish to annex a parcel of land less than one city block in. Once
the Council approves the request the applicant can apply for the annexation.
2. Applicant landowner's name:Lfitoki
Address:upn. Sex pf"5'cit„I ATitacisclIoe
Phone: -IO(v-(0,F)(0--
3.
(oF)(r-3. Parcel to he annexed: (if it not surveyed or of public record. it must be of public record PRIOR
to applying for annexation)
Legal description:',t_ orf,+_..� *AI ' . : t •. X 3 _ £.
Lot size: .,rC I: At_.
Present use:va ,r„
Planned use: (fLok_p_h-to1.11'I e.fib ' poi&
Present zoning: LN1 I-f
(land which is being annexed automatically becomes zoned R-7500 when it is officially annexed
(City ordinance 17.12.220)
4. City services: The extension of needed City services shall be at the cost of the applicant atter
annexation by the City has been approved. As part of the application process. each of the
following City services must be addressed with an explanation:
Water Service:
Location of existing main: F5' 1'ti .•
Cost of extension of approved -vice: 115 r(1/0
How cost determined: 2/l.6 e. I m
timeframe for installation: _. &01(0 CYE. P a)1?
Sewer Service:
Location of existing main: F �
�t t r l
Cost of extension of approved s ice: 1? ,.
How cost determined: c-r me.tt 6. ` ,urn e.
Timeframe for installation: 01,301(0 cr
�S�Z�`r'„.y011
How financed:�i ��a��g��
1
Streets:
Location of existing paved access:I.4 t.e.41111 11011 1 u4 - Attjelat,orkbadhAfite.
Cost of paving: apq ono
How cost determined:,erryi2ert,A . :2
Timeframe for constructio n a i „" l tp 1 z tn`l rZ)l'Y
Other required improvements: Provide above information on attached pages.
Applicant must meet with the proper planning representative PRIOR to filling out this
application!
5. A map suitable for review of this application of the proposed area to be annexed must be
submitted with this application. ,
eine j
6. A written Waiver of Protest must accompany this application,suitable for recording and
containing a covenant to run with the land to be annexed,waiving all right of protest to the
creation by the City of any needed improvement district for construction or maintenance of
municipal services. This Waiver of Protest must be signed by the application prior to
annexation by the City � C1 ` `
7. Requests for annexations are referred to the City-County Planning Board for recommendation to
the City Council. Within thirty(30)days after receiving the properly filled out application with
all required accompaniments and after conducting a duly advertised public hearing,the City-
County Planning Board shall make recommendation to the City Council as to this Request for
Annexation. If more information is needed from the applicant during the review of the
application,such application shall be deemed incomplete and the timeframe for reporting to the
City Council extended accordingly,if needed.
8. Fees are to accompany application upon submission:
Annexation into City of Laurel(80 acres or less)$300+$25.00/acre
Annexation into City of Laurel(81 acres or more)$300+$35.00/acre
The City Council of the City of Laurel,Montana,after review and consideration of this Application
for Annexation found such to be in the best interest of the City,that it complied with State code,and
approved this request at its City Council meeting of:
2
tit un�i
� 1
LAUREL CITY-COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
TO: Planning Board
FROM: Noel Eaton, City Planner
RE: Regal Community Park an Addition to the City of Laurel
HEARING
DATE: September 1, 2016
,..'ItMD w N? ._ ., .. ., ... . H ✓... ... x .n, ., ,x ,,J ,.. ..x #,.t.,. Y, _ . ,.i „£'
In August 2016, Regal Land Development, applied for major preliminary plan approval for the
Development for Rent or Lease for Regal Community Park which contains 54 sites on
approximately 7.85 acres of land for residential development. The subject property is located
east of Date Avenue, north of 8`h St, south of Maryland Lane, West of City Park. The property is
not within the City of Laurel but the property owner is petitioning for annexation.
• Planning Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the staff report and Findings of
Fact as presented in this staff report.
1. Site Access to Public Street section 16.24.020.B.2
The applicant has addressed the five facts of hardship to allow for access to a public street.
Section 16.24.020.8.2 of LMC states that"Private streets shall be designed to provide access
to all sites.No site shall have vehicular access to a public street."The applicant's response
the each hardship is below.
1. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or
general welfare or injurious to other adjoin properties.
Granting this variance will improve public health and safety. The existing road
does not meet the City standards or the standards of the International Fire Code.
Allowing this variance will ensure safe and adequate access for all emergency
vehicles and residents of Date Avenue.
Page 1 of 7
2. Because of the particular physical, shape, or topographical condition of the specific
property involved, an undue hardship to the owner would result if the strict letter of the
regulation was enforced.
The physical surroundings of the property include a street that is not constructed
to the City standards or standards of the International Fire Code. By allowing
this variance the applicant will proved a critical easement and improve the
existing road to provide safer access for all. Undue hardship would result from
not approving this variance for the property owner as well as the property owners
in the Mogan Subdivision along Date Avenue.
3. The variance will not result in an increase in taxpayer burden.
Granting this variance will not cost the taxpayers additional money. The
applicant will maintain the section of roadway on their property. Additionally, the
easement and road construction costs will be provided to the City at no cost.
4. The variance will not in any manner place the development in nonconformance with any
adopted zoning regulation or Growth Policy.
Granting this variance will not place this property in nonconformance with the
adopted zoning regulation or Growth Policy.
5. The subdivider must prove that the alternative design is equally effective and objectives
of the improvements are satisfied.
The applicant's alternative design is the best solution for Date Avenue and
provides a critical easement for the City of Laurel as well as provides improved
access for the existing residents along Date Avenue. Furthermore, numerous
other parks in the area have all been allowed to have sites access public streets
including the Sunhaven Park to the south as well as the Pine Lane Park
baa° '�� a i4 a � a r�� e ' . . ,� ,rw- .v
Pursuant to Section 76-3-608(4), MCA,the following conditions are recommended to reasonably
minimize potential adverse impacts identified within the Findings of Fact:
1. The property shall be annexed into the City of Laurel.
2. There shall be Right-of-Way of 27 feet surveyed and filed under MCA exemption 76-3-
201(h)for the remainder ROW dedication for Date Avenue prior to final plan.
3. There shall be Right-of-Way of 40 feet surveyed and filed under MCA exemption 76-3-
201(h) for the remainder ROW dedication for East Maryland Lane prior to final plan.
4. All public improvements shall be built to Montana Public Work Standards and to the
specifications made in the Subdivision Improvements Agreement provided with the
application for preliminary plan.
5. Water and sewer connections must be approved by the Public Works Director prior to
final plan.
6. A stormwater management plan must be approved by MDEQ before final plan.
Page 2 of 7
7. To minimize effects on local services, utility easements shall be provided on the final
plan.
8. To minimize the effects on local services, a centralized mailbox unit shall be provide as
coordinated by the U.S. Postal Service along the north side of East 8th Street. There shall
also be a concrete pad.
9. To minimize the effects on local services,as requested from the Laurel Fire Department,
no parking signs shall be provided by the developer and installed in front of all fire
hydrants.
10. Minor changes may be made in the SIA and final documents,as requested by the
Planning,Legal or Public Works Department to clarify the documents and bring them
into the standard acceptable format.
11. To minimize the effects on the natural environment, a weed management plan and
property inspection shall be approved by the County Weed Department, prior to final
plan approval.
12. Cash in lieu of parkland shall be received with final plan approval.
13. If City of Laurel solid waste services are used, a plan must be approved by the Public
Works Director.
14. The final plan shall comply with all requirements of the Laurel-Yellowstone City-County
Planning Area Subdivision Regulations, rules,policies,and resolutions of the City of
Laurel,and the law and Administrative Rules of the State of Montana.
aP';,a.. `r ' rY^f .»''t ka .fit a cb` .N.^# n �a v.✓ r *t '8"
• A pre-application meeting was conducted with Planning Staff for the proposed
development
• The preliminary plat application sufficiency and completeness review was done and
submitted to the owner's agent.
rr: 2_4 frprr,
In August,Regal Land Development-Dan Wells applied for major preliminary plan approval for
the Development for Rent or Lease for Regal Community Park an Addition to the City of Laurel.
The proposed plan contains 54 sites on 7.85 acres of land for residential development. The
subject property is located east of Date Avenue,North of 8th St,South of Maryland Lane, West
of City Park. The property is not within the City of Laurel but the property owner is petitioning
for annexation.
Page 3 of 7
General location: East of Date Avenue,North of 8th St, South of Maryland Lane,
West of City Park
Legal Description: NUTTING BROS 2ND FILING,S10,102 S, R24 E, Lot 7—8
Subdivider and Owner: Regal Land Development-Dan Wells
Engineering and Surveyor: C&H Engineering- Mike Balch
Existing Zoning: Residential Manufactured Home
Existing Land Use: Vacant/Open
Proposed Land Use: Residential Manufactured Homes
Gross Area: 7.85
Proposed#of Lots: 54
Lot Sizes: Approximately 6000 sq.ft.
Parkland Requirements: Cash in lieu of parkland will be received.
^S°." _ m .,,..,. k Aelt. ` e
The Findings of Fact for the preliminary plan of Regal Community Park an Addition to the City
of Laurel have been prepared by the Laurel City-County Planning Department staff for review by
the City/County Planning Board.These findings are based on the preliminary application and
address the review criteria required by the Montana Subdivision and Platting Act(76-3-608,
MCA)and the Laurel-Yellowstone City-County Planning Area Subdivision Regulations.
A. What are the effects on agriculture and agricultural water user facilities,local
services,the natural environment,wildlife and wildlife habitat and public health
and safety? (76-3-608(3)(a),MCA)(Section 3 (C)(3)(a),LYCCPASR)
1. Effect on agriculture and agricultural water user facilities.
The proposed Regal Community Park will have no impact on agriculture. The 7.85 acre
Regal Community Park site is currently a vacant lot. It is surrounded on three sides by
land that has been annexed into the City of Laurel;therefore,the site is no longer
Page 4 of 7
considered a viable farming unit. Areas to the South and West are currently mobile home
parks and the area to the east and north are parkland.
There are no existing irrigation rights with the property and no modification to existing
ditches will occur with the development.
2. Effect on local services
a. The subdivision improvements agreement has provided detailed information
regarding:
• Water
• Sanitary sewer
• Storm drainage
• Streets
• Parks and Open Space
3. Effects on the natural environment
The development is proposed to contain 54 single family residential manufactured
homes. The property has a zoning designation of RMH and is being annexed into the City
concurrent with the preliminary plat. The proposed development will have minimal
impact on local services as it is surrounded on three sides by existing city land.
4. Effects on wildlife and wildlife habitat
There are no known endangered species or critical game ranges on site. Due to the history
of agricultural use near the site, and the adjacent residential use, it provides little wildlife
habitat. Wildlife species consist mainly of rodents and common birds. Little cover and
shelter is available for wildlife species in the area.
5. Effects on public health and safety
The proposed development will improve the public health and safety in the City of
Laurel. Cash-in-lieu donation for parkland will be able to be used to better maintain city
parks. Also,the proposed development will improve access for the public by installing
sidewalks along Date Avenue and a private sidewalk through the property that will
connect the City Park with the sidewalk on 9th Street.This will allow residents in the area
to safely walk to the park.
B. Was an Environmental Assessment Required? (76-3-603,MCA)(Section 16.9
LYCCPASR)
An environmental assessment was required and submitted with the application.
Page 5 of 7
C. Does the subdivision conform to the Montana Subdivision and Platting Act and to
local subdivision regulations? (76-3-608 (3)(b), MCA)
The development,with proposed conditions, satisfies the requirements of the Montana
Subdivision and Platting Act and conforms to the design standards specified in the
LYCCPASR. The subdivider and the local government have complied with the
subdivision review and approval procedures set forth in the local and state subdivision
regulations.
D. Does the subdivision conform to sanitary requirements? (Section 3(C)(3)(e),
LYCCPASR)
A water and sewer design report has been included with the application. The Subdivision
Improvements agreement identifies the developer responsibilities in connecting to City
water and sewer services.
E. Does the proposed plat provide easements for the location and installation of any
utilities? (76-3-608(3)(C),MCA
Utility easements shall be provided on the face of the final plan.
F. Does the proposed plat provide legal and physical access to each parcel within the
subdivision and notation of that access on the plat? (76-3-608 (3)(d), MCA)
Physical access has been provided for all lots. The applicant is requesting a variance to
allow sites to access a public street within a private development.
CONCULSIONS OF FINDINGS OF FACT
• The preliminary plan of Regal Community Park does not create any adverse impacts that
warrant denial of the development.
• With the proposed conditions, Regal Community Park is in compliance with the Montana
Subdivision and Platting Act, LYCCPASR and the City of Laurel Growth Management
Plan.
• All public improvements shall be built to Montana Public Work Standards.
RECOMMENDATION
Planning staff recommends that the City/County Planning Board make findings and should they
decide to approval include the staff report and staff recommended conditions and adopt the
Findings of Fact as presented.
ATTACHMENTS
Page 6 of 7
A: Preliminary Plan and Supporting Documents
Page 7 of 7
MEMORANDUM
TO: Noel Eaton and City/County Planning Board
FROM: Monica Plecker, AICP
DATE: August, 2016
RE: Preliminary Analysis, Subdivision Regulations Update
As a part of the Laurel Subdivision Regulations Update, CTA has reviewed and evaluated the
current regulations for conformance with adopted City plans and policies, current state statutes,
and recommended best practices. Additionally, we have reviewed the regulations for clarity in
terms of format and structure. The findings are summarized below:
Current adopted policies and plans for the City of Laurel;
Laurel Municipal Code Chapter 16, Zoning
• Subdivisions for Lease or Rent present inconsistencies with lots size requirements for
RMH zoning.
• Need to identify clear procedural process when a zone change is being submitted
concurrently with a subdivision application. Allow for flexibility for Planning Director to
advise developer if a zone change should be submitted in advance of subdivision
application.
City of Laurel Annexation Policy
• While there are no inconsistencies with the policy itself, there should be a clear process
for subdivisions which are requesting annexation and the appropriate review/order of
application submittals and approvals are.
Standards for Public Works Improvements(2003)
• Some inconsistencies related to ROW widths and road classifications (to be corrected),
consistency with these regulations should be adopted by reference.
Rules and Regulations Governing Utility Services and Streets
• No inconsistencies found, but the regulations should be mentioned by reference for
conformance and construction standards.
y:\nbd iaurellcta memorandumpreliminary analysis.docx I
hltpalwvnv.ctagroup.com E-mail info@ctagroup.coal
MEMORANDUM (cont.)
Dry Hydrant Recommendations from Laurel Fire Department
• Dry hydrant specifications are not the same as what is currently being requested by the
Laurel Volunteer Fire Department. New rendering and manual should be referenced and
replace the outdated spec drawing.
• It is anticipated there will language clarification about the developer's responsibility for
maintenance of dry hydrants, and RSID-M requirements.
International Building Code
• Subdivision regulations do not govern the construction of buildings, thus there are no
inconsistencies or need to reference the building code in these regulations.
Conformance with Current State Statutes and Best Management Practices
Legislative Updates
• The Laurel Subdivision Regulations were last adopted in 2006. Since then a number of
legislative updates to the Title 76 of Montana Code Annotated have changed. Fortunately,
Laurel has made some updates related to required changes for Subdivision for Lease or
Rent and Buildings for Lease or Rent, but there are some minor amendments to be made
related to
o SB 40(2013)related to"date of delivery"for time period related to element review
of a submitted application.
o SB 293 related to a subdivider proposing a shared, multiple user, water or
wastewater subdivision. This bill requires the subdivider to state whether the
system will be a public utility as defined in 69-3-101 and subject to the jurisdiction
of the Public Service Commission.
o SB 316 (2013) defining well isolation zone and requirements for easements on
adjacent property owners.
o Definition change to Townhouse
o Timeframe changes related to governing body review time
o Small changes related to divisions of land which may be exempt from review and
surveying as related to townhomes within incorporated cities and towns.
Other Update Considerations
• Outlining procedures when a subdivision requires zone changes or annexation
• Consider geotechnical requirement for first minor subdivisions
• Consider threshold for traffic studies in City Limits or existing residential areas
• Review and make recommendations for applications
• Expedited plat clarification for"checkprint"!Preliminary Plat
• Land Quality Standards for Parkland Dedication
Format and Structure
After discussing with staff,the format and structure should remain as is.There are several reasons
to support this logic. One being, that there are no major flaws with the current structure.Also, it is
in the best interest of the City to continue with the existing format since these are jointly adopted
regulations and closely mirror Yellowstone County regulations. The current structure is one that
both governing bodies are familiar with and also developers in this region.
y:\nbd'Jaurel\cta memorandum_prehrn nary analysis.docx 2
http://vnvw.ctagroup.com E-mail:info@ctagroup.com
MEMORANDUM (cont.)
II'I
Update Approach and Timeline:
II
No. Task Description Meeting Deliverable
Estimated
Schedule
1 Project Kickoff • 28-Jul-16
2 Preliminary Analysis • August
3 Work Session with
Planning Board • • 1-Sep-16
4 Preliminary Summary • Sept/Oct
S Planning Board Draft
•
of Amendments November
6 Public Presentation • Nov.(Sp)
7 Finalize Draft •
Planning Board Public
8 Hearing • 1-Dec-16
9 City Council Workshop • 11-Jan-17
10 City Council Adoption • 18-Jan-17
y:\nbd'aurellcta memorandumpreliminary analysis.docx 3
flap://www.ctagroup.com E-mail:info@ctagroup.com