HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil Workshop Minutes 09.27.2016 MINUTES
COUNCIL WORKSHOP
SEPTEMBER 27, 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
6:32 p.m. on September 27, 2016.
COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT:
_x Emelie Eaton _x_Doug Poehls
x Bruce McGee _x_Richard Herr
x Chuck Dickerson _x_ Scot Stokes
x Tom Nelson x Bill Mountsier
OTHERS PRESENT:
Noel Eaton, City Planner
Kurt Markegard, Public Works Director
Dan Wells, Regal Community Park
Public Input
There was no public input.
General items:
• Appointments
o Cemetery Commission
The appointment of David Gauslow to the Cemetery Commission will be on the October 4th council
agenda.
o Tree Board
The appointment of Dale Ahrens to the Tree Board will be on the October 4th council agenda.
Executive Review
• Resolution - Annexation of Regal Community Park, Preliminary Plan approval and Variance
Request (Public hearings on October 4, 2016)
City Planner Noel Eaton gave a PowerPoint presentation regarding Regal Community Park. A few
different components to this development have come about since the Planning Board meeting. The
Regal Community Park is an addition to the City of Laurel so they are requesting annexation,
Preliminary Plan approval and a variance from Laurel Municipal Code 1.24.02.B.2, which states that
"Private streets shall be designed to provide access to all sites. No site shall have vehicular access to
a public street."
Noel stated that the Preliminary Plan for Regal Community Park is a 54-site development for rent or
lease, which is different than a typical subdivision. This is a private development on two lots that will
rent out the 54 spaces. The general location is east of Date Avenue, north of East 8h Street, south of
East Maryland Lane, and west of the city park and soccer field. The subdivider is Dan Wells from
Council Workshop Minutes of September 27,2016
Regal Land Development, who attended the meeting. C&H Engineering is the engineering company
for the development. Mike Balch has been working on this project since last November and also
when it was Moore Subdivision. Mike Balch recently left C&H Engineering, and Adam Morse has
taken over the project for Dan Wells.
Noel explained that the existing zoning is Residential Manufactured Home (RMH), so there would be
no zone change in annexation. The current use is open vacant land and the property is about 7.85
acres with 54 proposed sites of approximately 6,000 square feet each. There will be cash in lieu of
parkland.
Emelie asked if a manufactured home is a permanent structure on a foundation or if it is a moveable
structure.
Noel stated that it would be moveable.
Bill asked what cash in lieu of parkland means.
Noel explained that the developer is not proposing public parkland for this, so the city will receive
cash in lieu of the parkland at final plat. The developer is proposing a sidewalk and parkway through
the middle of the development, but because this is a private development, that would not count for the
public parkland that is required.
Tom questioned whether the council had previously visited this regarding density.
Noel stated that the Planning Board discussed this regarding density, but it did not come before the
city council. She provided some background information. In 2014, the actual site was approved for
Moore Subdivision. Moore Subdivision was approved for preliminary plat and annexation, as well as
the three right-of-way variances that were requested. Things did not work out for the developer and
they never applied for final plat. A developer has three years between preliminary and final to file,
but that never happened. The development was sold to the new owner, who has now applied for
preliminary plan approval of Regal Community Park. The difference is that this development for rent
or lease is a private development on two lots with 54 sites. It does not need to be surveyed through
Montana State Law, so the site plan and final plat has to be the exact site plan of the preliminary plan
that is approved. It is not called a plat because it is not surveyed. It does not have to be surveyed, but
it has to follow the preliminary plan that was approved. The annexation request was approved,
however, the conditions of Moore Subdivision were never met and they never filed a fmal plat, which
would mean that the conditions have been met. The annexation approved for Moore Subdivision
stayed with that subdivision and that exact development for 45 lots that would be individually sold to
different owners. The annexation essentially died with the neglect of filing for final plat of Moore
Subdivision. Because it is still within the three-year timeframe, if this developer had come back with
the conditions met for Moore Subdivision, they would have had preliminary annexation approval.
However, that has been wiped clean and this is a 54-site development for rent or lease.
Dan Wells explained that he originally applied for 62 [73] lots, but the variance request was denied.
He came back with 54 lots, which zoning allows.
Tom mentioned that the city council addressed street widths.
2
Council Workshop Minutes of September 27,2016
Noel explained that street widths were the right-of-way variances requested for Moore Subdivision.
The developer is providing, through conditions of approval, the required right-of-way widths. The
zoning variances for Regal Community Park went to the Planning Board and the developer came back
with the preliminary plan that met the zoning requirements to be under the nine units per net acre.
Noel spoke regarding the annexation first. She broke it down into the three components of the
annexation, the preliminary plan and the variance request. Essentially, this development is dependent
on all or nothing. If they do not get the annexation approval, they do not have a preliminary plan that
can be annexed into the city. If they are not approved for preliminary plan, then they would not annex
in the vacant lot. The preliminary plan is dependent on the variance. So if the variance is not granted,
the preliminary plan would change and they would have to resubmit.
Regarding annexation, the city council should consider the criteria when it receives a written petition
for annexation. (The criteria are included in Noel's Staff Report, but were not stated at the meeting.)
Noel spoke regarding the three conditions of approval for annexation that staff has recommended in
the event the public improvements have not been completed at the time application is made for a
building permit.
• The applicant shall provide a development agreement.
• A Subdivision Improvements Agreement (SIA) shall be executed with Final Plan approval.
Noel stated that the SIA has been included in the Preliminary Plan.
• An executed Waiver of Right to Protest shall be executed and filed with the Clerk and
Recorder at the time of annexation approval.
The Planning Board recommended conditional approval of annexation with the staff report, staff
findings and conditions of approval because the application met the requirements outlined in the
annexation policy. The motion carried with a 5-0 vote.
In the PowerPoint presentation, Noel gave a quick tour of the development. Pictures showed the area
from the southeast corner looking northwest, with the fence by the soccer field and the pathway going
through. Pictures showed East 8th Street looking west. East 8th Street is already at its required
roadway width and right-of-way width. A picture of Date Avenue looking north showed that it is a
gravel road. No improvements have been done to this road and the street is actually at a half width at
this time. Another picture showed Mogan Subdivision across the street from Date Avenue. Noel
stated that some of the sites in the development have access to Date Avenue, which is essentially the
reason for the variance request. Looking east on East Maryland, there is a pretty dominant curve.
This development is actually proposing a transition into the curve to make it safer for pedestrians.
Looking west on Maryland, Mogan Subdivision is placed south more. They have given the right-of-
way requirements for Maryland being a collector street, which is 70 feet, and have pushed the
development back in for future expansion of East Maryland Lane.
Noel spoke regarding the conclusions of the findings of fact, which are included in the staff report.
The Preliminary Plan of Regal Community Park does not warrant the denial of the development. It
has not created any adverse impacts. With the proposed conditions, Regal Community Park is in
compliance with the Montana Subdivision and Platting Act, and all public improvements shall be
built to Montana Public Works Standards.
Noel read the 15 proposed conditions of approval for this development.
3
Council Workshop Minutes of September 27,2016
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.
Essentially every development that comes into the city needs to give right-of-way dedication.
Because this is a development for rent or lease and does not need to be surveyed, an actual right-of-
way dedication would need to be surveyed out and dedicated to the city. Date Avenue is currently a
half street, so the extra right-of-way dedication would make that a whole street and provide the
additional curb, gutter and sidewalk right-of-way.
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.
7. To minimize effects on local services, utility easements shall be provided on the final plan.
8. To minimize effects on local services, a centralized mailbox unit shall be provided as
coordinated by the U.S. Postal Service along the north side of East 8th Street. There shall also
be a concrete pad.
Noel stated that this is already included in the site plan.
9. To minimize the effects on local services, as requested by the Laurel Fire Department, no
parking signs shall be provided by the developer and installed in front of all fire hydrants.
Noel explained that the signs will be for Regal Avenue, which is the private street that goes through
the center of the development.
10. Minor changes may be made in the SIA and final documents, as requested by the Planning,
Legal or Public Works Departments 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.
4
Council Workshop Minutes of September 27,2016
13. If the City of Laurel solid waste services are used, a plan must be approved by the Public
Works Director.
In 2011, a bill was passed allowing a development that is annexed to choose any solid waste provider.
If they choose the City of Laurel, that 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.
Noel stated that the 15th proposed condition has been added since the Planning Board met.
15. Clarify the covenants so that it states it is the developer's responsibility to install sidewalks
before final plan approval. Also clarify the covenants that there are no individual lot owners,
but the development on lots 7 & 8 is owned by one individual.
Noel explained that it was a confusing thing at Planning Board. The covenants used for this
development were a template for other subdivisions, which would create individual lot owners. The
developer said it was not a problem to clarify the covenants. The city cannot really regulate
covenants, however, staff has an opportunity to review and comment before the final plan is
submitted.
Chuck asked if the lots would be the same size in this proposed subdivision and if there is a regulation
for the size of the residential dwelling on each of the lots.
Noel stated that the lot size has to be a minimum of 4,000 square feet and there are setback
requirements.
Chuck questioned if the manufactured housing would be a single-wide, a double-wide, a triple-wide
or whatever. He asked if there is a minimum requirement for the residences that are going to be
sitting on these. He asked if they are going to be 900 square feet or 1,100 square feet and how it will
be dedicated. All he can see right now is another Alder Ridge.
Noel stated that Alder Ridge is a subdivision. Alder Ridge Estates owns the majority of the sites, but
there are many different lot owners. She does not know if Alder Ridge does much to manage their
homes. There are some individual lot owners and some individual lot owners that are renters. In
2013, the Development for Rent or Lease was put in place for mobile home parks to make the
governing of the park dependent on one owner. Dan Wells will be the owner of the proposed
development and everything inside of the development will be private.
Chuck stated that his question had not been answered. He asked if Mr. Wells could give an idea as to
building size or residential size of the manufactured homes they will have.
Dan Wells stated that he has been a builder/developer in Yellowstone County for about 25 years and
just finished Lindy Lakes Subdivision on 72m1 Street. Other subdivisions he has done between Laurel
and Billings include Oak Ridge on 48th Street and Crystal Springs on the frontage road. Granite Park
Subdivision is on Central. In the City of Billings, he has done Ironwood Subdivision and is currently
doing Daybreak Subdivision. He has built over 600 home sites for families. This is a little bit
5
Council Workshop Minutes of September 27,2016
different, but it has the same attitude or desire for a nice living space when it is done. Dan will own
and manage the subdivision. He believes that the zoning allows a single-wide or double-wide, but
does not allow for RV's. If someone wanted to set up an RV type of apparatus, that would not work.
Dan plans to have a number of double-wide and single-wide homes set up in the development. There
will be a strict set of covenants. It is not his interest to have something that is not kept up, does not
have nice landscaping and does not have requirements for someone that wants to have a nice place to
live.
Chuck stated that he was not questioning Dan's credibility because he has built some beautiful stick
homes, not manufactured homes. The problem he has seen in the areas that contain manufactured
homes in the City of Laurel is the lack of enforcement of covenants for the residents. He has seen
lean-tos compared to tin sheds compared to sheds that have the same siding. Laurel has Sunhaven
and Alder Ridge, and Chuck does not want to see another one of those. His concern for the city is to
end up with a development of 54 lots that is a nice addition.
Dan agreed that they are on the same page. The covenants will be able to address that. He will be
managing it, and it is his experience that there are definitely buyers and renters that, if they know
what the standards are, will adhere to the standards. He thinks they will be able to attract people who
are willing to live in a nicer area.
Chuck asked if this would be an association type neighborhood. He questioned if the people renting
the 54 spaces would be responsible for maintaining the sidewalks and their yards for snow removal
and for grass cutting or if an association would do that.
Dan has been working with the owners of Shiloh Estates and Shiloh Village on West Shiloh and just
south of Central and has looked at their covenants to see what they require. That would be similar to
what he wants to do.
Chuck stated that the development would be very impressive because the other developments are very
well maintained and very well done.
Doug asked if there are lot coverage rules and if they would this apply to these lots.
Noel said that there are lot coverage rules and the lots range in size from 6,000 to 8,000 square feet.
She anticipates that the larger lots would be used for double-wide homes. The lot coverage
requirement is 40 percent for RMH zoning.
Doug asked if that that would apply to these lots.
Noel said that the requirement would apply. There are also setback requirements which constrict the
size of housing. There is no minimum home size requirement. However, a development for rent or
lease does allow for RVs, but she knows this is not the plan and the preliminary plan has to be
approved. The code of Development for Rent or Lease does allow for RV's, but she wanted to make
it clear that is not the case with this development.
Noel explained that the requested variance states that all public streets shall be private and there shall
be no vehicular access to a public street. Date Avenue is a public street. The developer is proposing
Regal Avenue through the middle, which would be a private street. There will be no parking on
6
Council Workshop Minutes of September 27,2016
Regal Avenue. Two parking sites have been provided for each home, plus an additional space for
guest parking for each site, so there will be three areas to park. Each space is 10 feet wide by 20 feet
deep, so the entire space would be 30 feet wide by 20 feet deep. The variance requested would allow
these individual sites to access Date Avenue. Noel showed a picture of Date Avenue, which is
currently a dirt road. The developer is not proposing to pave Date Avenue because of a safety aspect.
Since the west half is not paved, paving the east half would essentially encourage people to drive on
the east side. The developer has provided the waiver of right to protest an SID to pave this street in
the future. The condition of approval to add an additional 27 feet of right-of-way to be surveyed will
kick out the road width to meet the plated road requirements. In Mogan Subdivision, these sites have
access to Date Avenue already. Mogan Subdivision is a subdivision and does not follow the private
development standards that are in the Development for Rent or Lease requirements.
Chuck stated that the lot sizes are approximately 6,000 square feet. He asked regarding the width and
depth of those lot sizes. He also asked if a garbage truck could go in back of those homes and if the
garbage containers would be put out in the street in front of the homes or in an alleyway for garbage
pickup.
Noel stated that there would not be an alleyway. Condition of approval number 13 is "if the City of
Laurel solid waste services are used, a plan must be approved by the Public Works Director." Kurt
would have to approve a plan, whether that involves individual cans or a centralized pickup location,
before final plan.
Chuck again asked regarding the width and depth of the lot.
Noel said that the site plan shows the widths. The first exhibit in section 5 of the Development for
Rent or Lease Application and Supplemental Information is the site plan, which has the widths of
each site and each home within that site.
Doug stated that in most cases the lots are about 43.6 feet across. Some are a little bigger at 50, but
most of them are around 43 to 45 feet and 102, 104 or 115 feet deep.
Noel stated that the city council needs to review the five facts of hardship when considering a
variance request. This is an excerpt from the annexation policy, specifically highlighting that existing
public improvements within the area to be annexed must meet all city standards.
Noel stated the five facts of hardship and gave the developer's response.
1. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or general
welfare or injurious to other adjoining properties.
The applicant's response is that 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.
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.
7
Council Workshop Minutes of September 27,2016
The applicant's response is that the physical surroundings of the property include a street that is not
constructed to city standards or the standards of the International Fire Code. By allowing this
variance, the applicant will provide 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.
Noel clarified that, with all new developments, it is a requirement that the development provides
right-of-way dedication, or the city would never have streets that are big enough. The dedicated right-
of-way width has to be provided, so she would not really state it as a critical easement. The right-of-
way has to be surveyed out and approved before final plat.
3. The variance will not result in an increase in taxpayer burden.
The applicant's response is that 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 will be provided to the city at no cost.
Noel stated that developments are required to put in these public improvements before their final plan.
This would not be any different than a subdivision that the council has previously approved.
4. The variance will not in any manner place the development in nonconformance with any
adopted zoning regulation or Growth Policy.
The applicant's response is that 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 response is that 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.
Noel explained that Sunhaven Park and Pine Lane Park were put in before the Development for Rent
or Lease law was approved in 2013, so there are new regulations that govern the developments for
rent or lease.
Noel stated that the Planning 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 condition number 15 added in as well, and the motion
carried with a 5-0 vote.
At the Planning Board meeting, one of the members asked why there was not a looped water system
in this development, specifically for water pressure at the end of the line. The Public Works Director
provided a letter explaining why a loop system is not ideal in this development. Because this is a
8
Council Workshop Minutes of September 27,2016
private development, the water is essentially going to be metered at one point going in and the
developer will sell the water to their individual sites on their own.
Noel stated that there was also a question about the debris located at the east side of East Maryland
turning north. She found out that the property is a county park, not city property. It is believed to
have had some illegal dumping done in the past,but the city does not have control over it.
The Planning Board also had a question regarding cash in lieu of parkland dedication. The question
was if the cash in lieu that is provided from this development could go specifically to the adjacent
park on the east side. It is Noel's understanding that the cash provided goes into a large pot and the
council approves where the money is used for projects.
At the Planning Board meeting, Ron Benner suggested adding sidewalks along East 8th Street and
East Maryland Lane, as "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."
The applicant is not putting in sidewalks on Maryland or 8th Street, but is providing a waiver of right
to protest the creation of an SID. There are no other sidewalks on East 8th Street or Maryland
currently, so doing them all at once would be the more ideal situation.
Chuck asked if curb and gutter will be put in to move the water, and Noel said there would be.
Noel stated that the following information was added to her staff report since the Planning Board
meeting.
• The Planning Board held two public hearings on September 1st. One for the annexation
request and one for the preliminary plan and variance request, which is what the council will
do as well. The variance request is included within the staff report for preliminary plan.
• The site plan for Regal Community Park is completely dependent on the variance request
being approved.
• There was no discussion regarding the variance or the criteria that needs to be met for each
variance within the city. Because there was no discussion, there was no vote or motion made
that specifically dealt with the approval or denial of the variance.
Noel stated that the variance request was completely missed at the Planning Board level.
• Since the motion that was made included the staff report, Findings of Fact, and staff
conditions of approval, the variance request was included with the motion to conditionally
approve the preliminary plan.
• Staff recommends that council discuss the variance in detail on account of the development
being dependent on its approval. With no variance, the development will need to resubmit a
preliminary plan for approval.
Noel explained that previous planners have not provided a staff recommendation, but legal counsel
advised her to give a recommendation. Planning staff recommends NON-approval of the proposed
resolution due to the fact the applicant is unable to meet or satisfy the criteria required for the city
council to approve the requested variance, specifically the five facts of hardship. The applicant needs
to meet all of the criteria, and she does not feel that has been done. However, if the city council
decides to approve the resolution, staff recommends that the city council adopt the staff report,
9
Council Workshop Minutes of September 27,2016
Findings of Fact and conditions of approval as presented in the staff report for the preliminary plan
and variance request for Regal Community Park, a development for rent or lease.
Tom asked regarding the letter that was submitted to the Planning Board, as stated in the minutes of
the September City-County Planning Board meeting.
Noel stated that the letter should have been attached to the minutes, but she could address what was in
the letter. She explained that it was not a letter, but it was just some facts on a piece of paper that the
individual gave her about ten minutes before the meeting. The individual's concern was that the
application was applying for zoning variances, and that the density would still be compacted and not
in compliance with city codes. After Noel explained that his concerns were addressed with the zoning
variance and they are complying with the zoning requirements and showed him the notice of the
actual requested variance, he circled it and said agreed. Noel will provide a copy of the letter.
Tom asked what the variance is and if it is a statute and in LMC.
Noel explained that the variance is for access to a public street. The development for rent or lease is a
statute in MCA and the City of Laurel adopted the Development for Rent or Lease requirements in
LMC.
Emelie questioned what the staff recommendation of non-approval of the proposed resolution would
do for the whole plan.
Noel explained that the resolution incorporates the annexation, the preliminary plan and the variance
request all in one. One-third of the entire development is dependent on the variance request, so the
preliminary plan would change if the variance request was not approved. There would essentially be
nothing along the west side of the property. Since the final plan must have the same site plan as
approved with the preliminary plan, it would not be the same plan.
Emelie asked if staff wants the developer to change the preliminary plan to meet the five criteria.
Noel stated that the developer would have to change the plan to meet the requirements. However, the
developer has determined that this preliminary plan fits the property the best and that requires asking
for a variance because the Development for Rent or Lease requirements do not allow access to a
public street. If this was a subdivision, a variance would not be needed and they could access the
street.
Tom asked if the variance would be the line that runs to the center and if there should be a street
between the two sets of lots on the left.
Noel pointed to Date Avenue on the PowerPoint. The code says that all streets in the development
shall be private and no site shall have vehicular access to a public street. Date Avenue is a public
street, so the entire west side of the development has all of the sites accessing the public street.
Noel explained that the recommendation came about today and was not presented to the Planning
Board. It came about specifically because there was no discussion and because the development is
dependent on the variance.
10
Council Workshop Minutes of September 27,2016
There will be two public hearings on Tuesday, October 4th.
• Council Issues:
o Scot Stokes' absence from the City of Laurel
The council will vote on the absence from the city on October 4th.
o Update on Tom Nelson's visit to the Governor's Office
Tom thinks that some of the issues are being addressed by the State, but there has been no public
information from the State. Tom and Bruce McGee attended a meeting with gubernatorial candidate
Greg Gianforte on Monday. Mr. Gianforte was interested in the issue and offered some advice on
where to find some help, which Tom will pursue. Tom and Representative Vince Ricci will speak
with Jon Arneson on the Voices of Montana radio show tomorrow morning at 9:00 a.m. to discuss the
issues and the facts concerning the 25 percent State match that the State has been unwilling to
provide.
o Update on 2011 Yellowstone River flooding event
Mayor Mace mentioned that the Governor and some Federal officials attended the recent meeting
regarding the Exxon settlement. Nothing in the meeting pertained to Laurel specifically to pay for the
restoration of the damage that the oil caused. Mayor Mace will forward the council an email that says
funds could be available for a vault toilet in Riverside Park.
Other items
There were none.
Review of draft council agenda for October 4, 2016
• Public Hearings:
o Annexation of Regal Community Park
o Preliminary Plat and Variance Request for Regal Community Park
There will be two public hearings on October 4th.
Attendance at the October 4, 2016 council meeting
Tom might not attend the council meeting.
There was a brief discussion regarding when council members need to leave for the League of Cities
and Towns Conference and the schedule for the conference.
Announcements
Doug thanked Kurt and Chad Hanson for the tour of the new water intake, as it is much better to see
what is going on than to hear what is going on.
Richard stated that, at last week's meeting at the park, the folks from Helena said they would be at an
upcoming meeting in Billings on a Wednesday and could possibly meet with Laurel on Tuesday.
Richard will provide the contact information for Mayor Mace.
Tom stated that there will be a meeting in Billings soon concerning the$12 million Exxon settlement.
He thinks it would be prudent for the city to see what portion of that is available for the losses
suffered in Riverside Park.
11
Council Workshop Minutes of September 27,2016
Kurt informed the council that there is a public meeting on October 12th from 6:00 to 8:00 p.m. at the
Lake Elmo Drive Fish Wildlife and Parks conference room. Kurt will forward an email to the council
secretary to forward to the council.
Chuck thanked Kurt for the educational presentation and tour tonight.
The council workshop adjourned at 7:39 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
1 -
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.
12
r a
el^
a
LAUREL CITY-COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
TO: City Council
FROM: Noel Eaton, City Planner
RE: Application for Annexation
HEARING
DATE: October 4, 2016
INTRODUCTION s . '
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, S10, TO2S, R24, LOTS 7&8.
:SAFFTIN ���.C{x§�S+S, a,. b k. 'xaTs.z'•t.N . 4.fps. e ��. t y. Kdf't4�ft �xz. :.4x+.YT r ix.,y4���s`i�``�i�'�i �"s,
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 0.212c£s
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 was advertised and scheduled at a regular Planning Board
meeting to be held on September 1, 2016.
ANNEXATION CR:ITE A-i'OAF it U)CREMENTS ss `
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.
SUGGESTED CONDITIONS.O .. PPR:OVAL A
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.
STAFF UPDATE'=. . ,. ' k }= ... ,
1. The Planning Board held a public hearing on September 1s`.There was no public attendance
at that meeting.
2. The board recommended approval of the annexation request with the staff report,staff
findings and conditions of approval because the application has met the requirements
outlined in the annexation policy.
3. The motion carried with a 5-0 vote.
Page 3 of 3
4000.47N
}I)] ,
1
rJ 411•40-
LAUREL CITY-COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
TO: City Council
FROM: Noel Eaton, City Planner
RE: Regal Community Park an Addition to the City of Laurel
HEARING
DATE: October 4, 2016
a t rs f f t xe `p a- , r - 7 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 Stn 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.
attrN l * .4 'f40,1'1',C4;f X:r gGVal!' �° � k '0."
vS.I''
v _ ,..« ,. _,9 ,. x t' .w b2, .§" ��, o.,.,
• Planning Staff recommends NON-Approval of the Proposed Resolution due to the fact
the Applicant is unable to meet or satisfy the criteria required for the City Council to
approve the requested Variance.
• If the City Council decides to approve the Resolution, then Staff recommends the City
Council adopt the staff report, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as presented
in this staff report for the preliminary plan and variance request for Regal Community
Park, a development for rent or lease.
44. va.wss� ..X:lc ., wissAa...,,rM?+sa�&� .&:`.,. W11''F ,t Yk".i F .. �".F. yh, Tn, ; §; av» =V ..k�'' zk^"s
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.B.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.
Page 1 of 8
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.
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.
`5 e' XrF`A > ..fi. r ;`of „r.,SuKws Atte
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.
Page 2 of 8
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.
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 8t" 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 fmal 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.
15. Clarify the covenants so that it states it is the developer's responsibility to install
sidewalks before final plan approval. Also clarify the covenants that there are no
individual lot owners, but the development on lots 7 & 8 is owned by one induvial.
;fa', J#km,i 2ja cert 4f re%.1 'ry, ,.
Page 3 of 8
• City Council approved the preliminary plat, annexation request, and Right of Way
variances for Moore Subdivision in 2014 with Resolution R14-30.
• 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.
• Planning Board held a public hearing on September 1s`and recommended conditional
approval.
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.
General location: East of Date Avenue, North of Bch St, South of Maryland Lane,
West of City Park
Legal Description: NUTTING BROS 2ND FILING,S10,T02 5, R24 E, Lot 7—8
Subdivider and Owner: Regal Land Development- Dan Wells
Engineering and Surveyor: C&H Engineering- Mike Balch, Adam Morse
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.
Page 4 of 8
r g 3 '�""" w . ',
... �:,... 4 �r e'uu�,a1r+��en.,,.r�..._� ,� .-_ ,..r✓��:.r�� _,#27rtt? s 'VC; a�+ 14r
The Findings of Fact for the preliminary plan of Regal Community Park an Addition to the City
of Laurel has been prepared by the Laurel City-County Planning Department staff for review by
the City Council. These fmdings 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
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
Page 5 of 8
habitat. Wildlife species consist mainly of rodents and common birds. Little cover and
shelter is available for wildlife species in the area.
S. 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.
•
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
Page 6of8
• 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 Council make findings and should they decide to
approve, include the staff report and staff recommended conditions and adopt the Findings of
Fact as presented.
ATTACHMENTS
A: Preliminary Plan and Supporting Documents
7'1
i n t , .G >. A 4 s 5c,fre ,. .�ti,.:.Frio% '<`'`'a s*"#+"" °¢ e�, g , .�
• There was no discussion at Planning Board regarding the requested variance. Staff
recommends Council look closely at this variance as the development is dependent on the
approval of the variance.
• A looped water system in a private development like this is not in the best interest of the
City. A response from Kurt Markegard, Public Works Director is provided.
• The debris beyond the corner of E Maryland is in a County Park. It is believed to have
had illegal dumping done in years past.
• Cash in lieu for parkland dedication is distributed by City Council to projects within city
parks that are in the best interest of the City.
• Adding sidewalks along E 8t"Avenue and E Maryland Lane. "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." The applicant is providing a waiver of right to
protest the creation of an SID. With there being no other sidewalks in the area along
either street, creating an SID and doing the entire project at once would be the most ideal
way to put in sidewalks here.
• 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,
fmdings 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.
Page 7 of 8
• Planning Board held two public hearings on September 1st. One for the annexation
request and one for the preliminary plan and variance request. The variance request is
included within the staff report for preliminary plan.
• This site plan for Regal Community Park is completely dependent on the variance request
being approved.
• There was no discussion regarding the variance or the criteria that needs to be met for
each variance. Because there was no discussion, there was no vote or motion made that
specifically dealt with the approval or denial of the variance.
• Since the motion that was made, included the staff report, Findings of Fact, and staff
conditions of approval, the variance request was included with the motion to
conditionally approve the preliminary plan.
• Staff recommends that Council discuss the variance in detail on account of the
development being dependent on its approval. With no variance, the development will
need to re submit a preliminary plan for approval.
Page 8 of 8
r
CIT
PUB. HALL Of Laurel
115 W. 1ST ST. City
PUB.WORKS:628-7496 .to..'—
WATER OFC.:628-7431 ElCOURT:628-1964 P.O.Box 10 3 Al a
FAX 628-2241 Laurel,Montana 59044 �" . "
Office of the Director of Public
Works
August 16th, 2016
Noel Eaton,
RE: Regal Community Park
The proposed development of Regal Community Park will have to comply with the City of
Laurel's Rules and Regulations for Water and Sewer. All construction plans will have to be
approved prior to the start of the development and with the Montana DEQ permits in place.
This development will have private water and sewer connections due to the fact that the City
Rules and Regulations require water and sewer mains to be in dedicated city right of ways. The
road dedication is not necessary when this development is going to stay private and essentially
only one lot is being served. Water submeters for the spaces will be the responsibility of the
developer or any future owner if they wish to pass on water and sewer charges to the space
renters.
The developer must enter into negotiations with the city for system development fees for this
project as no fees exist due the size of the requested six inch water service line. The water and
sewer connections will conform to the Rules and Regulations already adopted by the city.
I am recommending that only one water and sewer line service this development. Having two
interconnected water lines servicing this development would only be beneficial to the
development. Water could not flow through the development as check valves would have to be
installed in order to keep sold water from coming back into Laurel's water distribution system.
I will be recommending that the six inch water line in East 8th Street be connected between Date
and Elm Avenues be installed. This would allow the development to receive water from either
direction on East 8`h Street.
I have attached the section from the Rules and Regulations that I have based my decisions on and
highlighted the subsections,41 referenced.
i
r1
Sincerely rs / ' t
l�'1 r/
I ,2(
su2.
rf Markegard�r
Public Works Director, City of Laurel
10 METERING
10.1 GENERAL
Except for firelines, all water service lines connected with the municipal water supply system
shall be metered by the City. The City shall normally read all municipal water meters for
commercial accounts monthly and all municipal water meters for domestic accounts at least
bi-monthly to determine customer water usage and/or customer wastewater contributions for
billing purposes. In months where the municipal water meter cannot be read, the utility may
estimate the meter reading and use the calculated water usage/wastewater contribution to
render the bill for the customer involved. The utility shall not estimate a meter reading for a
customer more than four consecutive months without first making every effort to read the metE i
in question.
10.2 UTILITY'S RESPONSIBILITY
It shall be the utility's responsibility to:
10.2.1 Furnish, install, and maintain a municipal water meter up to 1 inch, and any
required remote-reading equipment on every water service line connected with
the municipal water supply system;
10.2.2 Approve the size of the municipal water meter to be installed on any water
service line connected with the municipal water supply system;
10.2.3 Inspect or cause to be tested all municipal water meters prior to installation on
water service lines to ensure that such meters meet or exceed the standards of
the American Water Works Association for such type meters.
10.2.4 Test all 5/8-inch through 1-inch municipal water meters, if need.
10.2.5 Test, or cause to be tested, if needed, all 2-inch and larger municipal water
meters;
10.2.6 Ensure that all municipal water meters are properly sealed prior to installation o i
water service lines and before changing any customer account to a new party;
and
10.2.7 Periodically check all municipal water meters that are in service for tampering,
bypassing, or any other acts of water theft.
10.3 CUSTOMER'S RESPONSIBILITY
It shall be the customer's responsibility to:
10.3.1 Provide a location for installation of the municipal water meter that is readable
and that is properly protected from damage due to freezing or other adverse
access conditions. Provide proper access of sufficient size to work or maintain
water meter as determined by the Public Works Director;
W:10703\010\Rules_Reg 2_03.doc
March 15, 1999 Revised: 2/03
10.3.2 Furnish, install, and maintain an approved outside meter box/vault, if approves
by the Public Works Director, as well as any pipe, fittings, meter loops, valves.
expansion tanks, backflow prevention devices and surge protection devices or
commercial accounts, pressure reducing devices, telephone lines/jacks, and
other appurtenances required to meet the standards of the utility for the type
metering facility involved;
10.3.3 Obtain the written approval of the utility in advance of installing the plumbing fc,l a
large municipal water meter (1W and larger), whether it be set inside or outsic c:
the building to be served; and
10.3.4 Protect the municipal water meter from tampering, bypassing, or any other act;
of water theft.
10.4 INSIDE METERING FACILITIES
An inside municipal water metering facility shall be approved by the utility prier to its installati ,n,
meet the standards and specifications of the utility, and meet the following requirements:
10.4.1 The municipal water meter and backflow prevention shall be installed in a
horizontal position, not over 2 feet above the floor, and shall be located as clo:,1:
as possible to the point where the water service line enters the building;
10.4.2 The municipal water meter shall be located near a floor drain if at all possible;
10.4.3 Valves shall be installed before and after the municipal water meter to allow
removal and replacement of the meter without first draining the entire service- i �e
and building plumbing;
10.4.4 A municipal water meter having the size of 11/2 inches or larger shall have a
valved bypass installed around the meter to provide continuous service when lie
meter is out for repair.
10.5 OUTSIDE METERING FACILITIES
An outside meter box/vault shall be approved by the utility prior to construction, meet the
standards and specifications of the utility, and meet the following requirements:
10.5.1 The meter box/vault shall be located on private property at or near the point
where the water service line enters the property to be served and outside any
driveway or roadway.
10.5.2 The meter box/vault shall be located near a driveway or turnout and shall be
readily accessible to utility vehicles without causing damage to public or prival e
property or endangering the public or utility personnel.
10.5.3 The meter box/vault shall be waterproof and shall be large enough to safely a id
easily install, maintain, and replace the municipal water meter, backflow
prevention device, if required, and other appurtenances.
W:\0703\010\Rules_Reg 2_03.doc
March 15, 1999 Revised: 2/03
2
10.5.4 The municipal water meter and backflow prevention device shall be installed
within the meter box/vault in a horizontal position, not over 2 feet above the flc
10.5.5 A valve shall be located before and after the municipal water meter to allow
removal of the meter without first draining the water service line and the yard rid
building plumbing.
10.5.6 A municipal water meter having a 1 to 1Y2-inches or larger shall have a valved
bypass installed around the meter to provide continuous service when the mei E
is out for repair.
10.6 USE OF INSIDE/OUTSIDE METERING FACILITIES
As a condition of service, a customer shall normally provide inside metering facilities meeting all
the requirement of Section 10.5. The Public Works Director may, however, require any
customer to install an outside meter box/vault meeting the requirements of Section 10.5,as a
condition of providing/continuing utility service to the property involved. Conversely, the FUDI
Works Director may require a customer to replace defective outside metering facilities with
inside metering facilities meeting the requirements of Section 10.5 as a condition of continuin
utility service to the property involved.
10.7 PERMANENT AND TEMPORARY METER INSTALLATIONS
When a municipal water meter is installed at the request of a customer, its installation is
deemed to be permanent unless the customer discontinues service entirely. Service on a
municipal water meter for a shorter period than 6 months shall be considered temporary. ThE
customer shall be required to reimburse the utility for the cost of installing and removing a
temporary water meter.
10.8 SUBMETERS
Customers desiring one or more submeters for various tenants shall furnish, install, maintain,
and read such meters at their own expense. The utility shall not furnish, install, maintain, real l;
or bill on such meters. Further, all municipal utility charges for a single water service line sha
be billed to and shall be paid by the person named on the water service application for the
property involved.
10.9 STANDARD METER AND SERVICE LINE SIZES
The following table shows the size of meter that will normally be used on various size water
service lines. Standards of the Uniform Plumbing Code shall be used when sizing water mete rs
and lines.
W:\0703\010\Rules_Reg 2_03.doc
March 15, 1999 Revised: 2/03
3
SERVICE LINE DIAMETER- INCHES MINIMUM SIZE OF METER - INCHES
3/< 5/8 or 3A
1 3/ or 1
1'/2 1
2 1'/2
4 3
6 4
8 6
A customer requiring a municipal water meter larger than 6 inches shall install meters sized a
determined by the utility. Meters and water service lines to be installed to serve water filling
stations shall be limited to a size of 2 inches or less unless otherwise authorized in writing by
the Public Works Director.
10.10 SINGLE METER PER SERVICE LINE
The utility will provide only one municipal water meter for a single residential water service lin
5/8 or 3/4 inch.
10.11 INTERCONNECTED WATER SERVICE LINES
A customer served by two or more water service lines which are interconnected shall have a
check valve located on each water service line at its metering facility to prevent circulation of t e
water through the customer's meter and water service lines and back into the municipal water
supply system.
10.12 SPECIAL METER ACCURACY TESTS
When a customer makes a complaint that the municipal utility charges for any particular billinc
period are excessive, the utility shall, upon request, have the municipal water meter for the
customer involved reread and inspect the customer's plumbing for leaks. Should the custom€r
then desire that the municipal water meter be tested, the customer shall make a deposit with 1 he
City to cover the cost of making the test. The utility will then test the meter in question. Shou c
the meter test show a registration in excess of 5 percent in favor of the utility, the City shall
make an adjustment for the estimated excess consumption on the bill immediately preceding
and/or the current bill. The excess registration on the reading for the previous and/or current
month shall be credited to the customer's account. Where no such error is found in favor of tt€
City, the amount deposited will be retained by the City to cover the expense of performing the
test.
10.13 REPLACEMENT OF METERS
Whenever a customer requests the replacement of the municipal water meter, such request
shall be treated as a request for a test of the meter. As such, it shall be handled by the utility r
the manner set forth in Section 10.12.
w:\0703\010\Rules_Reg 2_03.doc
March 15, 1999 Revised: 2/03
4