Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Council Workshop Minutes 12.27.2016
MINUTES COUNCIL WORKSHOP DECEMBER 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 6:30 p.m. on December 27, 2016. COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: _x Emelie Eaton _x Doug Poehls x Bruce McGee Richard Herr x Chuck Dickerson Scot Stokes x Tom Nelson x Bill Mountsier OTHERS PRESENT: Heidi Jensen, CAO Noel Eaton, City Planner Rick Musson, Police Chief Kurt Markegard, Public Works Director Public Input There was no public input. General items • Appointments - Police Reserves Police Chief Rick Musson introduced Gregory Contreraz, Joshua Rachunok and Kyle Krenik. The appointments will be on the January 3rd council agenda. • Leif Welhaven, Breakfast Exchange Club of Billings Leif Welhaven is part of the Breakfast Exchange Club, which is part of the National Exchange Club. There are three clubs in Billings and they want to plant another club in Laurel. The Exchange Club has been termed "America's Service Club" and has been around since 1911, with 600 clubs and approximately 20,000 members across the country. Their basic mission and values serve four areas: Americanism and honoring veterans, prevention of child abuse, community service and youth programs. The club wants to complement the other clubs in Laurel. Leif has contacted the Lions Club, the Rotary Club, the Laurel Jaycees and the American Legion in Laurel. Everybody has been positive, and the Lions Club and the Rotary Club have asked to partner on different projects. Leif will speak at the Chamber's Board meeting in January and has offered to speak at the other groups. The goal is to start a club that will be a Laurel club, not a Billings club. Leif stated some possible fundraising ideas, but the final ideas would be generated by the club. Leif also stated some project ideas, including Dress a Child, pool fundraising, Wreaths Across America, FFA and other community groups that need assistance, helping police, fire and emergency responders, Volunteer Fire Department, and Backpacks for Kids. Further information can be obtained at the following websites: Council Workshop Minutes of December 27,2016 http://www.nationalexchangeclub.org/ https://www.breakfastexchangeclub.org/ https://www.facebook.com/breakfastexchangeclubbillings/ Executive Review • Resolution-Annexation and Zone Change of Nutting Bros 3'd Filing, Lots 19-25 an addition to the City of Laurel(Public hearing- January 3, 2017) Noel Eaton gave the staff report for the annexation and zone change request via a PowerPoint presentation. The information will be presented again at the public hearing on January 3rd In August 2016, Propriedad, LLC submitted a petition for the annexation of Lots 19-25, Nutting Bros 3'd Filing. The subject property is located north of Eleanor Roosevelt Drive and west of Yard Office Road. The property is adjacent to the City of Laurel. On April 7, 2016, Rob Morehead and Propriedad LLC went before the Planning Board for approval of a zone change from Residential Tracts to Residential Manufactured Homes. The Planning Board recommended approval to the County Commissioners with a 3-1 vote, with one abstention. The intent was that the development would be annexed into the city, as it is within 500 feet of the city limits. The developer does not own the property yet, but wants to get the proper zoning and annexation approved before purchase. The developer will then go through a subdivision application. At this time, the council is only considering the annexation and the zone change request. On May 17, 2016, the Yellowstone County Commissioners held a public hearing and voted to deny the application based on the fact that the concerns that the public raised are in the Laurel City Council's jurisdiction. The County felt that the best plan was for the Laurel City Council to consider the request. On December 1, 2016, Rob Morehead and Propriedad LLC applied for annexation and a zone change request for Residential Manufactured Homes. The Planning Board held a public hearing and voted to approve the application and zone request conditionally by a vote of 3-0 vote, with two abstentions. Noel reviewed the staff findings, the annexation criteria and requirements, the suggested conditions of approval and the Planning Board recommendation and staff update. The information is included in the staff report attached to the minutes. The suggested conditions of approval include: 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. 2. 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 percent 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 or 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. 3. A waiver of right to protest shall be executed and filed with the Clerk and Recorder at the time of annexation approval. 2 Council Workshop Minutes of December 27,2016 4. A major preliminary plat application shall be submitted. 5. A Subdivision Improvements Agreement shall be executed with Preliminary and Final Plat approval. Rob Morehead distributed copies of the proposed Rules & Regulations of the Quiet Meadow Village Estates. Rob is a member of Propriedad LLC, the developer for the project. He stated that they went in front of the Planning Board earlier this year and again in December, and this has been a learning process for them. They have always known what they were trying to accomplish with this project, but they brought on an engineer and an architect to help convey what they hope to accomplish. Rob stated that, during the initial Planning Board meeting and the meeting with the County Commissioners, a lot of issues and concerns were brought up by the neighbors. They listened to those concerns and tried to address them with this presentation. Rob started the PowerPoint presentation regarding the proposed development of Quiet Meadow Village Estates. Nick Pancheau, of Collaborative Design Architects in Billings, continued the PowerPoint presentation to help convey the intent for the project in a visual manner. A copy of the PowerPoint presentation is attached. The presentation included: Zoning Review Presentation; Project History; Community Consensus; Zoning Gradient; City Services; Utilities & Phasing; Alternate Studies R-7500 vs. RMH; Density Concerns; Property Value Impact; Codes, Covenants & Restrictions (CC&R's); Results of Strict CC&R's; Water & Pathways Landscaping & Amenities; Landscape Buffer; Landscaped Entry; Traffic Control&View Corridors Vehicular Control; and Community Center. After the presentation, there was discussion regarding lot size, covenants, annexation requirements, residential densities, and sewer issues. Heidi reminded the council that the current request is for annexation and a zone change. All other issues will be addressed later in the subdivision application process. • Resolution- Fence height variance from LMC 17.48.050 for 13 Washington Avenue(Public hearing - January 3, 2017) Noel stated that the public hearing is scheduled on January 3, 2016. She explained that Jason Balzer submitted an application for a fence height variance. Jason lives at 13 Washington Avenue, which is directly behind High Plains Brewery. The property is currently zoned in the Central Business District. The applicant has a six-foot fence from the side of his house to the rear of his property along the alleyway. The applicant is proposing a six-foot solid fence from the front of the dwelling to the sidewalk along the south side of the property adjacent to the alley, a four-foot picket fence along the front property line and a four-foot picket fence along the north property line. The fence would be a solid fence, specifically a privacy fence. The applicant submitted the request due to the increase in traffic and nightly noise from the High Plains Brewery. When the applicant bought the property, it was an automobile repair shop that did not create much foot or vehicle traffic. The applicant has definitely seen an increase in traffic and noise since High Plains Brewery opened in the last couple years. The applicant does not have a problem with the Brewery except for the nightly noise and 3 Council Workshop Minutes of December 27,2016 people parking in the alley. The map in the staff report showed the locations of the current and proposed fences. The Zoning Commission reviewed the seven criteria for a variance, specifically relating to the fact that this hardship was not created by the applicant. This hardship is special and peculiar to the applicant. The variance request appears to be within the spirit, intent and purpose of the zoning regulations. Granting the variance will not injure or result in an injustice to others. Noel stated the two staff suggested conditions: the property owner must apply and pay for a fence permit from the Building Department; and the clear vision setbacks must be approved for the clear vision of the alleyway with the fence permit. There was a brief discussion regarding the need to review the fence codes for properties located adjacent to businesses. Heidi stated that a variance is the proper way to address these issues. • Council Issues: o Sunset clause in the Laurel Rod and Gun Club's lease(Emelie Eaton) Emelie thanked staff for being thorough in providing a copy of the 2013 resolution for the lease agreement, which answered her questions. o Crosswalk/parking issues at East 8th Street and First Avenue(Bill Mountsier) Bill stated his concern at the crosswalk on 8th Street and First Avenue. When the high school students are out and there are cars parked on First Avenue, it is difficult to see the vehicles coming southbound and necessary to pull across the crosswalk to actually see traffic. If kids are walking in the crosswalks, it creates a real problem. Bill suggested that eliminating one or two of the parking spaces would give a clearer view of the oncoming traffic at this intersection. Heidi stated that a typical parking space marking diagram was included in the council's packet. She said that this reviewed in the spring, as the curb could not be painted during the winter. Kurt explained that he reviewed the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control regarding parking within 20 feet of a crosswalk. There are crosswalks at two locations on First Avenue and there should be no parking within 20 feet of those crosswalks. Kurt stated that the city could measure and check this out now and then paint if needed in the spring. Bill offered to go with Kurt to check it out. o Update on Tom Nelson's visit to the Governor's Office Tom stated that the mayor is going to direct the city attorney to ask the Attorney General of the State of Montana for an opinion on the State's responsibility to pay the 25 percent cost share that the State is required to pay for the intake, as they have on the other projects that fell under the FEMA declaration disaster relief number throughout the State. Tom is also working with the State legislators. A section in the 1988 Stafford Act that governs FEMA states that the states have to disperse those funds in accordance with FEMA regulations because it is grant money. If the city has not received any funds by spring, Tom will personally push some options. 4 Council Workshop Minutes of December 27,2016 o Update on 2011 Yellowstone River flooding event Heidi stated that there is no good news to report. The contractor cannot get in the river because it flooded and the ice jam is still impeding work at the intake site. The drifts became too deep to continue to dig pipe and the weather was extremely cold, so the project has been at a standstill for about two weeks. There was not a construction meeting last week or this week. The ice jam goes all the way to Park City. The ice jam is causing a problem for the project but is good for the current intake. Doug asked if the ice jam has taken out the coffer dam. Heidi answered that it is filled in but nobody really knows what actually happened. Doug asked regarding the timeline. Heidi stated that there are no extensions on this project, which is to be done by April 1st. The city will see what the contractor comes up with when the jam breaks and they can get back to work. Other items There were none. Review of draft council agenda for January 3, 2017 • Public hearings: o Fence height variance from LMC 17.48.050 o Annexation and Zone Change of Nutting Bros 3rd Filing Lots 19-25, an addition to the City of Laurel Attendance at the January 3, 2017 council meeting All council members present will attend. Announcements Chuck thanked the city staff and crew for their diligent work on snow removal. Thenc u it co workshop adjourned at 8:03 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Cindy Allen Council Secretary NOTE: This meeting is open to the public. This meeting is for information and discussion of the Council for the listed workshop agenda items. 5 Tui LAUREL CITY-COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT TO: Laurel City Council FROM: Noel Eaton, City Planner RE: Application for Annexation and Zone Change HEARING DATE: January 3, 2017 INTRODUCTION: In August 2016, Propriedad, LLC submitted a petition for the annexation of lots 19-25,Nutting Bros 3'd Filing. The subject property is located north of Eleanor Roosevelt Drive and west of Yard Office Road. The property is adjacent to the City of Laurel. HISTORY: • April 7th 2016 Rob Morehead and Propriedad LLC went before the Planning Board for approval of a zone change from Residential Tracts to Residential Manufactured Homes. • The Planning Board recommended approval with a 3-1 vote with 1 abstention • May 17th 2016 the Yellowstone County Commissioners held a public hearing to approve the zone change. • The Commission voted to deny the zone change with a 3-0 vote. • December 1, 2016 the application for Annexation and Zone Request went before the Planning Board at a public hearing. The Board voted to approve the application with staff report and suggested conditions of approval with a 3-0 vote with two abstentions. STAFF FINDINGS: 1. Propriedad LLC is requesting the annexation of the property identified above. The property is zoned Residential Tracts. The applicant is requesting a zoning change to Residential Manufactured Homes. 2. The property is approximately 30 acres. 3. The property owner, Carl Brenden, has provided a letter to the Planning Board and City Council. 4. The lot is currently vacant and the proposed use would be a mobile home park (Development for Rent or Lease). Page l of 6 5. The property is located along Yard Office Road which is classified by MDT as a Primary and Urban Route 6. The property is in close proximity to E Maryland, classified as an Urban Route. 7. Adjacent to the property to the north is an 80 foot County Park dedicated by the Nutting Bros subdivision. 8. North of the property and County Park land is the Nutting Drain. 9. The City of Laurel Growth Management Plan describes the area of town where this property is located as "East Side: This portion of the City is currently developed and holds much of the older housing stock. It is mostly developed with single-family homes with pockets of manufactured homes." 10. The City of Laurel, Montana Projected Population and Demand for Housing shows that with a .75%population increase the population would increase 521 people and require an addition 221 units by 2020 11. With a 1.0%population increase by 2020, there would be an additional 703 people and a demand for 299 units. 12. 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 Council. ANNEXATION CRITERIA AND REQUIREMENTS 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. Page 2 of 6 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 OF APPROVAL 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. 2. 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. 3. A waiver of right to protest shall be executed and filed with the Clerk and Recorder at the time of annexation approval. 4. A major preliminary plat application shall be submitted. 5. A Subdivision Improvements Agreement shall be executed with Preliminary and Final Plat approval. PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION & STAFF UPDATE The Laurel City Council Planning Board held a public hearing on December 1st, 2016.The Board recommended to approve the Annexation and Zone Change of Residential Manufactured Homes with a 3-0 vote with 2 abstentions. There were 2 proponents including the developer and his agents and 7 opponents. • There were several people from the public that were concerned about the water and sewer capacity and if the plants the City has are able to handle a development of this size. o Kurt Markegard, Public Works Director spoke regarding the proposed development. There are sufficient water and sewer lines in the area. There is no problem with the sewer plant as have the capacity since recently undergoing a $6 million dollar upgrade. A 4th lift station will have to be installed to be able to serve the new development. o The Water Plant is in the middle of an update to the intake pier and there will be no problem supplying the development with water. Page 3 of 6 • There are concerns about the traffic on East 8`h Street, Eleanor Roosevelt,Yard Office, and E Maryland Lane. o Noel stated that there will be an entire traffic study done with the subdivision application.At this time,traffic concerns cannot be answered until we are able to move forward with reviewing the detailed studies within the subdivision application. • Concerns regarding emergency services,their response and their capacity as well as overall safety concerns regarding the nature of this development. o Laurel Police Chief Rick Musson came forward to speak on the issue of public safety for this development. He talked with the developer and this is a private property like Sunhaven Trailer Court.The Police Department cannot do parking or traffic control inside the development unless it's a DUI or reckless driving. But they can do criminal cases. Any change to number of city resident's makes an impact on the Laurel Police Department. o Rick went on to say he has been in Alder Ridge many times and sees the messes people make of their property. They have calls in Alder Ridge from time to time. But they are not dealing with Alder Ridge all of the time. And when they are dealing with Alder Ridge it is just certain people. Every neighborhood can pinpoint a particular person or people that are problem children.This happens in every part of Laurel whether it is in the high or lower end of the community. This happens in all communities because human nature causes it. There is no way to know what the impact will be in 20 years or in a year. Adding one residence can make an impact on his already small department. He can say that he knows they won't be at all 220 units(in this development)each day. But it will make an impact on the roads and traffic control. Twenty years ago no one would have ever thought there would be traffic jams in the city of laurel but we have them happening now. The higher traffic is the result from new developments both inside and outside of the city limits. Whether the homes are stick built or manufactured homes they are going to make an impact on public services. He went on to say that Laurel will grow and he understands that it causes impact. o Laurel Fire Chief Brent Peters spoke. He stated that 220 units could be 220 fire calls,CO2 calls,220 ambulance calls. He doesn't know what the impact will be. Alder Ridge has not created any substantial statistics on the fire side of services in the past years. On the ambulance side of services there is a large amount of calls but he feels it is due to the quality of living. He doesn't see that happening in this development if it is designed like the developers have said it will be. • Does the Laurel School District have the capacity to handle a development of this size? o Noel stated that she is not able to say much regarding the school system. She is aware that the district does have an Educational Facilities Planning committee that is looking at what the school system already has,what is needed,and what they can do to accommodate the amount of students they have.She will be in contact with Linda the school district Superintendent. Page 4 of 6 , a i it ra" I 1 1- ii 1 ##,- .7.4isa mrAt 4' or� , ti � [meq{+"' ro !f , r• {rid R., $yD,rr, i , — r xr ''a 4.....S ,. �, ,� .. rib ` + IM te,,. y � ' 7: Ci If JJ ` � o. ._iiiit. g 3 -te— T — r- ".� te: gl { EQ61 t U gigot Fz i a CN526 7 4 1. n s n.� E 1 iL' A. � �iy. �- "' *.....rite„a a .. ..+P « a .1. . r �..tYi' (Boundary line of Subject Property) 'i i 1 ( , F E y}- 44±„'57 _, — r11A140H HOpi,V-FtT Nt--- Hamra (Zoning-Tan= Residential Tracts, Purple= Residential Limited Multi-Family, Red=Community Commercial,Yellow= Residential Manufactured Homes) Page 5 of 6 I I ` rN f�, t,I' 7u r:,L£(Z5 5 LILLIP w (uTl, r. r7. „1„..,14,' ,,,,,...,,,-JA NFr:, c%-f..in rSPr a a-: f • ii , a a1 "4 j r iii'' s µ "P 11„ B I ' +>” r .*#B 11 b'�665' w (.' '' F B 'Y ' . -.-r.' .-" W :- ,. • .' , ,E ae (County Park Land) I Page 6 of 6 CITY OF LAUREL ANNEXATION POLICY Service outside,city limits—Conditions. No water or sewer services shall be extended outside of the incorporated city limits without meeting the following conditions: A. The property and improvements are in the same condition as is required for properties and improvements within the city's corporate limits; B. The city system is capable of serving the area; C. The extension is in the best interest of the city; D. The cost of the extension shall be at the expense of the requesting party; E. The city council has granted its approval. (Prior code § 18.76.010(A)); and F. The property is annexed. Consent to Annexation and/or Waiver of Protest. A. Any property owner requesting or receiving city water or Sewer service outside of the incorporated city limits shall, as a condition of initiating or continuing city services, consent to annexation of the property beneficially receiving services.The consent to annexation may be limited to the property that will benefit or is benefiting from the provision of city services. B. Whenever annexation is sought pursuant to a petition submitted to the city by a property owner requesting annexation,the property owner shall execute a written waiver of protest in a form approved by city staff for purposes of recording. The waiver of protest constitutes a covenant that will run with the land to be annexed and shall waive all right of protest and judicial review to the creation of any future special improvement district. (Prior code § 18.76.010(B)) Annexation Fee. Property owner shall pay the city's applicable annexation fee prior to the city's consideration of the annexation request. Annexation Criteria and Requirements. 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 annexed 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 R08-22 City of Laurel Annexation Policy 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 or 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 eiOneering 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; • All residential property owners must execute 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 or greater; 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. lithe property to be annexed is not developed, the conditions of approval or annexation agreement shall include a requirement for: 1. A development agreement prior to the issuance of a building permit; 2. A subdivision improvements agreement at the time of final subdivision plat approval, if applicable and 3. An executed Waiver of Right-to-Protest 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. If the property is developed and contains public improvements that are not constructed to city standards,the city shall require an annexation agreement. The annexation agreement shall specify that the public improvements must be upgraded and/or installed to city standards,as well as a time period and mechanism to finance the construction and installation of those improvements. All construction or installation of improvements must be completed within two years of annexation. In any case, all public improvements,whether existing or proposed,shall meet city standards. R08-22 City of Laurel Annexation Policy CITY OF LAUREL, MONTANA REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND PLAN OF ANNEXATION Ai)olieant is required to meet with the City Planner prior to filling out this oalicitiott. All blanks of this application are to be filled in with explanation by the applicant. Incomplete applications will not be accepted. 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 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 annexation. 2. Applicant landowner's name: Prnprtetlet LLC Address: 9.0.0:os 2t9i3S CthltntisSMT 59101 Phone: 4O(o-ZS4-10 3. Parcel to be annexed: (If it is not surveyed or of public record, it must be of public record PRIOR to applying for annexation.) Legal description: ISS 14I2.5, N►,y1 , r195, 1t S401TZ5, l?. Lot size: 2p.Si istAres Present use: t4csidxn+ta)--11,40-.5 Planned use: Ines Iclorrh Mdx ikkic-ur 4 kb - Present zoning:k2r.slctr-Yttia..1 Trnt+4_ (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 after 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: ynrd off-L 124. * Ear (?myon.-{ Dr. .. Cost of extension of approved service: $ O't0O How cost determined: Pr Otits 12)id Ta..1.2S Timeframe for installation: Spirtt 20t1- Sewer Service: Location of existing main: l\4an land Ave. Cost of extension of approved ice:i 31-1.11)00 How cost determined:'Pnwi Ot4S 1P-4tid 'Tabs 1 Timeframe for installation: 4)1:14 How financed:lirnAittirryu Streets: Is there any adjoining County ROW to the proposed annexation: its Location of existing paved access: 4a,r, offir e . g 1 e-041 Dif jaw-foci+ br. Cost of paving: Z 1400 C4PPIPacht,-44) How cost determined: 91-xviaixs +1954 TO:LS Timeframe for construction: .412rit3 200. Other required improvements: Provide above information on attached pages. 5. A map suitable for review of this application of the proposed area to be annexed must be submitted with this application. 6. A written Waive 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 applicant prior to annexation by the city. 7. Requests for annexations are referred to the City-County Planning Board for recommendation to the City Council. Within 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, in needed. 8. A non-refundable application fee of$300 + $25.00 per acre (80 acres or less); $300 + $35.00 per acres(81 acres or more) must accompany the submission of this application. 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 • Form revised by City Attorney April 2008 2 AFFIDAVIT OF WAIVER OF PROTEST BEFORE TILE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAUREL,MONTANA FOR THE ANNEXATION OF TIIE HEREIN DESCRIBED PROPERTY AND CREATION OF ANY FUTURE SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT The undersigned hereby waives protest to the annexation of the property described below by the City of Laurel. Undersigned also waives their right to seek judicial review under M.C.A. § 7-2-4741 (2007), subsequent to the City's annexation of the below described property. The undersigned hereby additionally waives protest to the creation of future Special Improvement District(s)created and/or formed for future street improvements including,but not limited to,paving, curb,gutter,sidewalk and storm drainage or any other lawful purpose. This Affidavit is submitted pursuant to and as a part of the Annexation Agreement and future contemplated Subdivision Improvement Agreement(SIA)with the City of Laurel. This Affidavit of Waiver shall run with the land and shall forever be binding upon the Grantee,their transferees,successors and assigns. LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY: " L01-5 1. t.-.2-5/ NJ 1.titins5 'PATS, .y:1 gi lily S. 10 i-2.5 /E 2 i-1 E " DATED this 1—1.11 `. day of A 0610"1- ,20 /Le . ,4p'AA7:- Grantee Name (Company..) STATE OF latriyi-ilitA. ) )ss. County of IciltiiNSttNV.. ) On third;of Aug_ }LAS ,20 jk__,personally appeared before me, Rd) M orehmi 0 proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s)whose name(s) are subscribed to this instrument, and acknowledged the he/she/they executed the same. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my Official Seal on the day and year in this certificate first above written. 5-1044111/1/.14M4C (SEP). tr"Nie4g-... TIFFANY PaCieli ..41:0411/4N WYNN PUOUC for lho Stan of Monism SEAL). Ilesidne d eillogo. anion' 41 , .1,•., My Commidion lEddoo Folmar/04.2020 (.......0) , Not ublig for the State of tADYliit..I)it, Residing at: bittu s, LAOlittiltt, My Commission ExIples:f-f...1 I>I•s?DV, 1 i October 31,2016 Laurel City-County Planning Board And Laurel City Council 115 W. First Street Laurel, MT 59044 Dear Laurel City-County Planning Board and Laurel City Council, I, Carl M Brenden,authorize Propriedad, LLC,to apply for annexation as an addition to the City of Laurel and the zone change request from Residential Tracts to Residential Manufactured Homes of my property legally described as Nutting Bros 3`d Filing,S10,T02 S, R24 E, Lots 19-25.There is currently an accepted Buy-Sell agreement to sell to the property to Propriedad, LLC, contingent upon approval for the annexation into the City AND above mentioned zone change. This authorization is for the Laurel City-County Planning Board meeting on November 3,2016 and Laurel City Council meeting on December 6, 2016. Sincerely, iriditi:):2 42 -7,-- , Carl M Brenden u _s` �_y. , W_ „ . _._ -___ __�_t___._ _ ,, , t ;' >. s st F ,4 '' _^ — Q001 tage Estates PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT LOCATION: MENDOW LAUREL, MT ZONING REVIEW tris. ..z PRESENTATION s- m d` b yg Z '"._ A. '"., , , _- • `;�"} r a • This presentation is to address the r a 0 ,, - zoning review. ,-' K 1r ,..K 1 �. •� P RJOJ CT I s , 4 x r �`'� . w, There are additional itemsems that will i';'; ' w+r � ti°., r . , be addressed in more detail at the appropriate time in the course of the review process. • The neighbors have brought up ie , .`Y specific questions regarding traffic 4.. flow. 1 , • Engineered traffic studies are planned r ; to take place at the appropriate time � ,: ,, *.;, in the process, and are not a part of 1. this presentation. �,, �� , " ° ` .,,� • You will see our plans for how to imie,,,"*.in ""' i ,„ __A _ `- 1 ». — address traffic control and speed within the boundaries of the project in our presentation today. (I,Q1Lorill llage Estates EkDC7W PROJECT HISTORY • Initial project proposed remaining in the county but was rejected on the grounds that it would be utilizing City of Laurel services and should pursue s an alternate route of approval m ,0©©OOOOOOOCOOOOm0OOOCCJCCCCC©COaC0©OOOOO m 0 ,1 4111.1114i1111.116AlikkalititrifirigAll • During this process there were 111PIPIPIPIPIPIIIIPII ror- 4 , concernsbroughtupbythecommunity, k 0 OCm©GCQQQ0QQQQ0Q00©0©©®� 49'48'47 46.45i 44 43'42 4'''° 39 0 we have taken those concerns into lip 1, 0 111001111111111 8 �� consideration and plan to address ® 00000000430000000000000000 OOOOOOOOO O00000OOCO©0 C 26 27 28 i 29 30-31!32 33 i 34 35:36 37 38 _liP many of them here. 011 • We have hired a professional design ®O©©©CO O O©O000C0O 0 00004:400300000002 y 43 `RETE^F 0 Q team to help us communicate our 0 vision to you. They have combined 000000000000 0o our vision and your concerns into this 0 lam CI proposal. 0 0000000000000000000000 , ill : _ �l U 7 - 4iilage Estates '".7 ME �DC�l111 asT ,.r`his ✓°•^.A. f - +rte ...,.._ cr- 7 ) r Gy wr;w '', 9, _ _ COMMUNITY _... � - x4 :: .. CONSENSUS w., �ro . • We understand that Alder Ridge has ` i 1` 1 1 `1 {,Li' ,; 1; `E'+. /., .. given this type of development a bad s _ , ,, . + . ,- ` x.- y ./ -i reputation in this community ;. k\ 1 • We fully understand this concern and i '..,_ ii, igh /� . .,, • have taken steps far above and beyond 411'i, .1 �� ter ►'Y SO b 1 ' • �i the minimum requirements for this typeof '(1 -# 7 ; ► �, T ( ; . `o +4 4. .� ,P o, , development. ,- ' tt '` aa - _ • Below are the primary faults in how Alder Ridge is organized. • INDIVIDUAL LOT OWNERSHIP `:' "1*.: ""` _, ... • LOTS CAN BE SUB-LEASED L ;. • NO CONTROLLING BODY OVERSIGHT ---"---- -.k. >>vr, . « ._ 1 • h'� • NO VETTING PROCESS FOR LOT ►' 1 " _ :' y ' , OWNERS OR SUB LEASES `" .:*7:'.7'''''' ® �,' - ._ � +.�. �� 1 • Results • HIGHER CRIME • UTTER DISARRAY • PHOTOS SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES �T EXISTING ZONING GRADIENT �h rtes VE&DOW • • •>COMMERCIAL • • • • • HIGH DEA>IS1 T Y• • • Opp- HOUSING a►MOUSING ZONING GRADIENT • Reinforce existing zoning gradient • Create buffer between Residential-Rural and Industrial 9 j�C/] .w : ,60, ; .,;..,..„1„.:::, .,., _,_ lira uses k� -„, 1` „.- - w• -, R CITY SERVICES�� ,P s 4 c`� Rumors have been circulating thatcity 4i,,. : . ,• �`"•'a� ,�� C services including water and sewer V �, cannot handle the additional load of � �, Wilk a development of this magnitude. 1 .�_ r, 5, x pp • We have had several meetings ) �"'�' I. i -w ; >�. regarding this and it has been ` ,-`1,-'-'14-'7.--4:', ",.. '"��^ ,�„.,. ' { • ' "�`" �„ *'„�':'je • y'�, (''i, "' determined that the services are ' //�.� 01 �+ '.' -40-',,, �` satisfactory. IP II:: lle - ---- - E � _. ,� � ' �',,,'d" _.�i� �. -�;' � `� There are complaints of sewer smell i $' :' __ • in the neighborhood to the west. This 5 •«» MINI STORAGE g � x',�" project is being coordinated to add4/ y • T " _ - the additional flow needed to flush } �. ME ;' '' G that system and alleviate the problem. F''*. off:•I. ,OTTY" FACILITY..., kk`14 A1 J,. R—MULTIFAMILY 0 • .. .m. ...,�_...., FL AP':ro �, rocmoce"..110000**,,,,newemx010000011.11001reccoa,,,0000K,11011.11,X,,,AMPS.*'‘,.C1, ,•,):\YA)011.40.4.)Y ' CNNIN,034.100-‘.7,2',, . ,, X)i r rk f'y f. .. ,w ,�.,...! 41"a N c). C \ 7 0\:4 '�.� ( r ' " ; 11 git ea s„ xFY �� ' - °+ �,r" w. -.. wa� r v',z 'ti: { �:ir) .v 'w� ( \,Jyr f ', �,.,�` ; u3 (.1-/'7)—'7.::—:::::::14'-) rY1 J % 1 r_1 '� r.l��� t_*r::t s ; „r s,3 i y / I� r( f A 0 , a taro • ® O o , �' 30 s.sN t"1 fi I :0:-.1, - ._..w a!!.-77-1''7—'4—r{y lM iwl ''''_"7,—:' ,.�rYM --!i1q ,��sqr .__ aq a R I. ..' ':Y 7 t 0(- 71.33 i ' ,Ix ;) 1 jeA "rs.r° 1 ct '.'!'. ''''''' 1 ' .,"' .00." I r .0.- J...a. ll,', :,•,' - 4*,,i, ', „• , .fr : —- ii. '' ,---..- eft. it zf '! .. ,a, _-._ _..__vw. ._.^-;*. --R19: 'r -. rs -IX— ill qt rn—....aew..._'-={yr, i ' .s: •O, ` x,. .. Ill‘S _4�: UTILITIES ASIN�'�'� B".S 'r�n 04 !y AB .'4 , 4thj w w EIeanar Roosevelt r ' t '.4 j....*'7 ,.,*),..- ..% r Ta� t. \'ill states ,,e- 'iltrs..�'.. w s' �" ,..> — g a A ALTERNATE STUDIES R-7500 VS RMH R-7500: 7/7500 SF ''r'-� • 144-180 Single family homes jT j • Typical Home: 2500 sf main village Estates level with a minimum of 5 ME&DOW_( bedrooms each • Approximately 720-900 residents DENSITY CONCERNS • Higher concentration of young . Neighbors have expressed concern with families-increasing burden on regard to the density of this type of schools and surrounding areas development. • No border required, no landscaping required, POSSIBLE LAYOUT no central oversight, no • Both montana state code and laurel k IF ANNEXED WITHOUT ZONE playground, no parkland municipal code have strict guidelines CHANGE development, increased traffic and requirements for developments of V5 this type. One of which includes visual PARKLAND AND PATHS barriers at the perimeter. LANDSCAPE BUFFER RMH: 1/6200 SF ar•Trn iilmnrir•++-a�.ie_. •• a•-s-••••s s•••••••••••••••i 4 i • We have evaluated alternative .�• __.__ 220 Single family homes • ."..+..,•••••• "*"...".....'m'''' "' "--.'"w'..•".'''----....r.'...'' • approaches and have found them to be Typical Home:1280 sf with ••ci a®®•••• • rik a e• • •� '� max. 3 bedrooms each far less restrictive, and only marginally x Approximately 660 residents less dense. • ,, ••is�••'�1• t 'o)919*••••• •••••••••OEPa9loe+ r." $ j • Fewer young families, more . * • O O • • •• O ® • • • Q • • • ©• ...?`.r • ♦ �, • • •• .e ,ra *•© • • •• a elderly residents- reducing • The drawing above illustrates one .,• ,. impact on schools and • e••.••Q••�••••• ; •••••�•••••• , possible approach to developing this _ '' • surrounding areas property under it's current zoning if 4 e Ir "••••••••• " 4) & °•••••• . •••;' •• Border required, landscaping annexed. • •• ••••••O e, o ••• •• ••••i • , •••• •• it • * . required, strong central • ;, a„ •� C� a3• •' oversight, playgrounds, PARKWAY �' '�A developed parklands, • Develop existing parkway to provide . „ s, , ...•....... ,,,:. traffic controlled exits with safe routes to school and vehicle free f •.••.x, t :: ,''" :. R �'' AYO `1 landscaping paths EXAMPLE PROPERTY: EQUIDISTANT FROM EXISTING, AND PROPOSED USES s ALDER RIDGE: COMMENTS RAILROAD SWITCHYARD vitla(($e��Estate DISTANCE .10 M1/.5 M1 WITHIN WALKING DISTANCE OF THE ALDER RIDGE TRAILER PARK/HALF MILE FROM TRAIN YARD ME]D() I SIZE 50 AC/172 AC EXISTING TRAILER PARK IS A LARGE DEVELOPMENT/TRAIN SWITCHYARD IS LARGEST IN THE STATE SIGHT YES/NO EXISTING TRAILER PARK IS IN THE DIRECT LINE OF SIGHT OF SUBJECT PROPERTY SOUND YES/ YES POLICE RESPONSES AND RELATED SIRENS DISRUPT THE PEACE/TRAIN SWITCHYARD IS NOISY PROPERTY VA L U E SMELL YES/NO AREA RESIDENTS COMPLAIN OF OCCASIONAL SEWER SMELL DUE TO INSUFFICIENT CLEANOUT FLOW IMPACT HEALTH NO/NO HEALTH CONCERNS WITH TRAILER PARK/RAILROAD HAVE NOT BEEN BROUGHT TO OUR ATTENTION • SAFETY YES/NO AREA RESIDENTS EXPRESS CONCERN OVER NUMBER OF POLICE CALLS TO ALDER RIDGE Neighbors have expressed concern over the impact of the proposed TENURE 17+ YEARS TRAILER PARK AND RAILROAD WERE EXISTING AT TIME OF CONSTRUCTION development on their property VALUE $240,900 VALUE HAS NOT BEEN NEGATIVELY IMPACTED BY RMF ZONING values. $/SF $130/SF COMPARABLE TO AREA COMPS NOT ADJACENT TO RMF ZONING YEAR BUILT 1999 SUBJECT PROPERTY WAS CONSTRUCTED AFTER EXISTING TRAILER PARK AND RAILROAD • We have studied properties EXAMPLE PROPERTY constructed after the existing ,,, 1 : trailer park that are similarly $ i a^�°. . ' _ !, t fi , adjacent to the proposed iu3 � eo,eeu a* ,,k 'a '} � h �' ", "' ''+ development. FVARv:4W eN 'f'.: E st" M1.. x,‘4411,' ,t W-! .4 R "AGE ^F: g % o 1 ;" - ',1 * D` “ i ., '' • The chart to the left illustrates the a e t IC � ifr ti �� � w'.�0� impact of the existing park on the i - . ;, MINI STORAGE . . , subject property's value ie., psrtve,sfr�r r+isr..04 9...t!r,♦«.ars 04N, K ,;� �¢ „ .10 MILE RADIUS ..,•, d • There may be a perceived impact i' a •.•.n*'.'.._., . f *••"••'"•' on property values, but data from a 1......,,.....04,~40,7,; idr y�i4ikf.it#sltl4F^a ffia aiiat4a{ i .",'....."+, •r -- - RATMeArt - the County Assessor's Office does 4,:=, "PORTA-POTTY" FACILITY • - »,.6. .ar::xe _ YARD not support those claims. "� , CODES, COVENANTS, & RESTRICTIONS: c CC&R'S DIET Village Estates NtE&DOW • STRICT RULES THAT DICTATE HOW THE COMMUNITY WILL FUNCTION, WHAT IS ALLOWED, AND WHAT IS NOT ALLOWED. • Governing body oversight with • ZERO TOLERANCE POLICY FOR OFFENDERS THAT HAVE strict vetting on backgrounds VIOLATED THE TERMS OF THE AGREEMENT. THIS RESULTS LESS and financial aptitude. STRESS ON POLICE FORCE, AND MORE EVICTIONS. • Quarterly review of tenants ,, 4 ." - k. mobile homes. ;.»»�� •-••7.,.,.•••••••�", ..suwm,.... ' ''4„4,,,'.. • Size restrictions and number of • .. .. , . _ <;, . ,, „ v . . c e r WW µyr ,-.•,'',. pets allowed. • ......E P;;.' , 7,t-,.>. • ( - • Refer to attachments for a•••• * * • ••• •• oo. ••• d ••I e° O•• •••• ooe ••••••s*s•**** 440 .. ••••o••4exf4,4 o . additional information (including ti= picking up after pets, parking, i 44e0e400e••I•I••••••4 .•-?00900 '••••••• s•, 01 I irrigation, mobile inspections, • ' `• ° ; J unauthorized parking, yard 0,#01,04'4 _ - �ittee•Z••,•• ] ' mowing, kennels, outdoor ... • •• <_"fin •••.•••I _ 0. .. , furniture, etc.) ., , r. .ElIL.eanor+RooseveliiDr , A. S I � aA ESULTS OF STRICT CC&R'S: � . DIET llae Estates ME&DOW Sd '` '"' • Quiet Meadow is modeled on the •- longstanding success of similarly .r ;j �.,,.: structured developments a�` l,. y, • These model communities are $: r -, '71-..i--:, !"-- r t Pi,. -i., b ,- r-. similar in age to Alder Ridge, but the contrast is striking Shiloh Village Community Center -, .. -, , • Strictly enforced policies lead sr 44011F'--- to sustainable communities that attract responsible tenants . Mme! u1 .,� 3ill tiv I ' , .: a , ,'M pit+s' a ..„ .-- . w, #' t •" ,/ , ,. 4z` ter 1�•.,:• rt Shiloh Village Community Center °,9@ 1 . �� o (11-- 1/ Villa.... ,.., E&DOW ,......... _ , __:„..,..,,,„..L: : rr , .., i` • Quiet Meadow is modeled on the ....:;-40.-N, 4► -4 ;, .r :,; longstanding success of similarly ,-,. -- w - , ! : , - , structured developments ' -&..• '44CW' — -'*--'.- ' '' ' • These model communities are similar in age to Alder Ridge, Shiloh Village - but the contrast is striking 1.-.1.4''" • Strictly enforced policies lead T <E to sustainable communities that .s attract responsible tenants 4 • ' '''' '''''' ' . k 4'4,5 �gg Shiloh Village Landscaped Entry .undina Area RESULTS OF STRICT CC&R'S: l ,Q....Village s ' :Na.,. .. My name is Nicole Bykonen. When I met my husband,he owned a trailer home and rented ' 'k F a lot in Golden Meadows,a local trailer coal on Billing's west end. It was a nice 3 bedroom, - 2 bath home. It was perfect for a young couple just starting out. We both had no iiiy""�� ti, 401 decent jobs with steady incomes. I was employed at a local bank while my husband,Chad,was Y - • , I = is �' employed with a local glass company. o. r "' When we had our first child,we quickly realized all the expenses that came along with having a ` .. ,,,,. ,,. baby. We could afford our house payment and lot rent without putting extra ` - .... stress on ourselves. Ns helped us in deciding to stay and raise our daughter in the trailer ! - court. We also realty liked our home and we loved our neighbors. We enjoyed our small little _: community. We felt safe and I had plenty of room for our new family. it was a :„,...4k7,41,7.".- perfect fit! Golden Meadows Open Space In just three years from the birth of our daughter, we found out we were blessed again with another pregnancy. This time with twins! As you can imagine,this came as quite r ?a 1'y`' 4,,,.. tfinancial 0 1 5 a surprise to us. As excited as we were,we were also stressed about the ' -....7}•f' r ‘ , .11.. , F responsibilities this adventure would bring. I suffered from several medical issues while ligx' - `lk ' "C S 'si R I was pregrwnt. Our boys were born Iwo months prematurely resulting in a several week slay in .. ; rt n`t r 1 i the NICU. Needless to say,we hod a grant bill by the lime we bought our two bundles of joy It, home! •/ �lao- 44, We lived in our trailer home for another year as o family of five.As our children continued y to grow,we quickly realized we were out growing our space. We also realty • 'µ yt' ' needed a larger yard where our kids could play with their toys and run. A yard we could fence .• t�+'3'' and contain them wouldn't be bad either!We scraped and saved over the next couple of months. .. t4.`:*;".. V' a• Y p AY'' f� " When the time came to sell our trailer home,we were sad. We had such great r memories. We had brought each of babies home to this house. My husband proposed to - r A 4 me in this house. We knew we would miss our neighbors,but we were also excited for the _ rnew stage in our lives. 1' . R ( a "' v ` ti .... We we now financially comfortable. We brought our current home four years ago. f , ...+ a,. •_' . ..... We have made several upgrades and changes to make it our own. I am confidentthat we are where we are because we were able to live comfortably and safely 'rin a family centered trailer court. We learned about finances and money managing while living there. That experience set us up to lye as successful adults. ;. s's'; a _- • - _ • Regards, " ..y, .1.6 x' ."' a •en t ea•ows ommunity Center Nicole Bykonen k I. V iIIies tit r .'''- 3 EADONV --- — 8 w� 6 i i ! " _ __�— % Kristi R., Shiloh Village Estates Resident VI* Loves her Community Because: She loves the feeling of security within the park, very little traffic, economic living and cleanliness. lk Ed P., 2,,isi r 4Shiloh Village Estates Resident s ---- LovesCommunity Because: / his Co unity Becau \ ' Strict Rules and Regulations 1 11 Cleanliness of the park *4 I Low Crime levels 1\ ill 't , a GOOD NEIGHBORS: CA,JILT1V{llag 1 _ WATER & PATHWAYS ' '' ;6 Landscaped Parkway: ea.ows .n.:�,» i Trees, berming, and walking re .. ` paths w,`"`` • _ Nutting Drainage: - A series of water wells are lib,. planned along the drainage. C` `` mlk Irrigation water will be r; a? 4 , ;^ - @ec ee d�•ii•!•*l ,:� €1.0,00I -to free watering will fr and lawn w tering I i d idii . 4 •• • a © Q •' • •• • • o © fl ••..• • • o o • • • • o o `'"''� a be required. Results in no I 4 additional stress on citywater II !, .., 41041•410** a ilk, ,1 t 1 t ;, i , .: for irrigation purposes. -_ _ _ - _ - -- t 4"' S"?.� 4ti ' Parkway Connector: c1,. 00 ? 0000T3® e*0@@t€i ®* 0t�14.. ;� ,�, o roe®fii*•• ii +p Developed path connecting • • • • • 0 �'+ 0 • • • • O • p 0 O • • • • ....... .::,+e..,... ,a • community center to Parkway :) 0 „ , ; � , o s e @ N Planned Crosswalks: 0 - 1, ,t* 4 i Ensuring the safety of children ` •:{ " '. ., walking to school, and 't �` residents crossingstreetskey t i s GOOD NEIGHBORS: — vir '144,141 (t � UI�T VI Estates it' t 6E OW ( *> LANDSCAPING �"`� 1y',, AMENITIES Ouiet Meadow Landscaped E.try "`•�� .e.«o-..+,u...«.a, caped Entry Landscaped Buffer: _____ rid„,_,G,„,„0„.„„„ ...,,,.. ,.,..,...,„„„,„ „ct,o�•�•xxr ,:>. ,oaa at entire perimeter ► F _ ,' = r - - - - Community Park: C"r r {gam }} ti_, 'w !lls 9ll. . m m o ' E @moost �bt�J �, ► 0�c •eke 00 ti , ,. Community Center, play- ! 4 • , ♦ grounds, overflow parking { 1. • •• • o o o • • •• • • o o , •• a 026 ,* 0• • • doer 40 o de 14 , 0 1- 41E * * *** ********* * . e . 01 �_ l : C U 62 k: ti °1� .i _x alx: _ Landscaped Entry: .. t . ! Speed Control roundabout, I , � • • • • ® coo • • . • ,• • d oa • • • .�,3 trees, and signage .p ` '�' � � Second Landscaped En try: • • , Speed Control roundabout, trees, and signage stow, S i;k4l" a, ;r a . .4.':', ..'' ,«:5'%".'..'Oo• ' ' T, ,, _. • , ... ._.. . , _ ... , ... . . - ' '' ' • ; Village Estates { {.• ESD O W �+ - ` - - . . LANDSCAPE BUFFER rs i r � -r 11.I. .. #;.l'''... .» shark .� „n • ^, r , I iz> 1 i4 i 7 g , ` ' ..tip,. , I ass .+ r r• ,. V _� it ti liio pr • , ,k 11 m --It _ b ..... ,.. . 0 s ,.....) _ .„. . a. . /4„...„,. . ....,... .......„....," • . . _ .,. .. . . ...W......,.. € . ��, iVilla Y w ... Y '.w ,i� * �, - r R 1' �• •, LANDSCAPED ENTRY NTRY +yy 1,, .7. ... )...s.,,..—.14„,...._,, de *1i. On 4 C. 1. , ;,,, ray �,' i r r•, ..*"'" ) 0 0 *4 0 (: / t" : i i ‘*.t : ' \ '---\, i ''' . , - ,,..„ t „.. „ - , ,-, ., r . 'r. . UIET s . 7 a$e I states Alr,;CI'- ._, n -. ' _74‘, 's.7 tt: ME ND OW ( ,�, - {x ., .w ,{ , ' = TRAFFIC CONTROL ]} i to, • : ,. le''' a .r VIEW CORRIDORS .EM entry Quiet Meadow londscoped Entry ear ,�. "+>,: �* ., Vehicular Egress Path: rn : n <„ _,>_ •sH• + „•k,,•afl•ssx . . . �? • Site plan configured to �� cause traffic to slow prior to ®e `® cit + tt ® at�+ 4i, ...,.® • ,€ i ?� O de /P * e , • , �. ' ',';Z ,° o a : f s1 1 / t R.O.W. access 4^ , a` ",. , vl•' .�Pi t ..i .._� •.s.►S•*+�!..••.+•k t!"t•'G3.x. t' ±: 1"-.- .i t ,� ' ,®•••.®•�0 a0 � � 0 m, ®to • • • `0T A fF S F , q) 0 (-_,-) 0090004.)0:" F? t • Resulting in slower traffic • � j ')) entering public streets , :. C 'a ., te ^ - , :\ l ,\ t ` , Cr 'I�:x ' _ .= , _? _ :� A. Right Out Only Exploration: o,•. s C7 • . , " , sa :, _.``� 1Y + ' • • Committed to exploring 0 ' f001" 40#404009 . 4®•1••�•• ,: 300 00.040•• ®••• • i v). 0 right out only, in due course • • * S ! 0 O 0 • • • h; fi► 5 ,1 0 1 • • • • ,: • • • 0 .... of process. to .„ _ ^, ,<�••••• :, r ef•••* �= Pork Entry Points: '. t : v Entry''''',-4, points have be en t=, designed to limit view of the �4410. , park to passing vehicles s Q1111111.4,- It ..,..., . . . .:.,.. . ., . - . _ . ,,... ';','• v''',....„, m........EUk.Dli I lEaogle ETwstates . ,..., ' . tN. .. , ..... ... ..%;.,;1'.L!'..11C-"'''..,-T. •'-'- ' 4." ''... VEHICULAR CONTROL1,..:,••• - -"" . -'- ,,..• '..'. - 1,;;,,''t!:''.:,.t.-;', . --' '.•ke,?• ...• at, i '• ''''Y 4::'':`:-'- '' ' -- ' --'',''.' ..s.•'i•tr'.t.t'''''':' ...'i ittt.\ \.0 TIP 4:11.444%11 l k ' , . . iiimi!_6".""r — ----1—..,21,44_,Art. ----- -,,j,,e', 40.- •,,,, - ,.2, --.16;,,,,A1.:,=4 -.•.;•• ,, , ,,,„,.. " • -.#6' ' . 16 Newitwtost.foo...issam • •, - , --,••-1 .,,,e. , f-4,`,44- — :I-i-r$.°44.444.-t-7;54^'*1:44,'A.- .:::;..'t, .- t.' 4 ' 214of a +.4 ::,,'''' ' ' - '-'-*".: '-''_re, ::,,,- n' : ..:,-- —, ,..\:-.:":- ,--.-N—---1 ,'-,40-....: 44--,-..-.::417 is:-(11")."..11ki %- ,,-.174, - - ,,;r.: , ..— .1:, - - .• _v.". 1 — - ' - '--.i„,:.I7-,::::,,;,.• it. , r. ..1'4 ' A. r it _ . ., ,.. • ,,,,, ,t.. ..„,s. _.i...:,.,,,,:r.f .-t-.-7-.tt -- , it„_ ----.0e,,,.. ,... 1 - '.) Ct. Of ''''. '' 'T- . .....a...."- y-. *, . . 0 t : .,-.--. . . - , ..,. ii 1 .A . . 40,,,,,,, •''' \ 11147. 'I '''' 1)'-' 71.':\,:'1,''::'.:.'S1ill:f. :'1,400"11". 1°#. i '.':'-.^.1t -‘ ' '' ''''''I. '4"' •.- -. . , , _.... \... '' ' cs e, . .. . .,.,_.„ . .. . ,. ..... ;.•,',-..,-,:,.;•-,-;;;;,,,,r-,...'z'.-7,••,!,',n7.-.,---.1.,..,;:c7;'..;, . .,,,,,, . , .. , , 1 . „ -... .,.. 00. '., ' -''''-r-Yi."7-110,-%:;•.;-.. .;:;i:''' '. . ' 8- '' ''''-. , ., . -• , , f '' ,''''.''''''''.'• .'t '''' '''*r..i... ''' ''',. .''' f , 0 7 , •:, -*:P;o-::', '' 't'": '"'.,''''':,'''-.,..''.'!•*'''j?' ,.:^•'''''.:**:1,..,2:'.:4''. .''.. . .- .... .--,„ ,. .,,'.•''''';''''''41''-r....." •4 ':!...:-.::7:''_It' ,'-,,,i -,,A.,...-..,....,:-.;„...i?'',;,,,:,,,,...' . -. , . ..- .. ."." ________.,..... ...... .......-- - ---,...,.-- ,,, . ..,,,,,..---,,,f,•.e.,,,,..,:;,,!- ' '.',‘'.•,r4,41- - ••-...-,,, i.lEage estates \ NgkDOW it ..,. ... • . ..„.• •,,, ,,,,, ..., . _. ,• ,...,.,• 7 - _. ' :-.' -.... P`. .'17..4..'ma s. . '.... ' - 4`-'`.:./' ' - ...t, -"....,' - •• ... -........... -:-..r..;•' • , ., lac . .. . , . EV 4, ::a. b ?I! ., , 11. '..Z44, , /,- = ..,,,r., ., ,,. ... , *161 COMMUNITY CENTER .--• u. ,,, ,,, . - ..... , *.,.. .,..._ --- - - -- ---- .... - - , - — --- • , ,._. .Ps ,..,,,,, ..!... 41 IOW .......0 .444,..', ,. , - 1,2 ‘ -/, ' / / IP,- I, " I I It% .,_..,' Ill ..'i/ 6F-': :Th' ..,, . . 41.f.. . . . . ..„,. . , , ,, - • - '.- - -.., •..,, . .,„ - ------ ., -. 11.11;"-- 1 ** ,..„ , ,.. . ,.. .. , '• 0 , - • .4,9.,,,, iv, t.4-- --- ..r., „,,, ........_ ,•• 000 * _ ' ••$_•, ---, - „....,- _ . F-. ,••• .; . ..:,•, ..(4)ion e E 11.- • ' - 0' ' -0' .. - .. _ . . ,t-N-....;-:•1\-44...._' ' -7= i i . . , .....,„, •..,.-.:.. 1_, --. ,. ........ ,. , voiiiih 'op , ' -••••-'\- 411110 I.,' . 1-2' '" . ' 1414IN • . , .„, ,,,•.„,,,„‘„,,,,,,,,, .. .. ., 4. V - - _._. __ �, • la •+ ._...„....,- .,,,„_,. ._i._,,, ,,,,, ..„ z o C) m E .. , ,, zp '61.6" .',,,' x,,,... ,... .„....,.,,,..„,.. ,,, ; , ,. . ‘„,..s,„,., ...... ......,...,:.,: .,... ., ......„..... ..... :, ,‘„,„,„„„...„ ,,, „ „,. .4. _ _ _ Q m LAUREL CITY-COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT TO: Laurel City Council FROM: Noel Eaton, City Planner RE: Variance— 13 Washington Ave HEARING DATE: January 3, 2017 DESCRIPTION/LOCATION: Jason Balzer has submitted an application requesting a variance to exceed maximum fence height.The property is located at 13 Washington Avenue and is legally described as Laurel Realty Second Sub, S09, T02 S, R24 E, Block 14, Lot 11, &S2 12. The property is currently zoned Central Business District. STAFF FINDINGS: 1. Jason Balzer submitted an application for variance on September 30. The variance is from LMC 17.48.050,titled Fence Heights. A site plan accompanied the application. 2. The applicant is requesting a variance from Laurel Municipal code 17.48.050 to construct a fence which exceeds the maximum height allowed for front yard setbacks. LMC 17.48.050.C. states "Fences, walls and hedges up to four (4)feet may be erected or maintained in the required front yard and side yard adjacent to street setback. Fences, walls and hedges up to six (6) feet may be erected or maintained in rear yard and side yard not adjacent to street. 3. The applicant already has a six (6) foot fence in the side yard adjacent to the alley. 4. The application is proposing a six (6)foot solid fence from the front of the dwelling to the sidewalk along the south side of the property adjacent to the alley, a four (4)foot picket fence along the front property line and a four (4)foot picket fence along the north property line. 5. The applicant has submitted the variance due to the increase in traffic and nightly noise from the High Plains Brewery. 6. The applicant bought his property when the neighbor was an automobile repair and towing service. The prior use of the site did not create high foot or vehicle traffic. 7. The application and a map showing the location of the property is attached. 8. As per the requirements of LMC 17.72.070, a public hearing on the matter shall be held before the zoning commission before being heard by the Laurel City Council. As per B. of the section, public notice was published in the Laurel Outlook and adjacent property owners were notified by certified mail 15 days prior to the public hearing. ZONING COMMISSION CONSIDERATIONS AND RECOMMENDATION: The Zoning Commission reviewed the 7 criteria of a granting a variance.The Board voted to approve the variance with the staff report and suggested conditions of approval (minutes attached). STAFF SUGGESTED CONDITIONS: If the City Council votes to approve the variance,the following conditions are suggested: 1. The applicant shall apply and pay for a fence permit. 2. Clear vision setbacks must be approved for clear vision of the alley way. wAF Vcv-M Arc D.i CYY['.alb' • Laurel Variance Request Application This application covers appeals from decisions of the Planning Department (and sometimes other officials) and for requests for variances concerning setbacks, structures, heights, lot coverage, etc. The undersigned owner or agent of the owner of the following described property requests a variance to the Zoning Ordinances of the City of Laurel as outlined by the laws of the State of Montana. 1. Name of property owner: {� 2. Name of Applicant if different from above: 3. Phone number of Applicant: 1--\; 1.0 4. Street address and general location: \ \.._)f14) 5. Legal description of the property: Z,Q5, 1y( ,A, \,1 iv.rr, 6. Current Zoning: VIVO' C,OX1YCLI (SW-A 7. Provide a copy of covenants or deed restrictions on property. I understand that the filing fee accompanying this application is not refundable, that it pays part of the cost of process, and that the fee does not constitute a payment for a variance. I also understand I or my agent must appear at the hearing of this request before the Planning Board and all of the information presented by me is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. Signature of Applicant: Date of Submittal: 9 1'7/6' , , ,,,..,..„, , _-_ ,,.„,...„c„.„_,--, 1111,„ t, a.. ,1_ ,.., ,..;_-„•--,. , ..-, it.„,,, .., .. .1. ,....,,T.:Ait -4.-#.,i,"*"` ***"' *** ,ii- ' i t `' � a, :„:„,.. ..,:,.....„1„:„,,:-„..- ' :::'411_,,k* e4,., �? ,,,14.4:•:,4z.4,,,,,,,:.,„,-„„..,,,„,--__-,-, „,-,,-,.,-.„,_-,44, -,,-.0„ -:. ,, i ,__ _,... „...-,,z,,,47.t„,,,,--.-.N.,. . _...,--t.--,_, i * ,,,..„,__ ...;- :,, ...., ,e,,,,...,,,,,70,itit,i,„1.-i„„.., - _, ,, „ .,I, ,,, �s ` �13 Washungton Ave s 'fir om t *wit tea... 6 } • # # 'mss a pliiii ' ': ' Abilliti''' ,, a }.1� ,...,..,. ''''''''' -''''''' . . , Goo earth feet meters 1004 30 1\1 Ask:.s% oi a. votL:(), .6 '�� I Moil oom S s�� 't.• Som 'Kra` zcM sa '�„ .,a cwt .err x a. { i F y a[ i.�, r k w e ;. s r w •,, Y. q a •••::'''''4"0"*".".^ ,., ''`7* .� � ,ce ,w +< 84 m 4 �9 + ..gy...4•••''''''''''' '�y � ,'' w + d6" 4 foko, � »+ s L .. .4 a. '''' - 7'1,1:4-7:'.- ti ' --' 1----i'---0 -, _,.-.1,-;';.-'z''''''Ir''''':::':'-: - , '''' Jam. *a...` ..; eini w, i ,X � ;, 4x. i 4N-k.; P .4..► --,11:' s fi ! s _. ...;•11,-- 3. `.� � �t o- At Q r� Ai ilt tit , ,, 'i It#-» } s � 45illoff�iti ,. , -..„ i..,,. * v•v, } titii.."''''‘,- '' Alt lib 1 - yt % 7 - t°�' -- L. � ttff (. ,, 0 ,-,' ,-,t46,4';•k, iA:,.., .v.,,.-.:.-,. 'I: / t 4 { g fr. 4 4 S &�� is _-_,.�.- " .••• rill- - 4 1111 t 't '� 4f f tea xa+. _ .} � '* 7 3