Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity/County Planning Board Minutes 01.05.2017 MINUTES LAUREL-YELLOWSTONE CITY-COUNTY PLANNING BOARD January 5,2017 10:00 am Council Chambers MEMBERS PRESENT: Kathy Siegrist, President Dan Koch,City Rep. Judy Goldsby,County Rep. Lee Richardson, County Rep. Ron Benner, County Rep. (arrived at 10:14 am) Hazel Klein,City Rep. OTHERS PRESENT: Noel Eaton,City Planner Cheryl) Lund,City Secretary Monica Plecker,CTA Architects CALL TO ORDER: President Siegrist called the meeting to order at 10:00 am. ROLL CALL: Members present were Koch,Goldsby, Richardson, Klein and Siegrist. Benner arrived at the meeting at 10:14 am. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: A motion to approve the minutes of the December 1,2016 meeting was made by Judy Goldsby and seconded by Dan Koch. The minutes were approved by a vote of 5—0. NEW BUSINESS: Public Hearing Laurel-Yellowstone City-County Planning Area Subdivision Regulations 2016 Update. City Planner Noel Eaton spoke. She stated Monica Plecker from CTA was present and will give an update on the amended Subdivision Regulations 2016. She also told the board that the extension for the grant for updating the subdivision regulations has been submitted. She went on to state that today the board should be able to make a recommendation on the amended subdivision regulations to the governing bodies for the regulations to go forward as submitted. Noel stated that they have received comments from both city and county legal staff and have incorporated all of their suggested changes into this final draft. Monica Plecker spoke. She said the content of the subdivision regulations has remained the same except for various typos'that have been corrected. Monica did receive comments from the board and has prepared a memo with responses to questions and comments. Most of the comments came from board member Ron Benner. When she went through Ron's comments she did not feel any of them warranted a change within the draft because a lot of the comments are things that can already be done or that are not related to subdivisions. (Ron Benner's comments are in bold and Monica Plecker's responses are in italic). Ron Benner asked: "Is it possible to put in the regulations that proposed developer submit to the planning board—in writing something from the governing bodies where appropriate an impact statement such as from the fire district/department? Police? Sheriff? Water Department? Sewer? 1 Drainage? It would not have to be detailed just something that the boards could have in written form that addresses concerns about the proposed development impact as well as possible solutions". Monica's response: "As a part of applications and staff review it is required for comments to be solicited from all service providers. This extends from Fish, Wildlife and Parks, utility companies,school districts, public utility providers, etc. This is an existing provision and requirement of state law." Ron Benner asked:"Without clearer delineations of exceptions then anything is acceptable and does not help guide the board in its decision. Do we need to define the access points to dedicated roadways or some-other definition? What's to stop a developer from saying the access point will be into a future development at a later date and then never develop it?" Monica's response: "A definition for access is already included in the subdivision regulations. There are two types of access that are required for all subdivisions. Legal and Physical Access. Legal meaning an easement or other instrument providing a dedicated point of access and physical meaning constructed access." Ron Benner asked:"Is this a desired outcome? Our roadways could become very serpentine in nature with bends and curves where none should be. PG 27." Monica's response: "While they may become serpentine in nature, the result will not be as dramatic as one may think. The public work standards do govern the maximum the roads can change from centerline to centerline. Likely we would have to work with the developer on safe transition zones as to avoid sharp, unsafe, angles." Ron Benner asked:"I'm not sure how this would work? Think of Highpoint subdivision(Ridge and E. Maryland). The Foos subdivision has to access and use other subdivision roads."Monica's comment: "Which are dedicated to the public, these are not private streets." Would they be responsible for all upgrades to the Highpoint subdivision roads and maintenance district?Monica's comment: "The developer will be responsible for the cost of mitigating impacts identified in the Traffic Impact Study." Or with the possibility of the new quiet meadow trailer park—the impact on the minimal road of east Maryland will cause issues. Could/would there be the possibility of all road improvement costs on the developers? What about 8th/Eleanor Roosevelt? Would they be responsible for all those costs? Which local standards?City residential? Subdivision road? Urban route? There is a lot of wiggle room here? Monica's comment: "The standards are which is required by the governing body. For baseline ROW widths and requirements we have guidance for lane widths,etc. both for the City and the County, Urban Routes may take some coordination with the state."The following paragraph does not address impacted subdivision roads like East Maryland. Monica's comment: "East Maryland is not a subdivision road,it is a public dedicated road." And the current maintenance district? As I read it all submissions go to state,county or city? Monica's comment: "If it is a city street the review and acceptance will go to the city and if it is in the county it will go to the county. We will still provide coordination of agency review." So in the case of E. Maryland the government body would be the county? Monica's comment: "It depends on the stretch of E. Maryland, it follows the jurisdictional boundaries." The county road department?Or the state(as it's a designated urban route?)This seems very vague and open to a lot of questions. Concept is good but I feel it needs more clarifications." Monica's comment:"Further discussion is necessary in addition to the above responses in grey." 2 Ron Benner asked:"As I read this the sidewalks must be inside the development? Fine but not along the adjoining streets. This seems against the city bicycle and pedestrian plan(2003). Think the development north of East Maryland where there are sidewalks in the development but NONE along a very busy street that provides access to 3 schools. This is not good policy and does not promote livability! "PG 38 Monica's comment: "This particular section is in relation to sidewalks in developments located in the 2 mile zoning district. Further discussion is necessary." Monica stated we all want a walkable community but the reality of making people put in sidewalks on larger parcels of property on every single side that is zoned at a lower density is not using good common sense. It would be different if the zoning was for more dense lots. Hazel Klein stated that when a developer has to put in sidewalks it drives up the cost of the lot and is just not feasible on lower density properties'. Monica stated that Ron is thinking of the properties located in the rural routes. At this time it would not be good to start making developers put in sidewalks in the rural areas. Hazel questioned why Ron has the mindset that E. Maryland is a private road within the subdivision that they own when in reality it is a public road. Monica stated that it is a public road. At this time Ron Benner arrived at the meeting(10:14 am). Monica stated that the confusion is the difference between right-of-way, public roads and private roads. East Maryland Road is not a subdivision road even though it has an RSID. It is a public road. Ron Benner stated that it was a private road until the City of Laurel opened it up as a road to the trailer park(Village Subdivision). He and his neighbors had no say in it becoming a public road and they are paying maintenance costs that impact the subdivision. People that are not paying for the maintenance of E. Maryland Lane are accessing the road. He feels that isn't right. Monica stated that it is just how it is. The theory is that every single road constructed is a part of the new development and has an associated maintenance district for it. So every subdivision is potentially pulling their weight. They are still platted and public roads. It is all done for the greater good of the community and that is the way it is going to be. Ron Benner suggested there should rules and regulations that make it fair for all. He feels people should have to pay their fair share but some don't. They drive on the roads but don't have to pay for them. He used the Foos subdivision bridge as an example. His subdivision ended up paying for a bridge that was built in Foos subdivision that he and his neighbors don't access, had no say in the building of and yet they are paying for it. Monica stated the people driving the roads are taxpaying citizens and they are driving on dedicated public roads. 3 Hazel Klein stated that it's like the county people coming into the city limits and driving on city roads that the county citizens don't pay for it. Monica agreed with Hazel and stated that access is dealt with within the definitions of legal access and physical access. Writing a new document is not going to help and protection measures are already in place. Monica stated at this time there were no staff suggested changes in regards to Ron Benner's questions and comments. President Siegrist opened the public hearing at 10:26 a.m.and read the rules and regulations for public hearing to the audience. PROPONENTS: President Siegrist asked three(3)times if there were any proponents wishing to speak in favor of the amended subdivision regulations. There were none. OPPONENTS: President Siegrist asked three (3)times if there were any opponents wishing to speak in opposition of the amended subdivision regulations. There were none. A motion was made by Judy Goldsby to accept the amended Laurel Subdivision Regulations 2016 and recommend approval to both the Laurel City Council and the Yellowstone County Commissioners. The motion was seconded by Hazel Klein. BOARD DISCUSSION: Ron Benner asked what the process is prior to it being approved. Monica stated that it goes to both the Laurel City Council and the Yellowstone County Commissioners for their approval. Because legal counsel for both the city and the county have given their comments and those changes were put into the document there should be no issue with either entity approving the document. Dan Koch asked if there is a set time that subdivision regulations should be reviewed. He pointed out it has been 10 years since it was updated. Monica stated at a minimum the legislative changes(if there are any)should be added into the document. At this time the motion accepting the amended Laurel Subdivision Regulations 2016 and recommending approval to both the Laurel City Council and the Yellowstone County Commissioners was voted on. The motion was carried by a vote of 5-0. Noel told the board this will now move on to the Laurel City Council and Yellowstone County Commissioners but there will be no more public hearings. If the Laurel City Council votes to approve, an 4 ^ ' - ordinance will be drafted up and it will become effective in 30 days. lithe Yellowstone County Commissioners vote to approve, it will go into effect immediately by a res |mtion. OLD BUSINESS: Noel asked the board if they would like her to move forward with steps to replace the Conservation Corp member. The Conservation Corp member only attends if there is something on the agenda concerning conservation. The official board member of the Conserytion Corp was appointed for a 2 year term and has not attended a meeting since being appointed as there has been nothing on the agendas concerning conservation. Having a member not present at every meeting has created issues with not having a quorum present for every meeting. There are also 3 open city positions. Dan Koch stated yes he would like Noel to look into it. Hazel Klein asked if there has been any discussion with the Conservation Corp regarding appointing a different member to the board. She suggested a letter be written to the Conservation Corp asking if they have any other members willing to come to the meetings on a monthly basis. If they don't have anyone willing to attend then the city will follow the steps to make other arrangements. The board had a discussion on conflict of interest, recused votes,and misconception of board duties by the public. Ron Benner suggested that the boards' mission statement be placed at the bottom of each agenda and read prior to each meeting. Dan Koch agreed it would be a good idea. Monica Plecker stated the Montana Statute for conflict of interest is very simple. She suggested the statute could be brought up at each meeting and the definition be clarified for both the board and the audience. MISCELLANEOUS: Noel told the board that the annexation and zone change for Quiet Meadows was denied by the City Council bxovote ofG-2' The next Planning Board meeting will be February 2, 2017. PUBLIC COMMENT: There was no public comment. ADJOURNMENT: A motion to adjourn was made by Hazel Klein and seconded by Dan Koch. The motion carried by a vote of5—O' The meeting was adjourned at 11:00 am. Respectfully submitted,