The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCouncil Workshop Minutes 01.29.2019MINUTES CITY OF LAUREL "-6A6V-VSXj1P- I 1 �Fl �14 61 1Wff L. I I I z 111, A 4 A Council Workshop was held in the Council Chambers and called to order by Mayor Tom Nelson at 6:30 p.m. on January 29, 2019. —x— Emelie Eaton Heidi Sparks Bruce McGee —x— x Richard Herr Scot Stokes x Iry Wilke Richard Klose x Bill Mountsier OTHERS PRESENT: Matthew Lurker, Chief Administrative Officer Kurt Markegard, Public Works Superintendent Stan Langve, Chief of Police Public Input: There was none. General Items 1. Appointments to the Laurel Volunteer Fire Department Amee Patrick Ryan Robertus Bridger Fournier Levi Klamert Steven Hiller 2. Appointments to the Laurel Volunteer Ambulance Service. Mariah Haugen David Jackson Boady Harper Bryanna Ruskanen Fire Chief Peters introduced all Fire/EMS appointments. He stated that Amee Patrick had pulled her name from this appointment. This appointment will also add four ambulance drivers. All four are currently taking the class to become an EMT. It was questioned how many members these appointments will bring the numbers up to. These appointments will bring the Laurel Volunteer Fire department to 40 out of 45 slots. These appointments will bring the Laurel Ambulance Service to 15 out of 30 slots. Mayor Nelson stated he has noticed an increase in calls and has noticed the response of the Ambulance Service has increased. Fire Chief Peters gave Council a brief overview of the December calls. Fire responded to 38 calls Ambulance responded to 81 out of 84 calls. 2. Public Hearing: Annexation and Initial Zoning Request from Goldberg Investments for Residential Light Multi -Family on Nutting Brothers 2nd filing Lot 18 and Nutting Brothers 3rd Filing Lots 19-24 and Community Commercial on Lot 25 Nutting Brothers 3rd Filing. Mayor Nelson asked Forrest Sanderson and Kurt Markegard to present the item. A map of the location was put up on the screen for Council to view, see attached. There are two actions before the Council, annexation, and zoning. Montana law allows those requests to be made concurrently. The Council packets have the complete applications, Planning Board recommendations and the use regimen from the Laurel code. City/County Planning Board held a fon-nal public hearing, minutes attached and thoroughly reviewed these request. It was clarified that the annexation request must occur first. If the annexation is not passed, then by default the zoning request has died. Annexation is purely at the discretion of Council. Annexation needs to offer a benefit to both the City and the developer. In order for a property to be considered for annexation the property must be adjacent to the City of Laurel, over one city block (2.06 acres), and that the property owner has submitted or authorized the annexation request. The annexation and zoning are consistent with the 2013 Growth Policy. The application submitted was a very comprehensive approach. The development plan is expected to also be comprehensive. The recommendation from the City/County Planning Board is that Council does consider a favorable consideration to the request. Zoning is also discretionary. The requested zoning is the prevailing zoning in the area. To assign zoning, there is a 12 -point test that must be considered. Those are listed in the report and will be read at next week's Public Hearing. All conditions are favorable. The City/County Planning Board did recommend the applications with three conditions; those conditions are listed in the zoning report which is attached to these minutes. There were some questions about a County park; these questions will be addressed before the Public Hearing. It was questioned if both annexation and zoning are required to do the other. It was clarified that zoning could not proceed without annexation, but that Council can change the type of zoning. Members of Council stated they would like a clear idea of what the zoning actually includes (The packet contains the RLMF and CC zoning district). That in the past it had not been clear. Council was encouraged to read the Planning Board minutes. Some of those types of questions were asked and addressed during the Planning Board meeting. The packet does address business and lot coverage and should be able to answer some of those types of questions as well. If both the annexation and zoning pass, the next step will be subdivision approval. The proposed schedule was given to Council. January 29, 2019, Council will be introduced to the annexation and zoning requests. February 5, 2019, Council will conduct a Public Hearing. February 12, 2019, this topic will come back to Council at Workshop to discuss any further questions they may have prior to making a decision. February 19, 2019, the item is voted on. Executive Review 3. Resolution to approve the Planner Agreement There were a number of applicants that were weeded down to the final three. There were no local candidates. The interviews were done by Skype. Part of the interview process was an exercise. The candidates were given a real-world example, the recent Vue and Brew request, and asked to review the application, give a written recommendation, and give a PowerPoint presentation. This gentleman stood out both on paper and in his interview. He is currently located in New Hampshire and was looking for an opportunity to come to Big Sky Country. He is currently working for a private company and focuses on economic development, solid waste, and transportation plans and programs. He does have experience in land use and property management. The packet lists his first day as February 6th; he has requested a start date of February 19th. This agreement is a four-year term. This is to help retain an individual for longer periods of time. 4. Laurel BK Lot Access Please see the attached map. The owners of properties A and B paid for improvements in the red area. Owner C is trying to sell the BK property and needs to be part of this agreement. Owner C has paid their share of $30,000 to have access to the area in red. This should assist in the sale of the BK property. It was questioned if this was a street. It was clarified that the City has an encroachment easement on this property. There is City property behind the BK property. LURA did provide grant assistance for these improvements. This resolution is to include Owner C (Rimrock Chevrolet) to the agreement. 5. A Resolution of the City Council authorizing the release of funds from the Tax Increment Financing District fund for facade improvements and signage for the property located at 117 West Main Street, Laurel Montana This was the resolution that was pulled from the last meeting. The clerical error has been fixed, and the requested spreadsheet has been distributed to Council. This spreadsheet will only show the small grants, see attached. It was questioned why the start/end dates were not filled in, it was further questioned if the LURA grants are a reimbursement process. It was clarified that those dates will be filled in and that the LURA grants are a reimbursement process. It was questioned why there are dollar amounts listed next to each grant name. It was clarified that those are the maximum dollars that can be awarded. In this case, the building is historical and is eligible for additional funds. It was requested a column be added to this document explaining why a larger sum was being approved. Council Issues 6. Nuisance Barking Dogs Mayor Nelson stepped down to give testimony and requested Council President Eaton to run the meeting for this item only. Joshua Anderson, 1115 E. 6th Street, stated he had filed a nuisance dog complaint and that this is an ongoing issue. He was originally told that the owners were cited, they were not and the barking has not ceased. Mr. Anderson stated he was accused of making false police reports and was told if he continued, he would be in trouble. Joe Anderson, 511 Wyoming Avenue, stated that he is Joshua's twin brother and spends a lot of time at his home. He stated that they are unable to watch tv without hearing the dogs barking. He stated his brother has tried to resolve the issue with the owner of the dogs. Tom Nelson, 524 Elm Avenue, stated he had witnessed the police at the complainant's home. He has heard the dogs barking, but that there are a street and a house between the dogs and his home. It is unknown if the animals are registered with the City. Mr. Anderson moved into his income property, attached to the main home, to get away from the barking. Police Chief Langve gave a brief update to the complainant that their complaint from the 9`h has been forwarded for prosecutorial review. He is unable to speak about specifics because this instance is under review. He further clarified that if any resident feels their complaint was not handled satisfactorily, they can speak with the Police Chief to have the instance reviewed. Police Chief Langve took the opportunity to educate those in attendance on what the officer does when investigating a complaint. Officers need to witness the issue themselves. If they do not directly observe the behavior, they may attempt to determine if others in the neighborhood are also calling in the same complaint. Officers need to give due process. They will contact the accused and would like to find a solution. The first offense fine is $100, second offense is $300, and the third offense is $500. There is the potential that the animal may need to be euthanized. He read code LMC 6.16.030 into the record. In this instance, the Police Chief reviewed the case and did not find any fault on procedures. It was questioned if there were any citations. It was clarified there was not a citation, but that the case has been sent to the prosecutor because a formal statement has been made. It was questioned if it is standard procedure to ask for licensure. It was clarified that this could be part of the procedure and needs to be enforced. It was questioned if the officer was aware of the licensing issue. It was clarified that they were unaware of the licensure. It was questioned what the process is moving forward. It was clarified they can contact the City Attorney on the status of the case. Each call is its own complaint. They can continue to make reports; however, the officer will need to observe the issue. Mr. Anderson stated he was told they do a five-minute site listening for the dogs to bark. He felt this was not enough time. Mr. Nelson stated that he uses a bark collar to keep his own dogs from barking on a regular bases. It was questioned if there were other neighbors complaining as well. It was unclear if anyone else has made a complaint. Other Items None. Review of Draft Council Agendas Draft Council Agenda 2.5.2019 Mayor Nelson will be gone Council President Eaton will conducting the meeting. A Council Member had been asked by a constituent if the ice on the sidewalk on the underpass will be cleaned out. It was clarified that it is a State highway and State will clean it out. Attendance at Upcoming Council Meeting All present will be in attendance. Announcements At the last Public Works Committee meeting there was discussion regarding the Mayor's announcement of the project located on Idaho, Ohio, and Washington between Main Street and East lst Street being put on hold for up to three years to research possible LURA funding options. Mayor Nelson stated an update would be brought forward on the February 26th Workshop. Recently the State had visited the City regarding the West Railroad Project. There is not enough Urban funds to fully fund the project. Either the City has to downsize the project, put the project on hold, come up with the shortfall, or a combination of these options. Public Works Committee was told staff recommendation was putting the project on hold. Council asked how this project would proceed and not be forgotten. Mayor Nelson stated an update would be given on February 26th. 8. Employee/Volunteer Recognition: Mayor Nelson stated he would not be reading each naive anymore. The volunteers will be included from here on out. Still working on getting the Reserves and Volunteer Ambulance Service years of service. They will be added to future agendas. Employees: Stan Langve 19 years on the 5th Police Kurt Markegard 14 years on the 3`d Public works Julia Torno 1 year on the 17th Library Volunteer: Rick Gallegos 20 years on the 201h Fire Corey McIlvain 15 years on the 24`" Fire John Beck 1 year on the 16th Fire Jayson Nicholson 1 year on the 16th Fire Jesse Gee 1 year on the 19th Fire The council workshop adjourned at 7:59 p.m. Respectfully sub 'tted, 60YBrittney Moo Administrative Assistant NOTE: This meeting is open to the public. This meeting is for information and discussion of the Council for the listed workshop agenda items. .............. V , '-1 ! ;t ! I - '—......... dVA ONINOZ a�JSOdO8d »SMI 5z3AN! 08 38(170 o!siniaens aoiAJo m ` w 1- .............. V , '-1 ! ;t ! , u ur g E o G E v x _ 10 E ca _ R E o ix o � C M y O O C C°v'aaC Ej L do : i o 0o co o 0 0 O IL a o- f IllN ii. _L '—......... , u ur g E o G E v x _ 10 E ca _ R E o ix o � C M y O O C C°v'aaC Ej L do : i o 0o co o 0 0 O IL a o- f IllN ii. _L MINUTES CITY OF LAUREL Public Input: Citizens may address the committee regarding any item of business that is not on the agenda. The diaration for an individual speaking under Public Input is limited to three minutes. While all comments are welcome, the committee will not take action on any item not on the agenda. General Items 1. Public Hearing: Annexation and Initial Zoning Request from Goldberg Investments for Residential Light Multi -Family on Nutting Brothers 2nd filing Lot 18 and Nutting Brothers 3rd Filing Lots 19-24 and Community Commercial on Lot 25 Nutting Brothers 3rd Filing. Judy read the rules for the Public Hearing. Forrest Sanderson the contract City Planner introduced the agent representing the property owners, Scott Aspenlieder PE from Performance Engineering 609 29' Street. Scott informed the public hearing of the proposed annexation and initial zoning for Nutting Brothers Subdivision 2nd Filing Lot 18 and Nutting Brothers Subdivision 3`d Filing lots 19-24 all Residential Light Multi-Family(RLMF) and on Lot 25 of the 3'd Filing of Nutting Brothers Subdivision for Community Commercial. Scott said that there will be no deviations to their request for the zoning that the City currently has in the area. Scott said that there will not be any mobile homes on the property like what was proposed in an earlier annexation and zoning request. The zoning request will allow for single family homes and some commercial activity off of Yard Office Road. In the future, Scott said that a subdivision review will come later if the annexation and zoning is granted. Scott said that this request is in line with the neighbors desired the last time this property was proposed for annexation and zoning. Scott stated that no mobile home will be placed on the land. Ron Benner ask about the low density statement and the difference between the low density and high density. Forrest stated the density is medium to high in the Residential Light Multi -Family zoning. Forrest stated that the density would be moderate designation versus the low density. Forrest asked Scott that the proposal is for moderate density and will not be turned into a Planned Unit Development in the future. Scott stated that there is no plan for any deviations of the proposed zoning request. Jon asked what is the density for RLMF and Judy stated that it is in the packet. Forrest stated that for one unit they need a 6,000 square feet, 7,500 for two units, 8,500 for three, and 10,000 square feet for four units. The limit is maxed at four units and the lot coverage is forty percent. The difference between this zoning and Multi- Family (MF) zoning is that RMLF zoning limits the lots to a four plex and under the MF zoning you could build larger than a four plex as long as you have the land area needed under lot size limits. Ron stated that the Growth Management Policy adopted by the City lists the proposed zoning as high density. Ron stated that the other issue with the previous request was not the mobile homes but the traffic. Scott stated that the last request was about the mobile home designation in his opinion. Forrest stated that the last request doesn't matter today and only what is being presented today. Subdivision review will be in the future and that will have its own hearing. Ron asked about the Commercial zoning request and Forrest said that it this zoning allows for a diverse allowance for businesses that work with the Residential Districts. The district is compatible with moderate density zoning standards. Forrest stated that the City is statutorily required to have the public hearing on both requests of annexation and zoning and Forrest is suggesting lumping together both requests because if annexation is denied then the zoning request is mute. Forrest stated that the City has an Annexation Policy and this property is adjacent to the City and is larger than the minimum acres needed for annexation. Staff submits that this is the type of annexation that the City has desired through the Annexation Policy. The request is in line with the 2013 Growth Management Plan and public infrastructure. The executed Special Improvement District Waiver is included. The required Fees were submitted. The adjacent right of ways will also need to be annexed. The annexation will also have to include an annexation map. Staff recommendation is to approve the requested annexation by the Planning Board. Forrest stated that the RLMF and the CC zoning are applicable zoning districts assign by the City of Laurel. Forrest stated there is no deviations of the requested zoning. Forrest finds that the zoning is in compliance with all the regulations of local and state laws. Forrest's report is attached to these minutes that goes through the required zoning and annexation statutorily requirements. This report was presented to the public in an overhead projector. In Forrest's report, the findings support approval of the zoning an annexation with the conditions that are contained in the staff report. Forrest asked the Planning Board members if there were any more questions and the Planning Board did not have any more questions. Forrest read into the record that the Public Hearing notice was mailed out to the surrounding property owners and two letters were returned. These letters returned were to Dale and Laura Mussetter of 1920 E. Maryland Lane and Neil Gunderson of 2024 E. Maryland Lane. The Public Hearing was opened for Public Comment. Nancy Lousch of 1608 E. Maryland Lane commented that the property was not listed on the Montana Cadastral Mapping as being owned by Goldberg Investments. Kurt Markegard, the Public Works Director, informed Nancy that the Planning Board had the ownership records in their packet and it was confirmed that they are the recorded owners of the property being requested to be annexed. Nancy commented that the traffic in the area needs to be addressed with the 55 lot mobile home park that is being built. Nancy also asked how she was to get the information to make a formal protest prior to the City Council meeting on February 5'h at the next public hearing. Forrest said that he would get her the statutorily information at the close of this meeting. Scott Aspenlieder stated that they are not asking for anything that doesn't comply with the zoning in the area. They will comply with the current zoning and the rules. Scott stated that this development will fit with the neighborhood. Judy closed the Public Hearing as there was no other public comment. 2. Judy call for a roll call of the Planning Board Planning Board member present Ron Benner, Jerry Williams, Jonathan Klasna, Evan Bruce, Roger Giese, and Judy Goldsby. Forrest stated that a quorum is reached. 3. Approval of Minutes fiom 11.1.2018 Jerry motion to approve the minutes and Ron seconded the motion to approve. All members were in favor of the minutes. New Business 4. Recommendation of Annexation and Initial Zoning Request from Goldberg Investments for Residential Light Multi -Family on Nutting Brothers 2nd filing Lot 18 and Nutting Brothers 3rd Filing Lots 19-24 and Community Commercial on Lot 25 Nutting Brothers 3rd Filing. Roger motioned to approve the annexation and zoning for Goldberg Investments. Jerry seconded the motion. Judy opened up the board discussion. Ron commented about the traffic from the commercial portion of this request. Ron read off many businesses that could be allowed in the community commercial zoning. Ron is concerned that traffic from these types of businesses. Jon asked Forrest what is the spacing requirements for the commercial zoning and is it similar to the residential. Forrest said there is not a lot size requirement but there is set backs from the street of twenty feet. There are no set back requirements from the side of the lots, and ten feet from a side streets and also no set back requirements from the rear of the lot. The height of any building is 25 feet and a maximum of fifty percent lot coverage. The minimum area for this type of zoning is 2.07 acres. The RLMF zoning is similar to the Community Conunercial in lot size requirements. Jon asked how big lot 25 in acreage is and Forrest stated that lot 25 it is five or six acres. Ron asked if they can subdivide lot 25 into smaller lots. Forrest stated that they would have to go through subdivision regulations and that would come back to this board before the City Council would take action. Scott stated that lot 25 is nine acres. Ron spoke about the roads when the City annexes property and is concerned that the city will drop the ball when it comes to connecting the roads and making the City a livable city with connected roads. Ron stated that there are roads that have never been finished. Ron asked Kurt if the city will do their part. Kurt explained that when the City annexes land, the City must annex the entire road right of ways as required by state law. This does not give the right for the City to pass a special improvement district in the area and have the County residents pay for a portion of the costs associated of road improvement onto the county parcels. The county residents could protest this creation of special improvement district to complete road improvements. Most costs for road improvements are tied to the lots that are adjacent to the roads. Ron stated that there are roads all over the city that are not paved. Kurt stated that citizens can petition to create a special improvement district to do road improvements any time they want to if they want the improvements. There is always the concern that if fifty one percent of the lot owners protest the creation of a special improvement district. Forrest stated that on these lots being considered for annexation there is a waiver of protest document so the current property owners and any subsequent property owners cannot protest the creation of a special improvement district. Forrest also stated that there can be a late comer agreement to help the developer to recoup costs if other property owners would like to connect to improvements that the developers paid for with their development. Judy asked if there is any public comment on the discussion for the recommendation of approval for annexation and zoning for Goldberg Investments. There was no public comment. Judy asked for a roll call vote on the motion for approval of Nutting Brothers Subdivision Recommendation of Annexation and Initial Zoning Request from Goldberg Investments for Residential Light Multi -Family on Nutting Brothers 2nd filing Lot 13 and Nutting Brothers 3rd Filing Lots 19-24 and Community Commercial on Lot 25 Nutting Brothers 3rd Filing. Jerry said I, Ron yes, Jon yes, Evan yes, Roger yes, and Judy yes. The motion was approve with a unanimous yes vote. Forrest stated that there will be a Public Hearing on February 5, 2019 at the City Council meeting at 6:30 pm. Old Business 5. Planner Update Matt Lurker stated that he is completing back ground references for two applicants and he is hoping that the City will have a planner in the next month. Matt stated that he would like a recommendation to the Mayor in the next few weeks. Other Items 6. Ron asked for information to be sent out sooner so that they have a chance to review the documents prior to the meeting. Kurt stated the information was sent out a week prior to the meeting except for the zoning allowances from the Laurel Municipal Code. Kurt also stated that the board should have a book with the regulations. Kurt stated that the new board members probably have not had a chance to get all the information they need to understand all the regulations. Kurt stated that there probably should be a review of the regulations with the Planning Board members in the near future. Forrest stated that there is a booklet that has been created by the State that has the subdivision and annexation regulations laws in this booklet. Announcements 7. Next Meeting: February 7, 2019. 8. Judy asked for a motion to adjourn the meeting. It was moved and seconded to adjourn and all were in favor. The meeting adjourned at 11:22am. CITY HALL 115 W. 1ST ST. City Of Laurel PUB. WORKS: 628-4796 WATER OFC.: 628-7431 COURT: 628-1964 P.O. Box 20 FAX 628-2241 Laurel, Montana 59044 Office of Planning Office of the Director of Public Works Date: January 7, 2019 To: Laurel Mayor and City Council From: Laurel — Yellowstone City — County Planning Board and Zoning Commission Forrest Sanderson, AICP, CFM — Contract Planner Re: Annexation Request, Goldberg Investment LLP BACKGROUND: On November 13, 2018, an annexation request for Lot 18 Nutting Brothers 2nd Filing and Lots 19 — 25 Nutting Brothers 3`d Filing in Section 10, Township 2 South, Range 24 East was submitted along with a request for initial zoning. The initial zoning request, which is analyzed in a separate Report is for Residential Limited Multi -Family (RLMF) and Community Commercial (CC). The Laurel — Yellowstone Planning Board and Zoning Commission did on January 3, 2019 conduct a public hearing on the proposed annexation request. ANALYSIS OF REQUEST City Council Resolution #R08-22 (March 4, 2008) and the aforementioned Application Form establishes the criteria and requirements for the annexation of property. Standard: 1. Onlv parcels of land adiacent to the Citv of Laurel will be considered for annexation. If the parcel to be annexed is smaller that 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 size. Once the council approves the request, the applicant can apply for annexation. Findings: A. The property requested for consideration is adjacent to the existing Laurel city limits; B. The property requested for consideration is 32.56 acres in size; C. The property owner (Goldberg Investments LLP) owns or has been authorized to submit the annexation petition.; Goldberg Investments Annexation D. Should the request for annexation be denied by the City of Laurel the request for initial zoning will not proceed further; E. This is the type of comprehensive annexation and initial zoning requests that are desired under the City of Laurel Annexation Policy. F. The annexation and initial zoning appears to be consistent with your 2013 Growth Policy. (Infrastructure, Land Use, and Transportation Sections). These sections encourage comprehensive `big picture' looks at development, growth and the extension of public infrastructure. 1. The application adequately addresses the following items as required by Council Policy: a. An extension of City Streets, Water, Sewer, Sidewalks, Storm Water, Curb and Gutter and how the developer/owner intends to pay for these infrastructure extensions; b. An executed waiver of the right to protest the creation of SID's; c. Adequate discussion of the suitability of the proposed zoning for the property to be annexed; d. A notarized signature fiom the record property owner authorizing the annexation and requested initial zoning; e. Adequate discussion of the subdivision process to create lots that conform to the minimum district requirements and use limitations imposed by the Laurel Zoning Regulations. 2. The application did include a fee for the consideration of annexation and zoning. a. The fee is adequate for the application as presented. 3. The annexation map, to be prepared at the developers expense shall include all adjacent public rights-of-way 4 117-IM143go The request to proceed with annexation of Lot 18 Nutting Brothers 2nd Filing and Lots 19 — 25 Nutting Brothers Yd Filing in Section 10, Township 2 South, Range 24 East Subdivision should be APPROVED for the following reasons: 1. The annexation request is consistent with the City of Laurel Annexation Policy. 2. The requested annexation is consistent with the 2013 Laurel Growth Policy. 3. The requested initial zoning for the properties is existing Laurel Zoning classifications. 2 Goldberg Investments Annexation CITY HALL 115 W. IST ST. City Of Laurel PUB. WORKS: 628-4796 WATER OFC.: 628-7431 COURT: 628-1964 P.Q. Box 10 FAX 628-2241 Laurel, Montana 59044 Office of Planning Office of the Director of Public Works Date: January 7, 2019 To: Laurel Mayor and City Council From: Laurel — Yellowstone City — County Planning Board and Zoning Commission Forrest Sanderson, AICP, CFM — Contract Planner Re: Initial Zoning Request, Goldberg Investment LLP BACKGROUND: On November 13, 2018, an annexation request for Lot 18 Nutting Brothers 2nd Filing and Lots 19 — 25 Nutting Brothers 3rd Filing in Section 10, Township 2 South, Range 24 East was submitted along with a request for annexation. The initial zoning request is for Residential Light Multi -Family (RLMF) on Nutting Brothers 2nd Filing Lot 18 and Nutting Brothers 3rd Filing Lots 19 — 24 and Community Commercial (CC) on Lot 25 Nutting Brothers 3rd Filing. The Laurel — Yellowstone City County Planning Board and Zoning Commission did on January 3, 2019 conduct a public hearing on the proposed initial zoning request. ANALYSIS OF REQUEST LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 18 Nutting Brothers 2nd Filing and Lots 19 — 25 Nutting Brothers 3rd Filing in Section 10, Township 2 South, Range 24 East, P.M.M., Yellowstone County, Montana GENERAL INFORMATION 1. The RLMF is intended to provide a suitable residential environment for medium to high density residential dwellings and where possible a buffer between residential and commercial zones. 2. The CC is intended to accommodate retail, service, and office facilities offering a greater variety than would normally be found in a neighborhood or convenience retail development. 3. Both the RLMF and CC zones are generally applicable existing standard Zoning Districts within the City of Laurel. Further, the zoning classifications exist on properties annexed into the City of Laurel that are adjacent to the proposed annexation and initial zoning request. 1 Goldberg Investments Initial Zoning Goldberg Investments Initial Zoning FINDINGS OF FACT The City of Laurel is an incorporated City within the State of Montana with powers established by the City Charter. The power and processes for the City to establish zoning regulations are found in §76-2-301 et. seq. M.C.A. In the State of Montana, all jurisdictions proposing to zone or rezone property or to adopt or revise their zoning regulations must issue findings of fact on a twelve -point test that constitutes the rational nexus/legal basis for the adoption of or amendments to a zoning district or zoning regulations, as follows: Is the zoning in accordance with the growth policy; ➢ The proposed zoning regulations and map are based on the 2013 Growth Policy. A quick comparison of the Future Land Use Map verifies that the proposed zoning is consistent with the anticipated future zoning for the area. ➢ The RLMF and CC zones are generally applicable existing standard Zoning Districts within the City of Laurel that are supported by the 2013 Growth Policy. ➢ The zoning classifications exist on properties annexed into the City of Laurel that are adjacent to the properties proposed annexation and initial zoning request. Several strategies from the Growth Policy pertaining to the residential development are met with the new zoning. Most notably; The regulations are designed to provide easier use, reuse and restoration of existing structures and properties and the regulations encourage infill development and expanded use opportunities. Finding: The requested zoning is in accordance with the Growth Policy and other adopted rules and regulations of the City of Laurel. II. Is the zoning designed to lessen congestion in the streets; ➢ The requested zoning encourages compact walkable development as well as expanded opportunities within new developments. ➢ The requested zoning encourages compact urban development as such the need for vehicular travel is limited. A The requested zoning in conjunction with the development standards adopted with the Subdivision Regulations will provide for flow through development, logical extension of the gridded infrastructure network, and encourage pedestrian- friendly growth. Finding: The requested zoning will lessen congestion in the streets by ensuring orderly growth and development of the property that is consistent with the zoning and other regulations adopted by the City of Laurel. Is the zoning designed to secure safety from fire, panic, and other dangers; ➢ The requested zoning will provide for consistency in development along with provision of urban services including but not limited to water, sewer, police and fire protection. ➢ The requested zoning regulations incorporates enforcement of development standards, setbacks and compliance with the Building Code program adopted by the City of Laurel. 3 Goldberg Investments Initial Zoning The requested zoning has restrictions on lot coverage, grading and development on steep slopes and other areas that are potentially hazardous. Finding: The recommended zoning will provide safety to residents and visitors to the City from fire, panic and other dangers. IV. Is the zoning designed to promote health and the general welfare; r The requested zoning imposes limitations on uses, setbacks, height limits and building restrictions. > The requested zoning groups together like and consistent uses within existing neighborhoods. ➢ The requested zoning is consistent with the prevailing zoning established by the City of Laurel on lands already located within the City limits. The proposed zoning implements the legislative intent of the City Council, provide consistency in the administration of the regulations and encourages responsible growth and development in and adjacent to the City of Laurel. Finding: The grouping together of like and consistent uses promotes the health and general welfare of all citizens of the City of Laurel. Further, the requested zoning is substantially consistent with the land use in the neighborhood. V. Is the zoning designed to provide adequate light and air; The requested zoning imposes building setbacks, height limits, limits on the number of buildings on a single parcel, and reasonable area limits on new development. ➢ The text of the regulations in the requested zones implement the concept that the City of Laurel was developed historically on a gridded network. The requested zoning requires the perpetuation of this pattern. In doing so as the City plans for growth, the spacing and layout of new development will facilitate provision of light and air to new development. Finding: The requested zoning will ensure the provision of adequate light and air to residents of the City through various development limitations. VI. Is the zoning designed to prevent the overcrowding of land; ➢ The zoning regulations impose minimum lot size, use regulations and other limitations on development. ➢ The minimum lot size established with the requested zoning provides for ease of transition from rural to urban development. These standards encourage annexation to the City and development at a scale that justifies the capital extension of water and sewer while spreading the costs out on an equitable basis. ➢ The text of the proposed regulations encourages compact urban scale development while preventing undue overcrowding in any given segment of the community. ➢ The regulations encourage the creation of adaptive open space uses in conjunction with more intensive uses of property. 4 Goldberg Investments Initial Zoning Finding: The existing standards of the requested zoning will prevent the overcrowding of land. VII. Is the zoning designed to avoid undue concentration of population; ➢ The requested zoning is part of the holistic approach to land use regulation for the entirety of the City of Laurel and is not focused on any single special interest. ➢ The requested zoning takes advantage of areas that were created and intended as suitable for residential and commercial uses. ➢ The existing RLMF regulations are a part of the City residential zoning districts that provide a continuum of residential densities and managed development to create land use compatibility. ➢ The existing CC regulations are a part of the City commercial zoning districts that provide a tiered set of commercial uses, bulk of structures, and densities to enhance land use compatibility within the City. ➢ The requested zoning imposes minimum lot sizes, reasonable use restrictions on the subject properties, fencing limitations and setback standards. Finding: The existing standards of the requested zoning will prevent the undue concentration of population by encouraging the most appropriate use and development on the subject property. VIII. Is the zoning designed to facilitate the adequate provision of transportation, water, sewerage, schools, parks and other public requirements; A The existing RLMF regulations are a part of the City residential zoning districts that provide a continuum of residential densities and managed development to create land use compatibility. ➢ The existing CC regulations are a part of the City commercial zoning districts that provide a tiered set of commercial uses, bulk and densities to enhance land uses within the City. ➢ The prevailing zoning along with the City Subdivision Regulations establishes minimum standards for the provision of infrastructure such as roads, sidewalks, water sewer, wire utilities and storm water management. ➢ The prevailing zoning encourages compact urban scale development and groups together similar uses that will not detract from the quality of life expected in Laurel while providing the economies of scale to extend water, sewer, streets, parks, quality schools and other public requirements. Finding: The standards of the requested zoning will ensure the adequate provision of transportation, water, sewerage, school, parks and other public requirements. IX. Does the zoning give reasonable consideration to the character of the district and its peculiar suitability for particular uses; ➢ The requested zoning (CC and RLMF) specify development standards and solidify the legislative intent of the City Council that was stated in the initial adoption of the regulations and the 2013 Growth Policy. 5 Goldberg Investments Initial Zoning ➢ The proposed changes do not impact any of the adopted district standards that were established to ensure that the regulations provide for land uses that are compatible with existing uses and neighborhood characteristics. ➢ The requested zones, by definition, are designed to be adjacent to each other, provide buffers and transitional areas between residential and commercial development. ➢ The petitioner has not proposed to change height limits and other building restrictions. These restrictions ensure compatible development. ➢ The requested zoning groups together like and consistent uses and is consistent with the existing zoning in the neighborhoods currently within the City of Laurel. Finding: The requested zoning gives due consideration to the character of the existing neighborhoods, within the City as well as suitability for the particular uses. X. Does the zoning give reasonable consideration to the peculiar suitability of the property for its particular uses; ➢ The requested zoning assignments are districts created by the City to implement the significant sections of the 2013 Growth Policy. ➢ The 2013 Growth Policy represented a major turning point in the theory of land use and land use regulation for the City of Laurel. ➢ The Growth Policy ties directly to and values the City's history and existing use of property and structures, the tools used to encourage development of property needed to be designed to reflect this change in direction. ➢ The proposed changes do not impact any of the currently adopted district standards that were established to ensure that the regulations provide for land uses that are compatible with existing uses and neighborhood characteristics. ➢ The requested zones, by definition, are designed to be adjacent to each other, provide buffers and transitional areas between residential and commercial development. ➢ The requested zoning groups together like and consistent uses and is consistent with the existing zoning in the neighborhoods currently within the City of Laurel. Finding: The recommended zoning gives reasonable consideration to the peculiar suitability of the property for its particular uses. XI. Will the zoning conserve the value of buildings; ➢ The requested zoning groups together like and consistent uses and is consistent with the existing zoning in the various neighborhoods of the City of Laurel. ➢ The requested zoning reinforces that RLMF (residential) and CC (commercial) flexibility in the location and development of the permitted and conditionally permitted uses. In doing so the value of both residential and commercial properties is enhanced. ➢ The RLMF and the CC are compatible adjoining land uses per the 2013 Growth Policy. ➢ The requested zoning was proposed by the property owner. Any consideration of the value of existing buildings on the property would have been considered in the selection of the available Laurel Zoning Districts. ➢ Where the requested zoning is currently in place on surrounding properties the value of existing buildings should not be impacted because of the development of property with the same land use restrictions as the adjoining property. 6 Goldberg Investments Initial Zoning Finding: The recommended zoning will conserve or in many cases enhance the value of buildings. XII. Will the zoning encourage the most appropriate use of land throughout the municipality? A The requested zoning provides for grouping like and compatible uses. ➢ The proposed zoning recognizes that buildings that are in residential or commercial areas have options either to remain as they are or to be utilized in a manner that reflect the highest and best use, in the owner's opinion, for the subject property. ➢ The requested zoning groups together like and consistent uses and is consistent with the existing zoning in the various neighborhoods of the City of Laurel. ➢ The requested zones, by definition, are designed to be adjacent to each other, provide buffers and transitional areas between residential and commercial development. Finding: The recommended zoning will encourage the most appropriate use of land throughout the municipality. RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Staff Recommends that the Zoning Commission find that the proposed Zoning Assignment submitted by Goldberg LLP reflects the 2013 Growth Policy; that the rational nexus for the adoption of zoning has been met or exceeded by the proposed amendments; and that the citizens of Laurel have participated in the amendment of the Zoning Regulations. The request to proceed with initial zoning of Lot 18 Nutting Brothers 2"d Filing and Lots 19 — 25 Nutting Brothers 3rd Filing in Section 10, Township 2 South, Range 24 East Subdivision should be APPROVED subject to the following conditions: 1. The annexation request is completed in accordance with Montana Law and the City of Laurel Annexation Policy. 2. The zoning shall be assigned at the time of filing the annexation map. 3. That all adjacent public road rights of way outside of the boundaries of the Goldberg LLP properties shall be included on the final annexation map and the exhibit prepared for final approval of the annexation by the City Council. 7 Goldberg Investments Initial Zoning November 13, 2018 Mr. Forrest Sanderson, AICP Laurel City Planner City of Laurel 115 West 1st Street Laurel, MT 59044 RE, :4nnexation and Zoning oarfttting Bras Subdivision lots 5, 18-24 Dear Mr. Sanderson: This letter is accompanying a full annexation application, with requested zoning, for Lots 5, and 18-24 of the Nutting Bros Subdivision on the eastern boundary of the City of Laurel. We are requesting specific zoning be applied at the time of annexation into the City of Laurel. The application, maps and supplementary information outline the request and satisfy the application requirements as laid out in our pre -application meeting and the application itself. Below is a summary of the discussions we've had as part of the application process, provided to memorialize and ensure all reviewing parties are informed of the application and properties past and proposed future. This property has went through a formal Yellowstone County Zone Change application and City of Laurel Annexation application in the past with a prior development group. That application requested a zoning of Residential Manufactured Homes (RMH) over the entire property. Much of the discussion and opposition to that application revolved around the continuation of manufactured or mobile home units being placed on the property and its fit with adjacent neighborhoods. Much of the comment from the neighborhood suggested that this property should be developed with stick -built rooftops and family homes. As such the zoning and annexation into the City of Laurel were denied and the development did not occur. The new development group, Goldberg Developments, is proposing a wholly different type of style of development for the property and the City's consideration. The developer is applying for annexation and requesting approximately 9 acres along the Yard Office Road be zoned Community Commercial (CC) and the remaining 23 acres north of Eleanor Roosevelt Drive be zoned Residential Light Multi -Family (RLMF). The intent is to allow for some light commercial development and businesspark along Yard Office Road while providing the community with buildable single family residential lots allowing for some multi -family development interspersed within the development. This request matches the requests of the � x(.010) C'y:r t��rl �l-±i�e�r�� \�,(� •�� t - .i .a ,(^{ .._.y-: - ... adjacent neighborhood's for single family, stick built housing in the area while still matching the zoning of adjacent properties to the south and east. This project will help serve as an infill project for the City, tying to existing utilities located along its boundary. The proposed project will help to reduce the cost of basic services provided to the area by adding to the City's rate payer base. Commercial businesses along Yard Office Road will help to offset the cost of services to -the area ivhile addition to the tax base of the City. The proposed RLMF will add to the diversity of housing for the community and allow forthe desired residential stick -built homes in the area. All of these items align with the goals of the City of Laurel Growth Policy. During our pre -application meeting it was suggested that a meeting be set with Public Works Director Kurt Markegard to discuss system capacity of the water and wastewater facilities. Performance Engineering and the developer met with Mr. Markegard to discuss the proposed zoning and potential for development of the property. System capacities were specifically discussed in the meeting to which it was noted by Mr. Markegard that there is sufficient capacity in the treatment facilities to handle the potential demand from the development. There may be potential collection and distribution upgrades required of the developer along Eleanor Roosevelt/81h Ave. but those would be based on system modeling. At this time there were no major red flags for the development based on the capacity of the system. We are excited about the proposed project annexation and zoning request as we believe it will start laying the ground work for continued expansion, growth, and prosperity on the eastern edge of Laurel. It is our hope that this application will receive favorable consideration from the City of Laurel and we look forward to working with the Planning Board and City Council through the process. Please do not hesitate to call should you have any questions at 406-384-0080. Best Regards, Scott Aspenlieder, PE Project Manager 7rroX6)�c��S+iij�TaFll 4_,�, N�_.w i IL -117Y 0--F�7-,,AUkZLF, P160T,,,1;1t 'T 01-11Y pal -c' is oflanc-, acuacent to It: MY of ["lure] Inunisi pal limits Vvill be considered for crone :ficin. "Adjacenito",alti,)ii-icitidesl)ein-L,ci-o,(,sapublic right ofamy. ifthe parcel tri he :Inne,,,ed is snAbr than one city block in size (2.06 acres), 61C: City COLMICil nlUSt appro,ve Consideration of the rCIMCSt; the i1PpljCljj' 21juSt jjjaIre; a Separate wAten request to the chy council Maing Mr v6sh to annex a paircel of !,,md less than one City block- in Once the council approves the request, dic alficant can apply for aruwxation 2, Applicant landowner's nanw: C'o b c5 megmem, L1.11 Address: Imne: AS , " " 3. Parcel to be annexcl (if A is not surveyed or of public mcord, it must be of Iniblic recomi PRIOR to applying Nmanile xation.) NUTTINO Legal description: — ----- NUTTING BROS 3RD 3156 AC (19 t -,()t size: 32..x(-, A(7, Present rise., i ianned use: _UUSIDENT 1AL A1, D COMMMAL Present zoning: RESIDPNTIAL TIR,"iCTS (Land �vhich is being annexed -,Ut0MltiC,1IjY �,�ecOru,,CS Zoned R-7500 %Vhei) it is officially annexed [City ordinanc;; 17.12.220]) 4, Citi services: The extension of needed city services shall he it 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 Lie addressed with an explanation: Water Service: Lockon of exilsting main: eastern boundarips of prop- n -,v. Cost of extension of approved service: How cost determked: VQLL BE Bit ' C:'�Q�\TLZ��CTQRS Tinleframe for instailation:_jQ19�__ Sewer Service: Sm- kcrM M bAl ufYa. d 0,11,1,ce/Mzqland 4.nd sth su'julq-r Location of existIg Cost of extension of approved Service: TBD I -low cost cleterinined: WILL 131", IND131" CO'N-T -Cr0.FZS Timeftame for insradlotioi-,: 201 9,' 1,1ow fjrjljjcej, ?R1 VA'1`.,� is there ally ',(I ' joivi�lg County RO-%7v to dl�� propos('d annexadoru YILS Locatioin, G_C,`pavA RDA ELEANOR RCKBEVEUFDR, Cost of pry viig,: B, I C How cost dwermined - XMI Lf, BI-, 1�, FL11 I I I _v -S - t__ U Wer rzyked A nnp ANK t6r revs' -.i oftids application of Me pmposed wva W be annuxud mum W ,u-brilitted %vith this application. I A whinn -Wnivc nnulst accompany this appliczltion, suitable for recordiiif-,and co, 11 ta i :, 1 i ng, a coves aia to I -Lill With file !rJJJCI to Ile ? WAVQ aH Qlt of pMWI to do creation by dIc city of ally needed in.-iprcvenient dis*riot 1667" cion, Ill(11 0., str ti) r n0mularice , of !nunicipal' s,,'rvices. This Waiver of Protem must be signed by the , a pplicaill. to 'InTlexaLion ! y tile city. Requests fell- illini-xalims we m&nTd to the. Chy-Couwy Planning Board for recomme-nriation to to Cly QuAl. Within 30 days Wer receivirIg the properly filed out applicatior., with all required acco,111P Wli rilents and after conducting it dWy ahedw,11 pi,blic fital-ing, the Chycowly Planning Bond shall make reconnnoixiatioij to (he City C0,111--il its to this ReCILIC,5t for Atinomation- If More ifl-I01-n-i'ation is needed from the applie,mit during, ille- revienv of the application, Such application shall be deemed incomplete and' the Awdame Rm rVo6mg to the CRY ChuncH exwmhd amon:11gly., in nceeled A application fee of $300 + $25.00 per acre (80 acres or less); $300 53100 per acres (S I acres or niore), nwast accorriparly the subruission of this app,HCA011. -Ho Council of he My of Lawd. N' lontaria. after review and coplvideragon of dis Application for Annexation, found such -o be in the best interest of tf)e City, llat it COMplied with state code, and approved this reqttesl at its Cay ComKH meeting of __ 10— Wind by OW AlMey App! M08 2 11770hyyy low BETORT 7HE COTY COUNQ AW! 05100 ,-; T' J.'?*,"'--!-" ANY FUTURE the underigned hereby twins proust to the annemion, of property desejib!rd beicm' tll� City of AM Undersignedalso waives fheirfi�aIIN'O SeCkjUdicial r-oview under N.I.C.A. § -!-1-1,7411 (MY71 snhscqnent to the My= 's annexation ofdhc belov., described proper' j`. hereby addidonaliy Mraives protest to the cre',tiorl rjiffucure Spocial impro"':.'roont F created and/or forfv;ej ror future street irnrwnvements incjuding, b'It nor limited to, pavin& curb, gutter, WWI? and storm drainage or any other lawful purpose, This Aflidavii is MAWK paswrit to and as a pari of ihe Anre-xaticj) Agreement anc! filuire confernplated Subdivision improv em-,jiL Agreement (SIA) Wh die City of MS. This ACIlidavit ofWaiver WN run wil die And and W Rrever be bhdkg upon the Wram, their uarlsrcrecs' successorsand as;;igjis. LEGAL DESCEMMN.' OF TBEE �5ROPERIJ-Y'. TTINC DATED this dayof J 20 Grantee Narne (Conipany..) STATEOF )SS. County of AWasAL, t%,i' -4' 1 -.40 t&,, personally appeared beiore me, Auxy.,, j7 rl"LL, proved to me on be basis of satisfactory evidence to be the personas) whose name() are subsuled to dds hnwument, and acknowledged the he/she/they c%ecuted the same. IN WITNESS WHERECT, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed ruy Official Sea, on the (lay and year in this cettifl-cate first above written. TAMA3RZt% NF-PANK-- ISIOTAkY PUBLIC ib.- the SWE Or- MONTANA t.moi,?WT My93-7110ISSIOSI H Nouirv, Public for the State A" 1�,-j Residing at. My Commission Expires:__L Chapter 1.7.16 RESIDENTIAL DISTRTCT:S Sections: 17.16.010 List of uses. 17.16.020 Zoning classified in districts. 17.16.010 List of uses. Mable 17.16.010 designates the special review (SR) and allowed uses (A) in residen- tial districts. (Ord. 04-1 (part), 2004; Ord. 01-4 (part), 2001; Ord. 99-22, 1999: Ord. 17.16.020 96-5 (part), 1996; Ord. 1049, 1992; Ord. 1026, 1992; Ord. 997, 1991; prior code § 17.28.010) 17.16.020 Zoning classified in districts. Zoning for residential districts is classi- fied in and subject to the requirements of Table 17.16.020. (Ord. 06-12 (part), 2006; Ord. 06-06 (part), 2006; Ord. 05-13, 2005; Ord. 99-23, 1999: Ord. 96-5 (part), 1996; Ord. 94-5,1994: Ord. 1068,1993; Ord. 1065, 1993; Ord. 820,1985: prior code § 17.28.020) Table 17.16.010 — -...._ RR 22,000 R 7,500 R 6,000 RLMF RhIF RMII PUD SR RT Accessory building or use incidental to any permitted residential use customarily in connection with the principal building and located on the same land parcel as the permitted use A A A A A A A A Animals (see zoning district description for specifics) A Automobile parking in connection with a omitted residential use A A A A A A A A Bed and breakfast inn SR SR SR SR SR SR SR SR Boarding and lodging houses SR SR SR SR SR SR SR SR Ccll towers (see Sections 17.21.020- 17.21.040) Cemetery SR SR SR SR SR SR SR Child care facilities Family day care home A A A A A A A A Group day care home A A A A A A A A Day care center SR SR SR I SR SR SR SR SR Churches and other places of worship including parish house and Sunday school buildings SR SR SR SR SR SR A SR Communication towers (see Sections 17.21.020-17.21.040) Community residential facilitiesserving eight or fewer persons A A A A A A A A Community residential facilities serving nine or more persons SR SR SR SR SR SR SR SR Orphanages and charitable institutions SR SR SR SR SR SR A I SR Convents and rectories SR SR SR SR SR SR A SR Crop and tree farming, greenhouses and truck gardening Day care facilities SR SR SR SR SR SR SR SR Kernels (noncommercial) A A A A A A A A Dwcllin ,s Single-family A A A A A A A A Two-family A A A A Multifamily A A A 387 Supp. IN a. 7 17.16.020 389 Supp. No. 12 axauiy ca«y c:sitG S.C1InG5 A A A A A 22,000 7,500 6,000 RLNIF RNIF Ri4SH PUD SR RT Manufactured homes A A — A up day care homes A Class A A A A A A A Class B A_ µ A A A A A Class C A public SR SR SR SR Row Housing SR SR A SR SR 389 Supp. No. 12 axauiy ca«y c:sitG S.C1InG5 A A A A A A A A Grz enliouses fur domestse uses A A A A A A A A up day care homes A A A A A A A A Home- occupations fParking, A_ µ A A A A A A A public SR SR SR SR SR SR SR SR s, playgrounds, playrields, and nolf courses community center buildings --operated by public agency, neighborhood or homeowners' associations A A A A A A A A Planned developments h Post -secondary school A A A A A A A A Preschool SR SR SR Sit SR SR SR SR Public service installations SR SR SR SR SR SR SR SR Schools, commercial SR " SR SR SR SR _ SR SR SR Schools, public cicmcntary,junior and senior high schools A A A A A A A A Towers (see Sections 17.21.020- 17.21.000) 389 Supp. No. 12 Chapter 17.20 CONII ERCiAL—INDUSTRIAL, USE REGULATIONS Sections: 17.20.010 List of uses. 17.20.020 'Zoning classified in districts. 17.20.010 List of uses. Table 17.20.010 designates the special review (SR) and allowed (A) uses as gov- 17.20.020 erned by commercial — industrial use reg- ulations. (Ord. 04-1 (part), 2004; Ord. 01-4 (part), 2001; Ord. 96-5 (part), 1996; Ord. 998, I991; Ord. 923, 1987; Ord. 922, 1987; Ord. 917, 1987; prior code § 17.32.0I0) 17.20.020 Zoning classified in districts Zoning for commercial — industrial use is classified in and subject to the require- ments of Table 17.20.020. (Prior code § 17.32.020) 391 Supp. No. 9 Table 17.20.010 AG RP NC CBD CC FIC I LI I HI P .Accessory buildings or uses incidental and customary to a permitted residential use and located on the same par- cel as the permitted residential use A A A A A A A A A .Airports A -- A Alcoholic beverages manufacturing and bottling (except below): A A 1.500 to 5,000.31 -gallon barrels per year SR SR SR A A Less than 1,500 gallon barrels per year A A A A A Ambulance service_ A A A A A A Antique store A A A A Appliance - (household) sales and service A A A A A Assembly hails and stadium SR SR SR SR Assembly of machines and appliances from Previously rc ared arts SR SR sR SR Auction house, excluding livestock SR SR A A A Auction, livestock SR Automobile sales (new and used) A A A A Automobile -commercial parking enterprise A A A A A Automobile and truck repair garage A A A A A Automobile service station A I A I A I A A A Automobile wreckin^ yard I sit Bakery products manufacturing SR A A A Bakery shops and confectioneries A I A A A A Banks, savin s and loan, commercial credit unions A A I A A A Barber and beauty shops A A A A A Bed and brcakfrst inns A A A A Bicycle sales and repair A A A A A Blueprinting and pholostating A A A A A Boarding and Iodping houses A A A A Boat buildin and iepair A A A Beat sales new and used A A A A Boiler works (manufacturing servicing) I A Boiler works (repair and servicing) A A Book and stationery store A A A A A Bottling works A A -Bowling—'alleys------- -- — -- --- A A A A Brick, tile or terra cotta manufacture A Bus passenger terminal buildings local and cross coup- try ... .. . A A A A Bus repair and storage terminals A A A 391 Supp. No. 9 17.20.020 ommercial food products, storage and packaging Table 17.20.010 I SR A A ommunication towers (conn iercial) RP NC CBD CC HC LI HI P Camcra supply stores A A A A A Camps, public ' SR A A Car washing and waxing AA Open storage of construction materials or equip- meat A A A Car wash - coin operated -- --- A A A A A Cemcnl, lime and plastic manufacture Adult foster family care home A A A A A Ceramics shop SR A A A A A Chemical and allied products manufacture A Youth foster home A j Child care lacilitics A A A A Churches and other places of worship including parish houses and Sunday school building A SR A A A A A A Clinic, animal A A A A A A Clinics, medical and dental SR I A A A A A Clothing and apparel stores A I A A A A Coal or coke yard 1_ A Cold sloraRc A A A — — Collc,cs or universities A I A A A A Commercial recreation areas I SR A A A ommercial food products, storage and packaging I SR A A ommunication towers (conn iercial) A A A A A A A A SR oncrete mixing plants and manufacturing ofcon• rcte products A Construction contractors: NA Unice A A A AA Open storage of construction materials or equip- meat SR A A Community residential facilities Adult foster family care home A A A A Community group home A A A A Halfivay house A A Youth foster home A A Youth group home A A Nursing.homes,convalescent homes,orphanagcs.A and charitable institutions - IA$A q - - --- Crematorium SR A A SR Creameries, dairy products manufacturing A A Creosote manufacturing or treatment plants A 393 (1•aurcl 7-02) 17.20.020 395 Supp. No. 12 Table 17.20.010 AG RP NC CBD CC HC I LI HI P Fucl oil, gasoline and petroleum products bulk storage or sale A A A Furnace repairand cleaning I IA A A A ure and home furnishings, retail sales A A A A A rs, retail sales and storrge A A A A A ling c lablishments A A A A ge, offal and animal rcduetion or processing SR ge and waste incineration SR ragC Mfiardwa,,. — — SR or liquified petroleum gases in approved portable ontainer forstorag ,sale A A A lcvzrtors A Sit SP. A ousesA Aare, applianc and electrical suppliGe, retail Sales �� A Hatcheries A SR SR Fleliporls SR SR SR SR SR Hobby and tov stores A A A A A Hospitals (for the care of human patients) A A A A Hospital, animal A SR SR A A KT— Hotels A A A _ __ Industrial Industrial chemical manufacture except highly corrosive, flammable or toxic materials Irrigation equipment Saks and service A AJails and penal institutes ffiA A Janitorsmice A A AJewelry and watch sales A A A AKennels - commercialS 395 Supp. No. 12 17.20.020 Table 17.20.010 AG R NC EBD CC HC ; LI fif p Woody,vorking shops, milkyork SR A A Zoo, arboretum SR A (Ord. No. 009-01, 3-17-09.- Ord. No. 009-07,7-7-09; Ord. No. 011-01, 2-15-2011; Ord. No. 0-14-0-),8-5-2014) (Ord. No. 0-14-03,8-5-2014) 397 Supp. No. 11 Table 17.16.020 1 Row housing may be permitted to be constructed on 3,000 square foot lots if approved through the special reviely process. '-NA means not applicable. 3 The requirements for the mobile homes contained herein relate only to a mobile home subdivisjoij, see Chapter 17A4 of this code for the requirements for a mobile home park. Zero side setbacks may be permitted if approved through the special review process. All pens, coops, barns_ stables. or permanent corrals shall be set back not less than 50 feet from any residence, public road, or water course. and any property line. (Laurel Supp. No. 4,4-06) 390 R #R I Zoning Requirements 7,500 6,000 BUMF RMF RM H PUD SR RT Mininium lot area per dwelling unit in square feet One unit- 7,500 6,000 6,000' 6,0001 6,0W See 5acres I acre Two units 7,500 7,500-7-50ja -'�, j -d 7 1;7 Chapter Three units 8,500 8.500 -2,900 75d -1 1732 Four units 10,000 4A"0ti 1; 2 - Five units 14-,90 o6 Six units and more Add 1ro5G9 __ each additional unit Minimum y - rd— setback requirements (expressed in feet) and nicasured from public way Front 20 20 120 20 lQ 25' 2' 1 5 Side 5 54 54 54 55 5 Side adjacent to street 20 20 20 20 20 101 10 Rear 5 5 5 5 5 25' 25 Maximum freight for all buildings 30 35 35 -NO- 710) 30 3Q 30 Maximum lot coverage (percentage) 30 30 40 55- 40 15 30 Minimum district size F2O (expressed in ac 2-07 12-07 7 2.07 2.07 2() - 1 Row housing may be permitted to be constructed on 3,000 square foot lots if approved through the special reviely process. '-NA means not applicable. 3 The requirements for the mobile homes contained herein relate only to a mobile home subdivisjoij, see Chapter 17A4 of this code for the requirements for a mobile home park. Zero side setbacks may be permitted if approved through the special review process. All pens, coops, barns_ stables. or permanent corrals shall be set back not less than 50 feet from any residence, public road, or water course. and any property line. (Laurel Supp. No. 4,4-06) 390 8 gn—