Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity/County Planning Board Minutes 01.03.2019AU141PRIAWINNAN W) MOUNIRCIPAWME11214i Public Input: Citizens may address the committee regarding any item of business that is not on the agenda. The duration 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`x' 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 3rd Filing lots 19-24 all Residential Light Multi-Family(RLMF) and on Lot 25 of the Yd 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 from 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 Commercial 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 snaking 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 18 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 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: Annexation Request, Goldberg Investment LLP 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. Only 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. 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 from 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 RECOMMENDATION: The request to proceed with annexation 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 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 � ��m�� u���� Laurel =� � })5vx} S�[ ����0�L��� ��l� ����������� POB. WORKS: 628-4796 �����w� �= � �==����� ��� WATER OFC.: 628-7431 COURT: 628-1964 P.ClBox 1O FAX 628-2241 Laurel, Montana 59044 Office of Planning Office ofthe Director ofPublic Works Date: January 7,2O19 To: Laurel Mayor and City Council From: Laurel —Yellowstone City — County Planning Board and Zoning Commission Forrest Sanderson, A|CP,CFM — Contract Planner Re: Initial Zoning Request, Goldberg Investment LLP On November 13, 2018,2O�an annexation request for Lot 18 Nutting Brothers� 2 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 ���lmnirg �qu�t�f�R��e��|L�h k�u��ami�/�M�onN��rgBm�e�2=Filing Lot 1Q and Nutting Brothers 3rd Filing Lots 19-24and Community Commercial (CC)onLot 2SNutting Brothers 3rd Filing. The Laurel —Ye|ovxstone 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 2"« Filing and Lots 19—%S Nutting Brothers 3m 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 CCbintended toaccommodate retail, service, and office facilities offering a0reoter variety than would normally be found in a neighborhood or convenience retail 3. Both the RLMF and CC zones are generally applicable existing standard Zoning Districts within the City ofLaurel. Further, the zoning classifications exist nnproperties annexed into the City ofLaurel that are adjacent tothe proposed annexation and initial zoning Goldberg Investments Initial 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. 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. ➢ 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. 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; );I- 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; ➢ 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. A 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. >0i Will the zoning encourage the most appropriate use of land throughout the municipality? |�> 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 isconsistent with the existing zoning inthe various neighborhoods ofthe City ofLaurel. > 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 ofthe Zoning Regulations. The request toproceed with initiazoning m� Nutting Filing and Lots 19—Z5Nutting Brothers rd Filing in Section 10, Township 2 South, Range 24 East Subdivision should be APPROVED subject to the following conditions: 1 The annexation request iscompleted in accordance with Montana Law and the City ofLaurel Annexation Policy. 2. The zoning shall beassigned atthe time offiling 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 ofthe annexation bythe City Council. 7 Goldberg Investments Initial Zonffig AGENDA CITY OF LAUREL CITY/COUNTY PLANNING BOARD THURSDAY, JANUARY 03, 2019 10:00 AM CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS Public Input: Citizens may address the committee regarding any item of business that is not on the agenda. The duration 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. 2. Approval of Minutes from 11.1.2018 New Business 3. 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. Old Business 4. Planner Update Other Items Announcements Next Meeting: February 7, 2019 The City makes reasonable accommodations for any known disability that may interfere with a person's ability to participate in this meeting. Persons needing accommodation must notify the City Clerk's Office to make needed arrangements. To make your request known, please call 406-628-7431, Ext. 2, or write to City Clerk, PO Box 10, Laurel, MT 59044, or present your request at City Hall, 115 West First Street, Laurel, Montana. DATES TO REMEMBER - Page 1 - Backup material for agenda item: Approval of Minutes from 11. 1.2018 MINUTES CITY OF LAUREL City/County Planning Board 11/01/2018 10:00 AM City Council Chambers COMMITTEE MEMBER PRESENT: Judy Goldsby, Chair John Klasna Even Bruce Roger Giese Jerry Williams OTHERS PRESENT: Forrest Sanderson, Contract Planner KU Richard Herr, Bob Ulrich, Kris Vogele, Linda Frickel, Kathleen Gilluly, Dan Koch 1. Public Comment- none 2. General Items a. Approval of the previous minutes was approved b. Public Hearing Vue and Brew in the Central Business District. Judy read the rules for the public hearing and Forrest read the application and the process for advancing the request through the City -County Planning and City Council. Judy asked if there was any proponents of the special review request. Kris Vogele who lives at 306 East 4`h Street spoke as one of the owners of the LLC that operates the Vue and Brew. Kris is also the applicant of the special request and informed the Planning Board of his intentions on the sale of alcohol at the Vue and Brew. Kris stated that all monies from the sale of alcohol will go to Sonny O'Days as per Montana Statue and that they plan on working with Sonny O'Days for staffing and sale of the alcohol in a concession agreement. Kris also stated that they received sixty comments on their Facebook page with fifty nine of those comments in support and Kris welcomed anyone to go and view the Vue and Brew's Facebook page. Linda Frickel who lives at 1737 Groshell Boulevard and was the previous owner of the Owl Cafe for over twenty years had the same concession agreement with Sonny O'Days and received no monies from the sale of alcohol but wanted to offer the opportunity for her customers to consume alcohol at the Owl Cafe. Linda is in support of this application and would like the Planning Board to also support their plans. Linda stated she has been a customer of the Vue and Brew since it opened and enjoys watching movies in Laurel. Judy asked for additional proponents twice and no additional proponents came forward. Judy then asked for any opponents three times and no opponents came forward to speak. Forrest read into the record an email he received from Shannon Cole- Merchen on October 30, 2018. This email was in support of the proposal to allow for the alcohol sale and consumption at the Vue and Brew. The Public Hearing was closed. 3. New Business a. Judy asked the Planning Board members if they had any questions about the special review for the Vue and Brew about the sale and consumption of alcohol. Roger asked about the location in the building where the alcohol will be served. Kris stated that there is a separate area as you walk in through a window is where the alcohol will be sold. Kris stated that it would be similar to what the Billing Exchange does at the Metra. Kris stated one of the stipulations is that you cannot have an area where minors can access the storage of alcohol. Kris said that the concession employees will not be in the same area as the sale of alcohol. Evan asked if the area was going to be in the area of ticket sales. Kris stated that the area would be right as you walk in the building off to the side, it will be its own separate area. Roger asked about the relationship between Sonny O'Days and the Owl Cafe and now with the Vue and Brew. Judy stated that it will be up to the State of Montana to decide. Kris stated there will be a concession agreement with Sonny O'Days and Sonny O'Days will have the responsibility to for all requirements including liability insurance. Roger asked Kris if he felt it was necessary for there to be another avenue to sell alcohol in this city. Kris stated that the word "necessary" may not be the word but he feels that many customers would like to have a beverage while they watch their movie. Roger asked if they can take it into the movie with them or do they have to consume it in a special area. Kris stated within the confines of the entire building. Evan asked about training of the employees that will serve the alcohol. Kris states that the shared employees will be trained per the state guidelines. Evan asked if they sought out the transfer of the license into the Vue and Brew name. Kris said no. John stated that Kris is providing a space for the continuance of Sonny O'Days to operate and Kris said yes. Roger asked if they have submitted this to the state yet and Kris said that they have not. Kris stated they needed to have the City signed off on the request before they submitted the application to the State. Jerry stated that he thinks it is a great idea personally. Jerry also stated that he can see that this will help this business stay open. Forrest read his statement of analysis and finds that the application and comments from the public hearing are adequate for the board's consideration of approval with two conditions. Those conditions are that the operation and management of the facility shall be in accordance with the application, plans and testimony to this board and that they comply with City of Laurel's Codes and they comply with State Rules and Regulations. John asked about the Church next door that uses the building for youth events. Forrest stated that the standard to be further than 600 feet from a place of worship is waived in the Central Business District. Judy said that they rarely use the building for youth activities. Judy stated that Roger made the motion to approve the Special Use and forward it onto City Council for approval and was needing a seconding on the motion. Evan seconded the motion and all board members were in favor with a roll call vote. Forrest stated that this recommendation would be forwarded onto the next City Council Workshop and posted as required. b. Forrest presented the final plat application for Russel Minor Subdivision that had been previously approved by this board and by the Yellowstone County Commissioners. John made the motion to approve Judy signing the final plat for approval. Evan questioned the location of the subdivision and Forrest explained and showed the check print of the subdivision to the board. Jerry seconded the motion and all board members approved. C. Forrest explained the CDBG Grants and what they can be used for like Growth Management Policy or a Capital Improvement Plan. Subdivision regulations could also be reviewed with this type of grant. Forrest stated that these are really competitive grants and the City will be prepared to apply for a grant as to what the City Council will. Jerry asked about traffic issues and grants for a traffic study. Judy spoke of the previous transportation grant and Forrest stated that there are other ways to get funds for urban transportation plan. John asked if there are two grants to apply for and Forrest indicated that all pians are presented to City Council and the City Council then determines what the priority will be and they will vote for the highest priority for funding. Forrest stated you can only submit one application per funding application. Evan asked what the grant will applied for and Judy stated that is what has to be determined. Evan asked where the public hearings would take place and Forrest said it would be at the City Council meetings. Judy said that the planning board is an advisory committee. Jerry stated that if we are to grow that the traffic issues needs to be resolved. Judy asked the members to review the growth management plan and the traffic study that was previously prepared for the City. 4. Old Business a. Planner Update- Forrest said the City received one application so far. S. Other- Jerry asked about improvements at Riverside Park. Judy briefed the board that the process is moving forward 6. Announcements- Next meeting scheduled December 6th, 2018. Forrest said so far there is nothing on the agenda. 7. Adjournment was called for by Judy, Roger motioned to adjourn with John seconding the motion, all were in favor and the meeting adjourned at 10:55am. Respectfully Submitted, Kurt Markegard Backup material for agenda item: 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. Corrected notice for City Council hearing date. Planning Board time/date did not change. PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE The Laurel — Yellowstone Planning Board and Zoning Commission will conduct a public hearing on a proposed annexation and initial zoning request submitted by Goldberg Investment LLP to the City of Laurel, Montana. The hearing is scheduled for 10:00 A.M., in the City Council Chambers at City Hall, 115 West First Street, Laurel, Montana, on Thursday. January 3, 2019. Additionally, the City Council has scheduled a public hearing and consideration of adoption, by Ordinance, on First Reading the proposed annexation and initial zoning request. The City Council public hearing is scheduled for 6:30 P.M., in the City Council Chambers at City Hall, 115 West First Street, Laurel, Montana, on Tuesday, February 5, 2019. Specifically, Goldberg Investment has proposed to annex Nutting Brothers 2nd Filing Lot 18 and Nutting Brothers 3`d Filing Lots 19 — 25 located in Section 10, Township 2 South, Range 24 East, into the City of Laurel, Yellowstone County, Montana. Additionally, Goldberg Investments has proposed and initial zoning upon annexation of Residential Light Multi -Family (RLMF) on Nutting Brothers 2nd Filing Lot 18 and Nutting Brothers 3`d Filing Lots 19 — 24 and Community Commercial (CC) on Lot 25 Nutting Brothers 3`d Filing. 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. 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. Both the RLMF and CC zones exist on properties annexed into the City of Laurel that are adjacent to the proposed annexation and initial zoning request. A copy of the annexation petition and initial zoning request are available for public review at The City Planners Office during regular business hours. Questions may be directed to the Laurel Public Works Department at 628-4796. Public comment is encouraged. - Page 7 - � PERFORMANCE � UPERF.._._-1.,.- November 13, 2018 Mr. Forrest Sanderson, AICP Laurel City Planner City of laurel 115 West 1" Street Laurel, MT 59044 Re Annexation and Zoning of Nuttfag Bros &tbdh*ion lots 3,18-24 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 Clty of laurel. We ate requesting specific toning 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-bullt rooftops and family fames. As such the zoning and annexation into the Clty of Laurel were denied and the development did not octur. 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 B 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 toned Residential Light Multi -Family (RLMF). The Intent is to allow for some light commercial development and business park 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 406-384-0060 7100 Commercial Ave. 1 t4 performance-ec.com Billings, Montana 59101 � MPERFORMANCE � = adjacent neighborhoods 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 are 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 while addition to the tax base of the City. The proposed RLMF will add to the diversity of housing for the community and allow for the 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/8'^ Ave. but those would be based on system modeling. At this time there were no major red Rags 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, Sco Aspenlieder, PE Project Manager 406.384.0080 7100 commercial Ave, 44 performanceec.com Billings, Montana 59101 INOMMINNEEMI —ET pp . . . . . . . . . . nel ME 0 (L ZONING CLASSIFICATIONS: ✓ Residential Tracts (RT) Z Residential Light Multi Family (RCMP) W a '-) w Residential Manufactured Home (RMH) LL LL Community Commercial 0 0 Light Industrial Heavy Industrial Mimi? Proposed Residential Limited Muld-Famlty Proposed Community Commercial 0 we tow Properties within 300 -ft Radius EX 1 --f7age 107 CiTy OF LAUREL, MONTANA REQUEST FOR .ANNEXATION AND PLAN oF ANNEXATION M fillea in with exItt;ottlatloan by the ngplicstot. Inetaravalete applications will mot be nevel)lvd. I. Only parMs afkaid adjoromi tedwritycotaunt municipal limits will be ca.sidwed for annexation. "Adjacent to" also includes being across a public right ofnao Ifflorparcel to be anii—xod is smaller than on city block: in site (2.06 antes), the city council must approve r.Unsidetatitm o£ the request; the splificonot must ronalte, a separate N'Titten request to the city council stating their iiish to minty. a Parcel of Imid less than cone city ktloick* in. Onc-- rot ciouncil approvoss, the request, the appliemv can apply for mmexation. T Address 3, parcel tobearm-eyod: (if it is not surveyed or of public record, it mwt be of public record PRIOR to applying for arooe%ation.)NUMNC, BROS 22M) MIM;, SO- TO' S, B24 tn I ()I.! I-', iq Lot Size _jz,'i -1W Present Use: Present (Land Mitch is being annexed automatically becomes coined R-7500 whirr it is Officially minexed (Cily'ariiivorare 17,12-2201) A. City smiccs: Tice extension ofnecdod city.services "I be at the cost of the applicant after minexaticon by the city has been apirnavcd. Aspart ofthe applicAtionpox=,each of de lowltaiving city services must be adohesstil with nn explimmicei: Water Service: Location o f otx4nng =in -fo oo, cost ofextenskur 01'apporaved sevi= TBD How cogdeter mined: Titnefintac, for installatiow 2m- S"Nvt Service: a,'., Y<rt-w ft L.c.teonoirexittiongmaw Cost ext ionoPappmvedsexvm.c: TBD How cost dettamn Tinudiam- for installation: 2014 HOW fialmoed, PtUVA11 V. GON'rRACr Streets: Is them any adjoining County Row to the proposed annexation: YrS Location �0'-r all A' F1 �rA'1'011 1�111111FVI I T 11R_ Cost Uow, cost d ttemu nod stint nt=at,—)LyLq\,,r&k cro as Tinurframe, for construction: :a ig Other required improvements: Provide above Infils-amfloss on attached papas. 3. A map suitable for review of this application of the proposed area to be annexed most be submitted with this application. G. A Written Waive Of Protest "lust avemTrAMY this Application, suitable for mconball mid containing a covenant to run With the land to he so =xOd, Waiving all right of prow to the creation by the city of Any heeded improvement district for comou tion of maintenance of municipal services, lllis NkldiVer of Protest must be signed by the applicant prior to annexation by the city. 7, Requests for annexations are mfienod to the City -County, Planning Bored for roccaunrendAtion to the City Council, Within 30 days after receiving the properly filled out application With all required acevmpanirncnis and Aws conducting a duty advertised public hearing, the City -County Planning Board "I make recommendation to the City Council as to this Request for Annexation, If more information is occeled fair the applicant during tbu review of the application, such application ". I be donate incomplete and the timeframe for reporting to the City Council extended accordingly, in needed. S. A 11101tweftiod-ble- application fee of $300 + 525.00 per acte (80 aura or less) $300 $35-00per acres (Sl arms or more) must accompany the submitaire of this oWicalloo, The City Council of the City of Laurel, Mammal, after review and consideration of this Application for Annexation, found well to be in the best interest of the City, that it complied with state code, and approved this rNuest at its City Connell meeting of_ rum -aA 1q, QyA--Y Aps 2M AFFIDAVrr OF WAIVER or marcvr BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF U.M1,14IONTAINA FOR THE ANNLYATION OF THE HEREIN DESCRIBED PROPERTY AND CREATION OF ANY FUTURE SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT DMMTCr ThOundersigoud hereby..five: protest to the monexatior, of the property described bolo. by the CityaflAumi. Undersigned also waives their right to 3eeljudicial review under M.CA. 7-2-4741 (2407), subsequent to dte City's annatiation of the beto<+• elcx ritxd pw{acrty. Diitrict(s)crsated andAn f=IW fro future strew imi,ro�lxuns inclo-Ji"Al but not limited to, PV4%, =b, p1w, sidewalk and mom drainage or any thou-1—Ml juoFs., 'itis Affidavit is sbonnd vws.ura to and as a part of the Ann-alim Afreeorenl asd f4sure �Otnmphacd Sub fivision finpuomnm Agreetent (SIA) with the City of Lame!. This Affidavit Or WdNa shall run with the land And Shall rmvcr be butdirg upon the Gretgez, their trAnskroes, successors and AsAgns, LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF *THE PROPV.RTY: —tMl.; VMS 11161 "Cl 610.111' ,, ft'+ I-, Lul 11 & lln�s It") ­' DATED this --It by of alo-e - —J, - , 20�Lg— Grautee (Company-) STATEOF ) On this day of 20�j—t5 pason.Ilyappwedbelbrvm' r—W, proved to rue on the basis ofsati6fttetwy eide= to be the ptrzan(s} vvhoic names) me subSctfb+'d to this inamn=n,and &clowwkdgtdthe Wsh*16ytx dod rix same IN WITNrM W1 IVREOP, I ha- lont-lo act my W.4 aced affixOd my Officiol S.1 . tint day W year in this certificate rust abow wrichut. 11 34-- TAMARA FRANK otcuy Public or -Win NOTARY MUPC A, tW STATE OFbW4TANA Peskifitgat: 4 P wu My C.MMIQon CITY HALL 115 W. I Sr ST, City Of Laurel PUB. WORKS: 628-4796 WATER OFC.: 628-7431 COURT: 628-1964 P.O. Box 10 FAX 628-2241 Laurel, Montana 59044 Office of Planning Office of the Director of Public Works Date: November 21, 2018 To: Laurel — Yellowstone City — County Planning Board and Zoning Cornmission From: 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 2"d Filing and Lots 19 — 25 Nutting Brothers Yd 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). 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: Only 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 annexa parcel of land less than one city block in size. Once the council approves the reauest, the applicant can at)t)lv 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.; D. Should the request for annexation be denied by the City of Laurel the request for initial zoning will not proceed further; Goldberg Investments Annexation 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 fi-om 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 The request to proceed with annexation of Lot 18 Nutting Brothers 2nd Filing and Lots 19 — 25 Nutting Brothers 3rd 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 m��� ��. Laurel )|5vK1n'S[ �_��N N�J�1� �������w��� PDB.WOR�:08-47� ==��w-� �=� ����������� YV&T8K0FC.:628'743( COmK[: 628-064 P.(lBox 1O FAX 628-2241 Laurel, Montana 59044 Office of Planning MCC of tile Director of Public Works Data: NVvember30,2018 To: Laurel — Yellowstone City — County Planning Board and Zoning Commission From: Forrest Sanderson, A/CP CFM—CnntrctPlanner Re: Initial Zoning Request, Goldberg Investment LLP On November 13, 2018an annexation request for Lot 18 Nutting n� Brothers 2 Filing and Lots 19-25 Nutting Brothers 31d Filing in Section DI Township 2 South, Range 24 East was submitted along with a request for annexation. � �e��!�����b�rR�e�|&�Mub�m����N����n�Rling Lot 18 and Nutting Brothers 3 dFiling Lots 19-24and Community Commercial (CC)onLot IGNutting Brothers 31 Filing. ANALYSIS OF REQUE LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 18 Nutting Brothers 2 d Filing and Lots 19-25 Nutting Brothers 3 d 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 ofLaurel. Further, the zoning classifications exist unproperties annexed into the City ofLaurel that are adjacent tothe proposed annexation and initial zoning request. Goldberg Investments Initial Zoning FINDINGS OFFACT The City of Laurel isanincorporated 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 g76-3'JO1et, 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 uffact onatwelve-point test that constitutes the rational nexus/legal basis for the adoption of or amendments to a zoning district or zoning regulations, as Is the zoning in accordance with the growth policy; > The proposed zoning regulations and map are based onthe 2O13 Growth Policy. Aquick 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 ofLaurel that are supported bythe 2O13Growth Policy. > The zoning classifications exist on properties annexed into the City ofLaurel that are adjacent to the properties proposed annexation and initial zoning request. > Several strategies from the Growth Policy pertaining to the residential development are rnet 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 isinaccordance with the Growth Policy and other adopted rules and regulations of the City of Laurel. bthe zoning designed to lessen congestion in the streets; � The requested zoning encourages compact walkable development aswell asexpanded opportunities within new developments. > The requested zoning encourages compact urban development assuch the need for vehicular travel /slimited. > The requested zoning inconjunction wbhthedeve|upn)untstandardsadoptedvvbhthe 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 byensuring 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 tosecure safety from fire, panic, and other dangers; > The requested zoning will provide for consistency in development along with provision ofurban services including but not limited towater, 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, 2 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 toresidents and visitors bmthe City from fire, panic and other dangers. M Is the zoning designed to promote health and the general welfare; > The requested zoning imposes limitations onuses, setbacks, height limits and building restrictions. )> The requested zoning groups together like and consistent uses within existing neighborhoods. > The requested zoning isconsistent with the prevailing zoning established by the City of Laurel onlands 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 inand adjacent hothe City ofLaurel. Finding: The grouping together of like and consistent uses promotes the health and general welfare ofall citizens ofthe City of Laurel. Further, the requested zoning bSubstantially consistent with the land use inthe neighborhood. V. Is the zoning designed to provide adequate light and air; > The requested zoning imposes building setbacks height limits, limits onthe number mf buildings onasingle parcel, and reasonable area limits onnew development. > The text of the regulations in the requested zones implement the concept that the City of Laurel was developed historically on mQddded network. The requested coning requires the perpetuation of this pattern. In doing so as the City plans for growth, the spacing and layout nfnew development will facilitate provision oflight onda|rkznew development. Finding: The requested zoning will ensure the provision of adequate light and air to residents of the City through various development limitations. N. bthe zoning designed toprevent 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 hzurban development. These standards encourage annexation to the City and development at o snoha that justifies the capital extension of water and sewer while spreading the costs out mnanequitable basis. �p 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 ofproperty, 3 Goldberg bivustroents Initial Zoning Finding: The existing standards ofthe requested zoning will prevent the overcrowding oFland. Vli |sthe zoning designed toavoid undue concentration ofpopulation; > 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 mfareas that were created and intended as suitable for residential and commercial uses, �^ The existing RLK4F regulations are a part of the C|b/ residential zoning districts that provide continuum ufresidential densities and managed development tocreate 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 ofthe requested zoning will prevent the undue concentration of population by encouraging the most appropriate use and development on the subject NU. is the zoning designed to facilitate the adequate provision of transportation, mater, sewerage, schools, parks and other public requirements; > The existing RUNFregulations are a part ufthe 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. y+ 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 ofscale toextend 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. |X. Does the zoning give reasonable consideration to the character of the district and its peculiar � The requested zoning (CC and RUNF) 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. 4 Goldberg Investments Initial � The proposed changes do not impact any of the adopted district standards that were establishedtoensuedhatthe regulations provide forbnduses that are compatible with existing uses and neighborhood characteristics. x^ The requested zones, by definition, are designed to be adjacent to each other, provide buffers and transitional areas between residential and commercial development. J� 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 usesand is consistent with the existing zoning |nthe neighborhoods currently within the City mYLaurel. 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 ofthe 2O13Growth Policy. > The 2013 Growth Policy represented a major turning point in the theory of land use and land use regulation for the City ofLaurel. t` 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 tobedesigned toreflect this change indirection. )* 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, hvdefinition, are designed tobe adjacent tmeach 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 |nthe neighborhoods currently within the City ofLaurel. Finding: The recommended zoning gives reasonable consideration to the peculiar suitability of the property for its particular uses. X1. Will the zoning conserve the value of buildings; > The requested zoning groups together like and consistent uses and is consistent with the existing zoning |nthe 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 bvthe property owner. Any consideration ofthe value of existing buildings on the property would have been considered in the selection ufthe 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 esthe adjoining property. 5 Goldberg Investments Initial Zoning Finding: The recommended zoning will conserve or in many cases enhance the value of buildings. X11. Will the zoning encourage the most appropriate use of land throughout the municipality? ;�- 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, |nthe owner's opinion, for the subject property. > The requested zoning groups together like and consistent uses and is consistent with the existing zoning |nthe various neighborhoods ufthe City ofLaurel. )� The requested zones, bydefinition, 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 nfland throughout the municipality. 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 ofthe Zoning Regulations. The request to proceed with initial zoning ofLot 18 Nutting Brothers 2nd Filing and Lots 19-25Nutting Brothers 3mFiling |nSection 10,Township 2South, Range 24East Subdivision should beAPPROVED subject to the following conditions: 1. The annexation request is completed in accordance with Montana Law and the City mfLaurel Annexation Policy. Z. The zoning shall be assigned atthe time offiling the annexation map. l That all adjacent public road rights ofway outside of the boundaries of the Goldberg LLP properties shall be included on the final annexation map and the exhibit prepared for final approval ofthe annexation bvthe City Council. 6 Chapter 17.16 RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS Sections: 17.16.010 List of uses. 17.16.020 Zoning classified in districts. 17.16.010 List of uses. Table 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 Supp. No. 7 RR R R 22,000 7,500 6,000 RLMFJ RMF RMH PUD SR RT Accessory building or use incidental to A A A A A A A A any permitted residential use customarily in connection with the principal building and located on the same land parcel as the permitted use Animals (see zoning district description A forspecifics) Automobile parking in connection with a A A A A A A A A permitted residential use Bed and breakfast inn SR SR SR SR SR SR SR SR Boarding and lodging houses SR SR SR SR SR SR SR SR Cell 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 SR SR SR SR SR Churches and other places of worship SR SR SR SR SR SR A SR including parish house and Sunday school buildings Communication towers (see Sections 17.21.020-17.21.040) Community residential facilities serving A A A A A A A ei ht or fewer persons Community residential facilities serving EA SR SR SR SR SR SR SR nine or more ersons O hanages and charitable institutions SR SR I SR SR SR A 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 Kennels (noncommercial) A A A A A A A A Dwellings Single-family A A A A A A A A Two-family A A A _ A_ Multifamily A A Supp. No. 7 17.16.020 389 Supp. No. 12 RE R R 22,000 7,500 6,000 RLMF RMF RMH PUD SR RT Manufactured homes Class A A Class B A Class C A Row Housing SR SR A Family day care homes A A A A A A A A Greenhouses for domestic uses A A A A A A A A Group day care homes A A A A A FA A A Home occupations A A A A A A A A Parking, public SR SR SR SR SR SR SR SR Parks, playgrounds, playfields, and golf courses community center buildings—operated by public agency, neighborhood or homeowners' associations A A A I A A A A A Planned developments A Post -secondary school A A A A A A A A Preschool SR SR SR SR 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 elementary, junior and senior high schools A A A A A A A A Towers (see Sections 17.21.020- 17.21.040) 389 Supp. No. 12 Chapter 17.20 COMMERCIAL—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, 1991; Ord. 923, 1987; Ord. 922, 1987; Ord. 917, 1987; prior code § 17.32.010) 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. 8 Table 17.20.010 AG RP NC CBD CC HC LI 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 3l -gallon barrels per year I SR SR I SR I 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 halls and stadium SR SR SR SR Assembly of machines and appliances from previously prepared parts SR SR SR SR Auction house, excluding livestock I SR SR A A A Auction, livestock SR Automobile sales (new and used) A A I A I A Automobile - commercial parking enterprise A I A A A A Automobile and truck repair garage A A A A A Automobile service station A A A I A A A Automobile wrecking and SR Bakery products manufacturing SR A A A Bakery shops and confectioneries A A A A A Banks, savings and loan, commercial credit unions A A A A A Barber and beauty shops A A A A A Bed and breakfast inns A A A A Bicycle sales and repair A A A A A Blueprinting and photostating A A A A I A Boarding and Lodging houses A A A A Boat building and repair A I A A Boat sales new and used A A A A Boiler works (manufacturing servicing) A Boiler tivorks (repair and servicing) A A Book and stationery store A A A A A Bottling works A A -Bowlingalleys -- ---- _ _- _. _ _ __A_ _ A._ _ A ___ _A _ _ .. _ _ .. --- Brick, the or terra cotta manufacture A Bus passenger terminal buildings Iocal and cross coup- try A A A A Bus repair and storage terminals A A A 391 Supp. No. 8 17.20.020 Table 17.20.010 AG RP NC CBD CC HC LI HI P Camera supply stores A A A A A Camps, public A A A A SR A A A Car washing and waxing A A A A A A A Car wash - coin operated A A A A A SR A Cement. lime and plastic manufacture SR A A A Ceramics shop SR A A A A A Chemical and allied products manufacture I A Child care facilities 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 A A A A A Clothing and apparel stores A A A __Lj A Coal or coke yard Cold storage Colleges or universities Commercial recreation areas Commercial food products, storage and packaging Communication towers (commercial) Concrete mixing plants and manufacturing of con- crete products Construction contractors: Office Open storage of construction materials or equip- ment Community residential facilities Adult foster family care home Community group home Halfivay house Youth foster home Youth group home Nursing, homes, convalescent homes, orphanages, and charitable institutions Crematorium Creameries, dairy products manufacturing Creosote manufacturine or treatment plants A MQ� Mw M__MMM A A A 1 A MIN0000��� A A A ■-®EMEN---© A A A A A A A A A A A ■--__-MM- A A A MQ� Mw M__MMM A A A 1 A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A SR A A SR A A A 393 (Laurel 1-02) 17.20.020 395 Supp. No. 12 Table 17.20.010 AG RP NC CBD CC HC LI HI P Fuel oil, gasoline and petroleum products bulk storage or sale A A A Furnace repair and cleaning A A A A Furniture and home furnishings, retail sales A A A A A Furriers, retail sales and storage A A A A A Gambling establishments A A A A Garbage, offal and animal reduction or processing SR Garbage and waste incineration SR Gas storage SR Gases or liquified petroleum gases in approved portable metal containers for storage or sale A A A Grain elevators A SR SR A Greenhouses A A A A A Hardware, appliance and electrical supplies, retail sales A A A A Hatcheries A SR SR Heliports SR SR SR SR SR Hobby and toy stores A A A A A Hospitals (for the care of human patients) A A A A A Hospital, animal A SR SR A A A Hotels A A A Industrial chemical manufacture except highly corrosive, flammable or toxic materials SR Irrigation equipment sales and service A A A A Jails and penal institutes A Janitor service A A A A Jewelry and watch sales A A A A A Kennels - commercial A SR A A Laboratories for research and testing SR A A Landfills - reclamation or sanitary A Laundries, steam and drycleaning plants A A Laundries, steam pressing, drycleaning and dyeing es- tablishments in conjunction with a retail service counter under 2500 sq. ft. in size A A A A A Laundries, pick up stations A A A A A Laundries, self-service coin operated A A A A A Libraries, museums, and art galleries A A A A A A Lock and gunsmiths A A A A A Lodges, clubs, fraternal and social organizations pro- vided that any such club establishment shall not be con- ducted primarily for gain A A A Lumber yards, building materials, storage and sales A A A Machine shops SR A A Manufacturing - light manufacturing not otherwise mentioned in which no excessive fumes, odors, smoke, noise or dust is created SR A A Heavy manufacturing not otherwise mentioned or blending or mixing plants SR SR Meat processing - excluding slaughter plants SR A Meat processing, packing and slaughter SR Medical marijuana cultivation facility or cultivation fa- cility A A -Medical marijuana dispensaryor dispensary — ___ ..._._ _ ._. __ _. A Metal fabrication SR SR A Motorcycle sales and repair _A _A A___.. _A._ _ _. ----- _.___._. Mortuary A A A A A Motels and motor courts JA A A A Music stores A A A A 395 Supp. No. 12 17.20.020 Table 17.20.010 AG I RPINCICBDI CCIHCI LI I HI P Woodworking shops, millwork 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. 0-14-03, 8-5-2014) Table 17.20.020 Zoning Requirements A RP` I NC' BD' CC` HC LI HI P Lot area requirements in square feet, except as noted, 20 acres 20 acres NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Minimum yard requirements: Front (a) Side (b) Side adjacent to street Rear (b) NA 20 0 10 0 20 0 10 0 NA 20 0 10 0 20 0 10 0 20 0 10 0 20 0 10 0 20 0 10 0 Maximum height for all buildings (°) NA 1 25 25 NA 1 25 45 70 NA NA Maximum lot coverage in percent NA 50 50 NA 50 75 75 75 50 Minimum district size (expressed in acres) 20 acres 2.07 2.07 2.07 2.07 2.07 2.07 2.07 NA (NA means notapplicable) *The lot area, yard and lot coverage requirements for 1 and 2 single family dwellings in commercial zoning districts shall be the same as those in the RLMF residential zoning district. (a) Arterial setbacks 1 (b) Side and rear yards P (c) Except as provided in the airport zone 11 11 (Ord. No. 0-14-03,8-5-2014) 397 Supp. No, I I I7.16.020 Table 17.16.020 Row housing may be permitted to be constructed on 3,000 square foot lots if approved through the special review process. '-NA means not applicable. J The requirements for the mobile homes contained herein relate only to a mobile home subdivision. see Chapter 17.44 ofthis code for the requirements for a mobile home pari:. 4 Zero side setbacks may be permitted if approved through the special review process. s 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 Zoning Requirements 7,500 16,000 RLM1* RMF RMI} PUD SIB, RT Minimum lot area per dwelling unit in square feet One unit 17,500 16,000 6,000' 16,0001 6,0003 See 5 acres 1 acre Two units 17,500 17,500 -7:50G ;X04I I Chapter Three units 18,500 18,500 1 X500 IS601 17.32 Four units 10,000148;001. t .2 D Five units 34;609 t, rip Six units and more Add 4-,4W each `0' additional unit Minimum yard— setback requirements (expressed in feet) and measured from public right-of-way Front 120 120 120 120 IO 255 125 Side 15 154 54 54 5 1 55 15 Side adjacent to street 20 120 120 120 120 1 1105 10 Rear 15 15 15 15 15 1 125s 125 Maximum height for all 130 135 135 buildings -NAL -"J6 130 30 130 Maximum lot coverage (percentage) 30 30 40 �5- 40 IS 130 Minimum district size (expressed in acres) 2.07 2.07 2.07 2.07 2.07 20 5 Row housing may be permitted to be constructed on 3,000 square foot lots if approved through the special review process. '-NA means not applicable. J The requirements for the mobile homes contained herein relate only to a mobile home subdivision. see Chapter 17.44 ofthis code for the requirements for a mobile home pari:. 4 Zero side setbacks may be permitted if approved through the special review process. s 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. This Ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days after rinal passage by the City Council and approved by the Mayor. Introduced and passed on first reading at a regular meeting of the City Council on July 7, 2015, by Council Member Poehis PASSED and ADOPTED by the Laurel City Council on second reading this 21't day of July, 20159 upon motion of Council Member Poeus APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this 2151 day of July, 2015. CITY OF LAUREL Mark A. Mace, Mayor ATTEST. Z--n--�d1er1-JTreasurer shirleyEwa , Apr ved s to fon-n: Sara Ai—nter- vil City Attorney f 015-05 LMC 17.16.020 Residential Multi Family 17.20.020 Table 17.211.020 AG RP NC CBD CC HC I LI tit P Woodworking shops, millwork 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. 0-14-03,8-5-2014) Table 17.20.020 Zoning Requirements A RP' NC` BD" CC- HC L1 HI I P Lat area requirements in square Peet, except as noted, 20 acres 20 acres NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Minimum yard requirements: Front t" Side «> Side adjacent to street Rear (b) NA 20 0 10 10 20 Q 10 0 NA 20 0 10 Q 20 0 10 0 20 0 10 1 0 20 0 10 0 20 0 10 1 0 Maximum height for all buildings NA 25 25 NA 25 45 70 NA NA Maximum lot coverage in percent NA 50 50 NA75 75 75 50 Minimum district sire (expressed in acres) 20 acres 2.07 1 2.07 2.07[;J;2A7 2.07 2.07 NA (NA means notapplicable) "The lot area, yard and lot coverage requirements for t and 2 single family dwellings in commercial zoning districts shall be the same as those in the RLMF residential zoning district. a) Arterial setbacks b) Side and rear yards (c) Except as provided in the airport zone (Ord. No. 0-14-03,8-5-2014) 397 Supp. No. I i