HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Minutes 11.10.202041,15117 1
Tmzm
November 10, 2020
A regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Laurel, Montana, was held in the
Council Chambers and called to order by Mayor Tom Nelson at 6:30 p.m. on November 10, 2020.
COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT:
OTHER STAFF PRESENT:
Emelie Eaton
Bruce McGee
Scot Stokes
Richard Klose
Iry Wilke
Heidi Sparks
Richard Herr
Don Nelson
Nick Altonaga, Planning Director
Mayor Nelson led the Pledge of Allegiance to the American flag.
Mayor Nelson asked the Council to observe a moment of silence.
MINUTES:
Motion by Council Member McGee to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of October
27, 2020, as presented, seconded by Council Member Klose. There was no public comment or
council discussion. A vote was taken on the motion. All six council members present voted aye.
Motion carried 6-0.
CORRESPONDENCE:
® Airport Authority Minutes of August 25, 2020.
® Airport Authority Minutes of September 22, 2020.
COUNCIL DISCLOSURE OF EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS: None.
PUBLIC HEARING:
® Public Hearing — A Resolution To Approve The Conditional Use Of The Property
Located At 1009 East 6111 Street In Laurel For The Construction And Operation Of A
Union Meeting Hall At Such Address Within The City Of Laurel.
Mayor Nelson stated this is the time and place set for the public hearing on the City of Laurel's A
Resolution To Approve The Conditional Use Of The Property Located At 1009 East 6"' Street In
Laurel For The Construction And Operation Of A Union Meeting Hall At Such Address Within The
City Of Laurel.
Mayor Nelson opened the public hearing and asked Staff to present the item.
Nick Altonaga, Planning Director, read the attached Staff Report.
Mayor Nelson opened the floor for public comment and stated that copies of the rules governing the
public hearing were posted in the council chambers.
Mayor Nelson asked three (3) times if there were any proponents. There were none.
Mayor Nelson asked three (3) times if there were any opponents. There were none.
Mayor Nelson stated that he would not have Staff respond to questions as there were none.
Mayor Nelson closed the public hearing.
Council Minutes of November 10, 2020
Public Hearing — Goldberg Sporting Estate Variance #1— Street Connectivity.
Mayor Nelson stated this is the time and place set for the public hearing on the City of Laurel's
Goldberg Sporting Estate Variance #1 — Street Connectivity.
Mayor Nelson opened the public hearing and asked Staff to present the item.
Nick Altonaga, Planning Director, read the attached Staff Report.
Mayor Nelson opened the floor for public comment and stated that copies of the rules governing the
public hearing were posted in the council chambers.
Mayor Nelson asked three (3) times if there were any proponents.
Scott Aspenlieder, Performance Engineering, stated he is representing the Developer, Goldberg
Investments. He stated they feel they have put forward what they believe is a pretty solid case in
relation to why they feel the variance is supported, why it meets the requirements of the City, and
why they feel it is the best long-range situation as far as this development is concerned. The big
thing with the alignment of Mullberry is a one block long street that does not connect to anything at
this stage of the game, off of E. 8"'. Mr. Altonaga noted in his staff report that there may be fiiture
plans off of E. 7"', but from a development standpoint, it is impossible for us to know what the City
may or may not see for development for that end of the City when there is not a capital improvement
plans in place, and nothing noted to us. And quite frankly as we modified our layout to try and create
connectivity and connect to the commercial portion of the development. And modify that plat so that
the commercial part ties to the residential part. So you have a tie from Yard Office Road through the
development to E. 8`". We have done everything that we can. The alignment from our standpoint,
just strictly from a technical standpoint, you want to minimize intersections and minimize traffic
conflicts. It's even acknowledged in Staffs Report that this alignment would align with a more
utilized approach into Cotter's Sewer Service. That is used by a commercial business. It is used quite
frequently; there is a lot of traffic there. It's a more safe situation to align this intersection with
Cotter's Sewer Service than it is to align with a dead-end road that services four residential lots.
Maybe sometime in the future could tie into E. 9"' or E. 7"'. Even at that point, if E. 7t}' is built out ten
years down the road, you still have a safe intersection there where people can come off the
subdivision, turn onto E. 8"' and down Mullberry and go onto 7"' if they want to try and spit traffic
on their way into the City of Laurel. There is no real good argument to dispute the fact that it is a
safer intersection if we can align our road to the commercial entrance to Cotter's Sewer Service.
From our perspective, this is the best situation; it creates a better situation for the existing house that
is located in the Southwest corner of that is going to stay. You won't have a residential road coming
right down your kitchen window to that house, which ends up staying there. We have put forward
what we think/feel is a good safe proposal for the community to consider. And something that
frankly is going to help from a traffic standpoint for the residents of the area and the residents of
East Laurel. That's the case he guesses he would make on this variance. He thinks this is the best
they can do. It fits and meets all the requirements, and he doesn't think it is justified at this stage of
the game to try to align this with a road that dead ends and serves four residential lots, on the off
chance that maybe someday in the next decade E. 7"' ever gets built out.
Mayor Nelson asked three (3) times if there were any opponents. There were none.
Mayor Nelson stated that he would not have Staff respond to questions as there were none.
Mayor Nelson closed the public hearing.
® Public Hearing — Goldberg Sporting Estate Variance #2 — Right-of-way, Dedication,
Road Width.
Mayor Nelson stated this is the time and place set for the public hearing on the City of Laurel's
Goldberg Sporting Estate Variance 42 — Right-of-way, Dedication, Road Width.
Mayor Nelson opened the public hearing and asked Staff to present the item.
Nick Altonaga, Planning Director, read the attached Staff Report.
Council Minutes of November 10, 2020
Mayor Nelson opened the floor for public comment and stated that copies of the rules governing the
public hearing were posted in the council chambers.
Mayor Nelson asked three (3) times if there were any proponents.
Scott Aspenlieder, Performance Engineering representing the Developer Goldberg Investments,
stated Nick covered a whole lot of ground there, and as you can see, this 10 foot of right-of-way
along Yard Office Road can be a little bit confusing. Ten feet to most people doesn't sound like a lot,
but as you're taking 10 feet through a commercial corridor. The value of that starts to add up
significantly. He stated he wanted to touch on a whole lot of points here with respect to this 10 foot
of dedication on Yard Office Road. The first thing he would say is, as a Developer and as an
applicant, the only thing they can do is to try to submit to meet your, the City of Laurel, your
standards. Yard Office Road, as you annexed it in has 80 feet of right-of-way. Yard Office Road in
your Transportation Plan developed in 2014, is designated as a commercial collector requiring 80
feet of right-of-way. When we had this conversation early on, he stated he doesn't want this to be
misconstrued or miss represented, but when we had this conversation early on with Forrest
Sanderson, the contract planner at the time. What we talked about very, very explicitly and
specifically with he and Kurt was that we would considering giving some additional right-of-way
along Yard Office Road; however, I don't feel like technically we need to submit a variance because
Yard Office Road already has the right-of-way width required by your plans and by your standards.
So we would consider it given that there is a disputable you have 30 to 40 feet of that right-of-way
that is used for a drainage ditch. We would consider giving you an additional 30 feet, giving you a
70 -foot -wide, even considering as stated in Mr. Altonaga's staff report a 40 feet of that 80 feet is
used for a drainage ditch, which again is not my issue; we meet your standards as designated in your
own documents. We would consider going ahead and dedicating an additional 30 feet to make sure
we could incorporate sidewalks, any kind of widening, an additional turn lane on Yard Office Road
if it determined that was required by the traffic study as we go through the design on this. That's how
we ended up here. I don't feel professionally; technically, we even have this as a variance request
because technically, we meet your requirements as stated in your own standards and documents. So
as we talk about donating an additional 30 feet, we still give you; if you take that 40 feet off that Mr.
Altonaga has said is used for drainage, we still have 70 feet. That road is already built, if we are
being honest, Yard Office Road may be widened, and that extra 30 feet would definitely help in the
widening of that road. But you are not going to see a complete destruction and reconstruction of
Yard Office Road even at an arterial width; in the worst-case scenario, we have to put a center turn
lane in to get in and out of the layout we've provided, and we've proposed for Yard Office Road to
get into the commercial portion of our development. In the worst-case scenario, we put a turn lane
in, a center turn lane. That's a three -lane wide road with a sidewalk on our side that we would be
responsible for building. Seventy feet, taking into account for what's already there is more, more,
more sufficient width to be able to accomplish that and make that happen. The additional 10 feet, to
be able to see it align with what may have been dedicated 50 years ago to the north on a County
subdivision which is not going to be annexed into the City of Laurel in anytime in the near future.
Should not be the reasoning for asking for an additional 10 feet. Again remember, we are giving you
an additional 30 feet that personally and professionally I don't think we necessarily need to dedicate
to meet your requirements as they are written in your own documents. But we are willing to dedicate
the 30 feet because it will make it a little easier and a little better and more presentable for our own
development. But the additional ten feels arbitrary and capricious; it doesn't feel like it is based on
any sound math, science, or any firm logic on how that road would ever be developed. So that's why
were are here talking about 10 feet of right-of-way. Ten feet on commercial property adds up to a
significant amount of money. If we are responsible, and as we develop this out, we are going to be
responsible for paying for the improvements to do the things we need to make sure traffic can get in
and out sufficiently as dictated by the traffic study as part of the subdivision process. We are
confident that if we dedicate another 30 feet of right-of-way, giving 110 feet of right-of-way along
the frontage of our development on Yard Office Road, we will easily be able to handle, and guess
what? if we can't, we can always dedicate another 10 feet of right-of-way at that time. It seems
arbitrary and capricious to be asking for that at this point without any justification and without us,
even at this point, to go through the traffic study to say this is what this would look like to safely
travel the development. So I guess that's how I would address; there is a lot to unpack there, that's
how I would address our variance request number two. The fact that I don't think we should have
even been here with a variance request is first and foremost. With respect to the 56 -foot right-of-way
width internal for commercial on Perazzi Way, 56 -foot width for a right-of-way dedication for an
interior commercial street is standard in the City of Billings; it's standard in a lot of other
jurisdictions. It's more than enough to allow for parking on the street plus allow for two lanes of
traffic to traverse that easily; with that being a private road at this point in time, we can easily make
sure that the sidewalks are incorporated and fit with a boulevard walk. We are not intending to
i�
Council Minutes of November 10, 2020
deviate from a boulevard development. We also, as the Developer, I guess I would ask you all
remember, we also as the Developer want to make this easily traversable. We want to make this user
friendly because the business we are trying to attract here are not going to want cars pulling in or
pulling over so another car can go by so they can traverse cars parked on the street. These widths are
proven their true; they are easily navigable in multiple jurisdictions surrounding the City of Laurel. I
think we can that very easily and very comfortably in this development. I don't see this as any kind
of hardship, I don't believe it creates any kind of burden for the residents, and I don't see that it is
anything that we as a Developer can't navigate to make this a user-friendly development and not
only friendly for the residents and citizens but also for the traveling public. So that's the case I would
make. The only other thing that I want to make sure that we address and this pertains to variance 1,
2, all three of the variances. There was a note in there with respect to a recommendation coming
from the Planning Board that there needs to be a three-month cooling -off period per se. We have
talking to Mr. Altonaga offline after the Planning Board. There is nowhere in any kind of statue both
at the City level or at the State level that requires a cooling -off period. There is no need for that. If
the variances are approved, then we can obviously easily move forward. If anyone of the three, two
of the three, or all of the three are denied, we can make the adjustments very quickly and be right
back in with our subdivision application. The only thing that we are up against at that point is
malting the modifications to the plat and get it bath in to keep the subdivision process going. I guess
I want to make sure that that is not something that is under consideration by the City Council. I
would ask Mr. Altonaga to address that as well. We don't feel that is appropriate, nor is it necessary.
The Planning Director stated that, like Scott had mentioned, we had previously discussed that. Those
recommendations, I had written those in just as a place holder; I believe both the Public Works
Director and Contract Planner had thought that there were caveats in our code. He stated that he had
checked and did not see anything. He had just included it as a place holder. As Scott had mentioned,
it's not necessary for a cooling -off period, a minimum timeline for resubmittal. Like Scott said,
whether denied or approved that we could move forward within the next month or so with the next
Planning Board cycle. He thanked both Scott and Tony for calling in tonight. There was a little bit of
confusion for Planning Board for the public hearing. Scott and Tony were not in attendance. There
was some confusion with the public notice and the correspondence we had back and forth. I am
happy they were able to tune in tonight to provide that extra information and response.
Mayor Nelson asked three (3) times if there were any opponents. There were none.
Mayor Nelson asked Staff if they needed to respond to any additional questions.
The Planning Director stated he understands all of Scott's responses, especially to the right-of-way
dedication widths. What we have on the books is what we have on the books. Technically that's what
we are going off of. They meet a lot of those requirements. From my point of view, looking at
fi tureproofing about getting that 10 feet to make sure it's on the books and we have it ready to go
down the line. We have gone back and forth for months on this, on different designs and alternative
plans and things like that. That's my one thing I know specifically what is in and on the books is
there, and I definitely understand those concerns, that that is what they have gone off of for months
prepping their plans and prepping their plats. But just from our point of view, looking at going past
that a little bit as to what's going to be adopted soon for our growth policy update and possible future
developments along Yard Office, which we see as a major area of the City to seek new development
and annexations into the City. I am hoping that at some point in the near future, that High Point
Subdivision will annex, but that will be a whole another development process. As Scott said, that's
nothing that would happen very soon. We are planning on different situations—Thanked Scott for
being here and providing his responses to my findings.
Mayor Nelson closed the public hearing.
CONSENT ITEMS:
Claims entered through 11/6/2020 in the amount of $303,579.97 for October 2020; in
the amount of $3,413.96. for November 2020
A complete listing of the claims and their amounts is on file in the Clerk/Treasurer's Office.
® Approval of Payroll Register for PPE 11/1/2020 totaling $198,495.03.
The Mayor asked if there was any separation of consent items. There was none.
r3ti%
Council Minutes of November 10, 2020
Motion by Council Member Eaton to approve the consent items as presented, seconded by
Council Member Klose. There was no public comment or council discussion. A vote was taken on
the motion. All six council members present voted aye. Motion carried 6-0.
CEREMONIAL CALENDAR: None.
REPORTS OF BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS:
0 Cemetery Commission Minutes of September 29, 2020,
AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION (THREE-MINUTE LIMIT):
It was questioned if Council would be voting on the three variance requests tonight or if those will
come back at a later date. It was clarified that Council would not be voting on those tonight. That
those would come back once Staff is not denying those or if Council decides they would like to bring
something forward against Staff and City/County Planning Boards recommendation. It was further
questioned if no action is taken, the variances are denied. It was stated that was correct. It was
further questioned that wasn't the process that was understood as Council was the governing body. It
was asked if the Council could give a response, so the Developer knows how to proceed. Mayor
Nelson stated he would follow up with the Developer in the morning.
SCHEDULED MATTERS:
Resolution No. R20-76: A Resolution Of The City Council Adopting The Updated 2020
Yellowstone County Hazard Materials Response Plan.
Motion by Council Member Sparks to approve Resolution No. R20-76, seconded by Council
Member Klose. There was no public comment or council discussion. A vote was taken on the
motion. All six council members present voted aye. Motion carried 6-0.
Resolution No. R20-77: A Resolution To Approve The Conditional Use Of The
Property Located At 1009 East 6th Street In Laurel For The Construction And
Operation Of A Union Meeting Hall At Such Address Within The City Of Laurel.
Motion by Council Member Klose to approve Resolution No. R20-77, seconded by Council
Member Eaton. There was no public comment or council discussion. A vote was taken on the
motion. All six council members present voted aye. Motion carried 6-0.
ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA: None.
COMMUNITY ANNOUNCEMENTS (ONE -MINUTE LIMIT): None.
COUNCIL DISCUSSION:
The November Public Works Committee meeting has been canceled.
Veteran's Day is tomorrow. There will be a ceremony at 2:00 p.m. at the Laurel Cemetery by the
VFW and American Legion. The ceremony will be brief.
Council Members thanked all veterans for their service.
MAYOR UPDATES: None.
UNSCHEDULED MATTERS: None.
ADJOURNMENT:
Motion by Council Member Eaton to adjourn the council meeting, seconded by Council
Member McGee. There was no public comment or council discussion. A vote was taken on the
motion. All six council members present voted aye. Motion carried 6-0.
There being no further business to come before the Council at this time, the meeting was adjourned
at 7:50 p.m.
5
Council Minutes of November 10, 2020
Brittney norma , Administrative Assistant
Approved by the Mayor and passed by the City Council of the City of Laurel, Montana, this 24"'
Day of November 2020.
omas C. Nelson, Mayor
Attest:
Bethany Langve, e asurer
_),
19 i
TO: Laurel City -County Planning Board / Zoning Commission
FROM: Nicholas Altonaga, Planning Director
RE: Conditional Use Permit — USW Local 11-443
DATE: October 28, 2020
M
A Conditional Land Use application was submitted by Steve lansma on behalf of the United
Steelworkers Local 11-443. USW Local 11-443 proposes to demolish the existing union meeting
hall and construct a newly designed and updated structure in its place. An approval of a
conditional land use is required to rebuild and continue the use of the site as a union meeting
hall because this use is not described or defined within the zoning district it resides in.
Owner: Pace Pioneer Local 8-443
Legal Description: NUTTING SUED, S10, T02 S, R24 E, BLOCK 6, Lot 13 - 24
Address: 1009 East 61h Street
Parcel Size: 42,000 sqft.
Existing Land Use: Union Meeting Hall
Proposed Land Use: Union Meeting Hall
Existing Zoning: Residential Limited Multi -Family
l{�u . �'.siv..e�w� h'. S SsaK'AY.F'Kum',
• Resolution 13-50 was approved on August 6, 2013 which granted a three-year window
for the Union to enlarge, update, and reconstruct the existing Union Hall which was
then classified as a nonconforming use within the RLMF zoning district.
• Planning Director met with the Applicant on September 9, 2020 to review the
application form and required documentation.
• Planning Director met with the Applicant on September 23, 2020 to receive the
Application Fee and conceptual design images of the proposed conditional use.
• A public hearing for the Conditional Land Use took place at the October 21, 2020
Planning Board meeting.
® The Planning Board voted on October 21, 2020 to approve the Conditional Land Use
application with the suggested staff conditions.
® A public hearing for the Conditional Land Use has been placed on the November 10,
2020 City Council meeting agenda.
® The public hearing requirements of 1762.030 have been met.
I'MORNMA, IMAIF MINN. IN
The Applicant is requesting approval of a conditional land use to reconstruct and operate a
union meeting hall on the property of 1009 East 6th Street in Laurel. This use is not specifically
delineated or defined within Chapter 17 of the Laurel Municipal Code. As such, a Conditional
Land Use Application was required to conduct the proposed rebuild of the site and continue to
operate the property as its existing use as a union meeting hall. The following findings have
been noted by the Planning Department after reviewing the Conditional Land Use application
and supplementary documents.
® USW Local 11-443 has operated a union hall at 1009 E 6th Street for many years without
an interruption in its use.
® The long-term operation of the union meeting hall at 1009 East 6th Street has had little
to no known impact on the quality of life of surrounding residents.
• The reconstruction of the union meeting hall will include improved paved parking areas
and landscaping.
• The current meeting hall building dates back to the 1920s and is in dire need of repairs.
® The current Union Hall building would require significant repairs and revitalization to
continue functioning as it stands.
® The current Union Hall building and associated parking areas and landscaping are not
aesthetically pleasing.
• The current use of the building and its lack of definition under the LMC as a union hall
does not allow the Union to perform improvements or upgrades to the site.
• The Applicant has prepared conceptual plans to include adequate access and off-street
parking.
• The demolition of the current structure and proposed new union meeting hall will
include updated landscaping and parking on site.
I'M 01 MIN
ON 0
lot W 0,01 W
IF 100 WE N®RIO,
"17.61020 -- Rec;uirernents" contains s.he review criteria for the ening Commission to discriss and
recommend actions on conditional land rases. The text of this subchapter is included below.
No strLICture or land use n',ay be used for any purpose other than those allowed within a zoning district
as specified in the zoning ordinance Unless either a variance has been granted (Linder Chapter 17.60 or
17.€6 of this code) or a conditional land use permit therefor has been provided. The zoning commission
may recommend and the city can require any inforniation that will allow the decision makers to
comprehensively evaluate and decide on applications for conditional uses brought before them. The
zoning commission may reconimend and the city can regUire, after consideration of the application for
conditional use,, those conditions Clnd , ',` rich sk.xll 3 lith las=` iic�4? ballowed toii3 Il,1CiF'_ but not benecessarily linflted to the f0llowing:
k Adequate ing,ress and egress with t`.onc'wrn for vehicular and peclestt; ian safety and convenience,
t raffic f1 ,kt .aid Control, and emir=ency :.icc ss is reviewed and approved by the city public
works director;
B/fid tluat`' off-street ee i?"arkino and io adino ,`,ith a en ion to vehicular and pedestrian safety and
traffic flow;
i .inditii?i4>'?'l1"it: control, specify, d;if°, �7i plan ;1' 3tt?generation of odors, a Ilse, hours ) operation,
signage, or lnnp a":t (:)n the nedt i:aCa"t o d of n atUrai sys Ins;
D. Adequate !a•,,dsc apingy;, scree -rung, rnmg i? ion of 3lalpact all adjacent property and b-uffering; and
E, Compatibility with Cadj all -e at and neig` borllood land uses and L aUrel's GMP,
The Planning Director recommends the approval of the Conditional Land Use application to operate a
union meeting hall at 1009 East 6' Street in Laurel. The Planning Director suggests the Planning
Board/Zoning Commission and City Council consider the following conditions of approval.
Condition seven (7) was added by request of Planning Board members and the applicant was notified of
this new condition.
1. No land uses shall be established on site that are not specifically included in this approval.
2. Any land use not specifically included in this approval shall be considered a violation of the City
of Laurel zoning ordinance.
3. New construction regarding the approved conditional use shall apply for building permits when
applicable.
4. The approved land use shall comply with the zoning requirements of the district the property
falls within.
5. The approved land use shall comply to the City of Laurel Sign Code
6. The approved land use shall comply with the City of Laurel off-street parking requirements
7. Landowner will work with the city if noise abatement becomes an issue for the surrounding
neighborhood
1. Conditional Land Use Application
2. Map of 1009 E 6th Street with 150ft buffer
3. List of property Owners within 150ft of 1009 East 6th Street
4. Public Hearing Notice
5. USW Union Hall Concept Plan
6. USW Union Hall Concept Image
7. LMC 17.16 — Residential Districts
8. LMC 17.62 —Conditional Land Uses
9. Resolution R13-50
STAFF REPORT
TO: Laurel City -County Planning Board
FROM: Nicholas Altonaga, Planning Director
RE: Variance 1— Goldberg Sporting Estates Subdivision
DATE: October 27, 2020
m
Three variances to the Laurel Municipal Code are being requested supporting the proposed
Goldberg Sporting Estates Subdivision. Performance Engineering is acting as the representative
of Tony Golden and Goldberg Investments LLP. Justification letters for the variance requests
were submitted on July 31, 2020.
The Applicant has applied for a variance (Variance 1) to Laurel Municipal Code regarding
roadway alignment and continuity in order to keep the proposed roadway for Krieghoff Loop as
it is currently designed on the proposed subdivision plat. The current design does not conform
to Laurel Municipal Code due to a lack of connection and continuation of the existing adjacent
roadway. The Applicant would need to redesign the subdivision plat in order to conform to the
Laurel Municipal Code unless a variance is approved.
Owner: Goldberg Investments LLP
Legal Description: S10, T02 S, R24 E, Nutting Bros 2nd Filing Lot 18, Nutting Bros 3rd Filing
Lots 19-25
Address: Approximately 1850 East 8th Street
Parcel Size: 38.73 Acres
Existing Land Use: Agricultural, single dwelling unit.
Proposed Land Use: Residential and Commercial Subdivision
Existing Zoning: Residential Tracts
-,x-+�,q `,.,6�m r w
x Glx z�T�e.gu�°
Subdivision Preapplication Meeting took place on February 2, 2019.
Pre -Application Meeting Summary letter provided to Performance Engineering on
February 7, 2019
• Annexation Agreement — Major Components email sent to Performance Engineering on
February 15, 2019.
• Annexation of Lot 18, Nutting Bros 2nd Filing and Lot 19-25 Nutting Bros 3rd Filing
approved by Resolution of Laurel City Council on August 20, 2019
• The Zoning requested during the annexation process will be updated to Residential
Limited Multi -Family (RLMF) and Community Commercial (CC) upon filing of the final
annexation agreement.
• Preliminary Plat Pre -Submittal comments email sent to Performance Engineering on
October 30, 2019.
• Preliminary Plat Meeting Notes 11.08.19 comments follow-up email provided to
Performance Engineering on November 21, 2019.
• Preliminary Plat application document Packet submitted to the Planning Department on
December 17, 2019.
• Element Review Letter provided to Performance Engineering on December 24, 2019
• Sufficiency Review Letter provided to the Applicant on January 16, 2020.
• The Applicant and City Staff and City Engineers met to discuss the details of the
sufficiency review letter on January 31, 2020.
• Submittal of updated documents by Applicant on July 31, 2020.
• Planning Board received public comment, discussed the variances, and made
recommendations at the Public Hearing on October 21, 2020.
• Planning Board voted to recommend denial of the variances after the Public Hearings on
October 21, 2020.
• A Public Hearing is scheduled at the City Council meeting on November 10, 2020 to
receive public comment and approve, approve with conditions, or deny the variance
requests.
Pre -Application Meeting Summary letter provided to Performance Engineering on February 7,
2019. This letter included:
• Project summary
• Current and proposed zoning
• Public review process overview
• Discussion points including:
o Fire coverage
o Lot layout
o Water and sewer systems
o Right-of-way requirements
o Solid waste provision
o Parking
o Parkland dedication
o Off-site improvements
Annexation Agreement — Major Components email sent to Performance Engineering on
February 15, 2019. This email contained further information regarding:
® Roadway dedication requirements
Engineering estimates for public infrastructure improvements
Annexation and plat approval process
® Water rights
a Zoning changes
Preliminary Plat Pre -Submittal comments email sent to Performance Engineering on October
30, 2019. Items identified in pre -submittal review included:
• Street connectivity within the Subdivision
• Street and intersection design
• Road continuity with the adjacent Laurel street system
® Parkland Dedication/Cash-in-Lieu
® Road Dedication
O Phased development
Preliminary Plat Meeting Notes 11.08.19 comments follow-up email provided to Performance
Engineering on November 21, 2019. Items identified in this correspondence included:
o Utility and access easements
® Roadway connectivity
® Parkland dedication
* Review and submittal of previously discussed documents (Annexation and Waiver)
The Applicant is requesting a variance to LMC 16.04.060.6.8 which states: "Street Continuity.
Streets that are a continuation of streets in contiguous territory shall be so aligned as to assure
that their centerlines shall coincide and shall have matching names. In cases where straight
continuations are not physically possible, such centerline shall be continued by a centerline
offset of not less than one hundred twenty-five feet."
A denial of this variance request will require the applicant to redesign the subdivision plat to
meet the requirements of the Laurel Municipal Code.
The Applicant has provided a letter with details justifying the Variance request addressing the
five (5) findings noted in LMC 16.11.010. These responses, as well as planning department
findings are presented below:
1) The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health safety, or
general welfare or injurious to other adjoining properties
o Applicant Response: Granting of this requested variance will have no detrimental
effects to the public health, safety, or general welfare or injurious to other adjoining
properties. Granting this variance will benefit the public health, safety, and general
welfare of the surrounding area by aligning higher volume traffic entrances across
from each other. The proposed alignment will minimize traffic conflicts during
turning movements along East 8th at both the subdivision and the commercial
property located south of the proposed project.
o Planning Department Response: The Planning Department accepts the stated
reasoning that it will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or general
welfare or injurious to adjoining property owners.
o Planning Department Finding: The standard of the Laurel Municipal Code for
Chapter 16.11.010.1 has been met.
2) Because of the particular physical surroundings, shape, or topographical conditions of
the specific property involved, an undue hardship to the owner would result if the
strict letter of the regulations was enforced.
o Applicant Response: The proposed development is designed to keep the
entrance across from a higher traffic commercial entrance and preserve the
existing lot and infrastructure across from the dead-end Mulberry Avenue. This
design prevents the offset of the subdivision alignment from conflicting with the
higher volume of commercial traffic across the street. Should the road be aligned
with Mulberry Avenue it would require modification of the existing property,
access, and personal property intended to stay intact throughout the
development of the property. This does create an undue and unnecessary
hardship on the developer and the resident within the existing residence.
Additionally, Mulberry Avenue cannot be developed further to change its status
as a dead-end road due to location of commercial businesses along East Main
Street at the end of Mulberry Avenue.
o Planning Department Response: The Planning Department does not accept the
stated reasoning of the applicant's response to the second point.
o Planning Department Finding: The standard of the Laurel Municipal Code for
Chapter 16.11.010.2 have not been met. The following information supports this
claim.
Lot 1 and Lot 2, Block 4 of Goldberg Sporting Estates do not currently
exist.
The existing residential structure is located on the Western portion of the
currently platted Lot 18, Nutting Brothers Subdivision 2nd Filing.
The existing residential structure and its accessory buildings located on
the current Lot 18 Nutting Bros Subdivision 2"d Filing and would be
unaffected by the realignment of Mulberry and Krieghoff Loop.
4
® The existing residential structure on the current Lot 18 Nutting Bros 2nd
Filing has multiple points of access to the site which would be unaffected
by the roadway alignment.
® The existing access to this parcel that partially aligns with Mulberry
Avenue is used to access an undeveloped farm field which includes Lot 18
of Nutting Bros 2"d Filing and Lot 19 of Nutting Bros Subdivision 3rd Filing.
® There is no known access and/or encroachment permit for the lot access
located immediately across from Mulberry Avenue filed with Yellowstone
County Public Works Department.
o The proposed Goldberg Sporting Estates Subdivision will be changing the
use of the current land from agricultural use to residential use.
■ There are no permanent structures, infrastructure, or personal property
erected on the proposed Lot 2, Block 4 that could not be relocated in
case of roadway alignment.
® The alignment of Mulberry Ave and Krieghoff Loop would only require
the owner and/or resident of the residential structure on the current Lot
18, Nutting Bros Subdivision 2nd Filing to remove any fencing and stored
personal items from the proposed right-of-way.
® Mulberry Avenue is physically a dead-end roadway. Despite this current
condition, Mulberry Avenue connects to the currently undeveloped but
fully platted East 7th Street at its southern terminus.
® The currently undeveloped but fully platted East 7th Street could be a
major east -west connector within the city limits which covers
approximately nine (9) blocks of residential -zoned property.
® Conversations have begun between the Planning Department and Public
Works Department about this undeveloped roadway and the possibility
of development in order to complete a major east -west travel corridor.
3) The variance will not result in an increase in taxpayer burden;
o Response: The result of granting the variance for alignment of the proposed
western entrance of the subdivision with Mulberry Avenue will have no effect on
the taxes of the proposed development, adjoining land or the taxpayers of the
town of Laurel and Yellowstone County.
o Planning Department Response: The Planning Department accepts the
reasoning that the granting of the variance would not increase the tax burden of
the adjoining taxpayers and landowners.
o Planning Department Finding: The standard of the Laurel Municipal Code for
Chapter 16.11.010.3 has been met.
4) The variance will not in any manner place the subdivision in nonconformance with any
adopted zoning regulations or growth policy; and
o Applicant Response: This requested variance will not in any manner place the
subdivision in nonconformance with the adopted zoning regulations.
o Planning Department Response: The Planning Department accepts the
reasoning that the granting of a variance would not place the rest of the
Subdivision in nonconformance with the adopted zoning regulations and growth
policies.
o Planning Department Finding: The standard of the Laurel Municipal Code for
Chapter 16.11.010.4 has been met.
5) The subdivider must prove that the alternative design is equally effective and the
objectives of the improvement are satisfied.
o Applicant Response: The proposed design still aligns with an ingress/egress
directly across the street that experiences higher traffic volumes than the dead-
end Mulberry Avenue which only provides access for four (4) residential lots. In
addition, the proposed entrance maintains street continuity with the commercial
access across the street, preserves the existing Lot 1, Block 4 of the subdivision,
and mitigates against potential traffic alignment issues between the subdivision
entrance and the commercial access across the street while maintaining more
than 125 -feet of centerline alignment separation from Mulberry Avenue as set
forth in Section 16.04.060.6.8 of the City of Laurel Subdivision Regulations.
o Planning Department Response: The Planning Department does not accept the
reasoning to the 5th point that the alternative design is equally effective.
o Planning Department Finding: The standards of the Laurel Municipal Code for
Chapter 16.11.010 have not been met. The following information supports this
claim.
® The proposed Lot 1, Block 4 is currently Lot 18, Nutting Bros 2,d Filing
would not be impacted by a roadway alignment of Mulberry Avenue and
Krieghoff Loop.
® The Proposed Lot 2, Block 4 does not currently exist.
® There are no permanent structures, infrastructure, or affixed personal
property present within the proposed aligned right-of-way besides
fencing.
® The code states that "In cases where straight continuations are not
physically possible, such centerline shall be continued by a centerline
offset of not less than one hundred twenty-five feet."
® The Planning Department does not find any physical obstruction
to connecting Krieghoff Loop to Mulberry Avenue.
0
The terrain and topography is flat and open creating no
impediments to the alignment of Krieghoff Loop and Mulberry
Avenue
• The existing access to Lot 18 Nutting Bros 2"d Filing and lot 19
Nutting Bros 3rd Filing is to an undeveloped farm field.
® There is no known access and/or encroachment permit for the
existing field access immediately north of Mulberry Avenue.
Mulberry Avenue is connected to the currently undeveloped but fully
platted East 7th Street. This undeveloped route traverses up to nine (9)
blocks of Laurel.
East 7th Street would provide a major east -west travel corridor if
constructed.
The alignment of Krieghoff Loop and Mulberry Avenue would provide
additional road continuity to the wider road network once East 7th Street
is constructed.
The Applicant also provided four (4) reasonings for the Variance request in addition to the
specific justifications to the Laurel Municipal Code.
1. Mulberry Avenue is a dead-end road with access for only four (4) residential Lots
2. There is approximately 225 feet of separation between centerline alignments for
Mulberry Avenue and the proposed western entrance of Goldberg Sporting Estates
Subdivision (minimum required offset is 125 feet).
3. The Proposed subdivision entrance is aligned instead with a commercial lot entrance
having more traffic volume than the dead-end road along Mulberry Avenue.
4. In addition, Lot 1, Block 4 of Goldberg Sporting Estates Subdivision is an existing lot that
physically prevents the alignment of the western entrance (Krieghoff Loop) from
aligning across from Mulberry.
Planning Department Response to Point #1.
® Mulberry Avenue is currently a dead-end roadway but is connected to the currently
undeveloped but fully platted East 7th Street.
® East 7th Street is a fully platted right-of-way for nine (9) blocks.
® East 7th Street could provide a major improvement to East-West travel within Laurel as
well as development opportunities.
m The City is in the process of finalizing the Growth Management Policy which contains
goals regarding the installation and improvement of current roadways and important
possible roadways adjacent to the city.
® The Planning Department and Public Works Departments have held discussions about
how future build -out of East 7th Street could enhance and improve transportation on the
East side of Laurel.
Planning Department Response to Point #2.
The requirements for non -alignment are partially met, but there is no physical,
topographic, or geographic reason for the lack of alignment with the existing road
network.
Planning Department Response to Point #3.
® The Planning Department agrees that the alignment of a public -right-of-way to a private
commercial entrance with higher traffic will reduce traffic conflicts.
® The Planning Department would also like to note that this ignores the need for public
right-of-way to connect to existing public right-of-way to ensure road continuation and
connectivity.
Planning Department Response to Point #4.
® The Planning Department does not agree that there is a physical obstruction to
connecting the proposed Krieghoff Loop to the existing Mulberry Avenue.
® The proposed Lot 2, Block 4 of the Goldberg Sporting Estates is the area in question.
• The proposed Lot 2, Block 4 is not an existing lot.
® The proposed Lot 1 and Lot 2, Block 4 is currently made up of a portion of Lot 18,
Nutting Bros 2nd Filing, and Lot 19, Nutting Bros Yd Filing.
• The stated area is part of an undeveloped farm field.
• The existing residential structure on the current Lot 18, Nutting Bros Subdivision 2nd
Filing has an existing driveway access.
® The existing residential structure currently on Lot 18, Nutting Bros 2nd Filing is not
located within the area where any proposed right-of-way would be located.
m The existing access to the proposed Lot 2, Block 4 is for field access to the undeveloped
parcel.
o There are no physical structures or obstructions which would preclude alignment of the
proposed Krieghoff Loop to the existing Mulberry Avenue.
WOMAN9 NOW NOW ,� �� `tom t ��� III��
LMC 16.11.010 —Variances provides the review criteria for the Planning Board and Governing
Body to review, consider, and decide on variances. The text of this subchapter is provided
below:
The AGB may grant reasonable variances from only the design and improvement standards of
these regulations when strict compliance would result in undue hardship and the result would
not negatively affect public health and safety. The granting of a variance shall not have the
effect of nullifying the intent and purpose of these regulations. The AGB may not approve a
variance that would permit structures within the one hundred -year floodplain, as defined in
MCA § 76-5-101.
The planning board shall conduct a public hearing on any variance requested for all subdivisions
prior to taking action on the preliminary plat application.
A. Requesting a Variance. The subdivider shall include with the submission of the
preliminary plat a written statement describing the facts of hardship upon which the
request for the variance is based. Each requested variance shall be deemed a separate
application, for which a fee shall be required, to be processed concurrently with the
preliminary plat. Information addressing each of the following findings shall accompany
the application to be approved by the AGB. The latter shall not approve variances unless
the subdivider has demonstrated that the request satisfies the following findings:
1. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety,
or general welfare or injurious to other adjoining properties;
2. Because of the particular physical surroundings, shape, or topographical
conditions of the specific property involved, an undue hardship to the owner
would result if the strict letter of the regulation was enforced;
3. The variance will not result in an increase in taxpayer burden;
4. The variance will not in any manner place the subdivision in nonconformance
with any adopted zoning regulations or growth policy; and
5. The subdivider must prove that the alternative design is equally effective and the
objectives of the improvements are satisfied.
B. In granting variances, the AGB may require conditions of approval that will, in their
judgment, secure the objectives of these regulations.
C. When any such variance is granted, the motion of approval of the proposed subdivision
shall contain a statement describing the variance and the facts and conditions upon
which the issuance of the variance is based.
D. An application for a variance is not necessary where planned neighborhood
developments are proposed, as modifications to the standards and requirements of
these Regulations may be approved by the AGB.
The Planning Director recommends that the Planning Board deny the variance request. The
Planning Director has prepared drafted conditions of denial which are presented below.
1. Waive Chapter 16 variance review fee.
2. Waive Chapter 16 requirement to rename any aligned/continued roadways through
subdivisions
3. Set the waiting period for Preliminary Plat resubmittal to three (3) months.
4. Applicant submittal of updated subdivision design to Planning Department prior to
official resubmittal
1. Variance Request Letter 1
2. List of Adjacent Property Owners from Parcels Requesting Variance
3. Preliminary Plat for Goldberg Sporting Estates Subdivision
4. Pre -application meeting summary letter dated February 7, 2019
5. Annexation Agreement — Major Components email sent to Performance Engineering on
February 15, 2019.
6. Preliminary Plat Pre -Submittal comments email sent to Performance Engineering on
October 30, 2019.
Preliminary Plat Meeting Notes 11.08.19 comments follow-up email provided to
Performance Engineering on November 21, 2019.
10
LAUREL
PLANNING
_ i .
ARTMENT1
TO: Laurel City -County Planning Board
FROM: Nicholas Altonaga, Planning Director
RE: Variance 2 & 3 —Goldberg Sporting Estates Subdivision
DATE: October 27, 2020
Three variances to the Laurel Municipal Code are being requested supporting the proposed
Goldberg Sporting Estates Subdivision. Performance Engineering is acting as the representative
of Tony Golden and Goldberg Investments LLP. Justification letters for the variance requests
were submitted on July 31, 2020.
The Applicant has applied for a variance (Variance 2) to the Laurel Municipal Code regarding the
dedication of right-of-way. The Applicant is applying for this variance in order to retain an
additional ten (10) foot portion of property along Yard Office Road within the proposed lots and
not dedicated to the public as right-of-way as city staff had previously discussed with the
Applicant. The Applicant would need to update the subdivision plat in order to conform with
the requirements of Laurel Municipal Code and the many requirements discussed by Laurel
staff through meetings and correspondence.
The Applicant is requesting a variance (Variance 3) to the Laurel Municipal Code regarding
roadway and right-of-way widths. The design of the proposed Goldberg Sporting Estates
subdivision contains a fifty-six (56) foot wide private road which does not meet the right-of-way
requirements of the Laurel Subdivision Code. The Applicant would need to redesign the
subdivision plat in order to conform to the Laurel Municipal Code
Owner: Goldberg Investments LLP
Legal Description: S10, T02 S, R24 E, Nutting Bros 2nd Filing Lot 18, Nutting Bros 3rd Filing
Lots 19-25
Address: Approximately 1850 East 8th Street
Parcel Size: 38.73 Acres
Existing Land Use: Agricultural, single dwelling unit.
Proposed Land Use: Residential and Commercial Subdivision
Existing Zoning: Residential Tracts
r 5. N_add,
• Subdivision Preapplication Meeting took place on February 2, 2019.
• Pre -Application Meeting Summary letter provided to Performance Engineering on
February 7, 2019
e Annexation Agreement — Major Components email sent to Performance Engineering on
February 15, 2019.
• Annexation of Lot 18, Nutting Bros 2nd Filing and Lot 19-25 Nutting Bros 3rd Filing
approved by Laurel City Council on August 20, 2019
• The Zoning requested during the annexation process will be updated to Residential
Limited Multi -Family (RLMF) and Community Commercial (CC) upon filing of the final
annexation agreement.
o Preliminary Plat Pre -Submittal comments email sent to Performance Engineering on
October 30, 2019.
e Preliminary Plat Meeting Notes 11.08.19 comments follow-up email provided to
Performance Engineering on November 21, 2019.
® Preliminary Plat application document Packet submitted to the Planning Department on
December 17, 2019.
® Element Review Letter provided to Performance Engineering on December 24, 2019
® Sufficiency Review Letter provided to the Applicant on January 16, 2020
® The Applicant and City Staff and City Engineers met to discuss the details of the
sufficiency review letter on January 31, 2020
o Submittal of updated documents by Applicant on July 31, 2020
® Planning Board received public comment, discussed the variances, and made
recommendations at the Public Hearing on October 21, 2020.
® Planning Board voted to recommend denial of the variances after the Public Hearings on
October 21, 2020.
® A Public Hearing is scheduled at the City Council meeting on November 10, 2020 to
receive public comment and approve, approve with conditions, or deny the variance
requests.
OUR—
Pre-Application
ku,., ,�RE�n„'a bN �,"u,.4.'
Pre -Application Meeting Summary letter provided to Performance Engineering on February 7,
2019. This letter included:
® Project summary
• Current and proposed zoning
® Public review process overview
® Discussion points including:
o Fire coverage
o Lot layout
o Water and sewer systems
o Right-of-way requirements
o Solid waste provision
o Parking
o Parkland dedication
o Off-site improvements
Annexation Agreement — Major Components email sent to Performance Engineering on
February 15, 2019. This email contained further information regarding:
® Roadway dedication requirements
« Engineering estimates for public infrastructure improvements
• Annexation and plat approval process
o Water rights
® Zoning changes
Preliminary Plat Pre -Submittal comments email sent to Performance Engineering on October
30, 2019. Items identified in pre -submittal review included:
® Street connectivity within the Subdivision
® Street and intersection design
® Road continuity with the adjacent Laurel street system
® Parkland Dedication/Cash-in-Lieu
® Road Dedication
0 Phased development
Preliminary Plat Meeting Notes 11.08.19 comments follow-up email provided to Performance
Engineering on November 21, 2019. Items identified in this correspondence included:
® Utility and access easements
• Roadway connectivity
® Parkland dedication
® Review and submittal of previously discussed documents (Annexation and Waiver)
The Applicant is requesting a variance to LMC 16.04.060.6.7 which states: "Right -of -Way and
Street and Road Developments. In all cases, the right-of-way must be provided when
developing the property. If the property is being developed on only one side of an existing or
proposed road or street and dedicated right-of-way or a road easement is required, the
property owner developing must secure the additional right-of-way or easement from the
adjacent property owner. If the additional required right-of-way or easements cannot be
secured, the developer must provide the full width of right-of-way on the subject property."
The Applicant is also requesting a variance to LMC 16.04.060.C.8 which states: "Right -of -Way
and Street Widths. Street right-of-way and surface widths for all roads, public or private,
including those located in the Laurel zoning jurisdiction with the exception of those zoned
Agricultural Open and Residential Suburban shall be provided as shown in Table 16.4.C.1
below."
3
The Applicant has provided a letter with details justifying the Variance requests addressing the
five (5) findings noted in LMC 16.11.010. These responses, as well as planning department
findings are presented below:
1) The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health safety, or
general welfare or injurious to other adjoining properties
o Applicant Response: Granting of the variance will have no detrimental effects to
the public health, safety, or general welfare or injurious to other adjoining
properties. Granting this variance will still provide more than the minimum
required ROW width for the projected road use along yard Office Road as
classified by the City of Laurel Long Range Transportation Plan.
o Planning Department Response: The Planning Department does not accept that
the roadway widths will not be detrimental to the general welfare of the City of
Laurel.
o Planning Department Findings: The standard of the Laurel Municipal Code for
Chapter 16.11.010.1 has not been met. The proposed width of Yard Office Road
and Perazzi Way will not provide adequate services or provide for the general
welfare of the city.
® The current Yard Office Road right-of-way is made up of approximately
fifty (50) feet of area dedicated to a drainage ditch. This area should not
be considered as viable for vehicular or pedestrian traffic.
® The eighty (80) feet of the Yard Office Road west of the Section line was
dedicated on Village Subdivision 1St Filing.
® Village Subdivision First Filing identifies these eighty (80) feet of right-of-
way as containing a drain ditch.
■ If the area currently containing a drainage ditch is planned as part of a
roadway, the applicant must prepare engineering and construction costs
as well as funding to cover the build out of this portion of right-of-way.
® City staff specified during the Pre -application period that a connection
between East 8th Street and Yard Office Road was necessary for the
cohesive growth of Laurel.
® The proposed subdivision contains 88 buildable lots. It is important to
ensure traffic coverage with an adequate ingress and egress point to Yard
Office Road.
• The proposed fifty-six (56) foot private road Perazzi Way is not sufficient
at meeting the needs of Laurel residents.
® Adequate traffic connection between East 8th Street and Yard Office Road
was specifically mentioned in the Subdivision pre -application meeting on
February 2, 2019 and the following email correspondence.
4
2) Because of the particular physical surroundings, shape, or topographical conditions of
the specific property involved, an undue hardship to the owner would result if the
strict letter of the regulations was enforced.
o Applicant Response: The 30 Feet of proposed ROW aligns with surrounding
property and satisfies the required ROW width outlined by City of Laurel
Subdivision Regulations while allowing for future development of Yard Office
Road that is consistent with long-range planning.
o Planning Department Response: The Planning Department does not accept this
reasoning for hardship due to topographic conditions.
o Planning Department Findings: The standard of the Laurel Municipal Code for
Chapter 16.11.010.2 has not been met. There are no topographic or physical
conditions present that create an undue hardship to meet roadway standards.
The following information supports this claim.
® There are no physical or topographic conditions which create an undue
burden on the applicant to dedicate the additional ten (10) feet of right-
of-way to meet the requirements stated by the city.
® The right of way directly north of the area designated as Yellowstone
County parkland makes up approximately 123 feet of right-of-way.
® This one -hundred -twenty-three (123) foot width was established when
High Point Subdivision provided forty (40) feet of dedicated right-of-way
west of the section line on its subdivision plat in 1970.
® The Planning Department and Public Works Department anticipate Yard
Office Road to act as a major transportation route for future
development on the East side of Laurel as the immediate area develops.
• It is important that the city obtain a consistent right-of-way width to
ensure that future roadway development and improvements have
uniform dimensions.
® The proposed thirty (30) feet of right-of-way is insufficient to align the
area of Yard Office Road along the proposed Goldberg Sporting Estates
with the right-of-way along High Point Subdivision to the north.
3) The variance will not result in an increase in taxpayer burden;
o Response: The result of granting the variance for providing 30 feet of ROW to
the west of the section line along Yard Office Road will have no effect on the
taxes of the proposed development or adjoining undeveloped land. Keeping the
30 -feet under private ownership will increase the tax base for the City and the
County providing benefit the taxpayer base.
o Planning Department Response: The Planning Department does not accept that
the variance would not result in an increase in taxpayer burden.
5
o Planning Department Findings: The standard of the Laurel Municipal Code for
Chapter 16.11.010.3 has not been met. The following information supports this
claim.
® Yard Office Road is expected to become a major transportation corridor
as properties on the East side of Laurel develop and annex into the city.
® The dedication of the additional ten (10) feet of right-of-way at the time
of subdivision is advantageous for the city of Laurel and its citizens.
® The purchase of this right-of-way at a later date would represent an
astronomically high price for the city and its residents if additional right
of way were needed to accommodate an increase in traffic in the future.
■ It was stated in correspondence between the contract planner and
engineer that this dedication of right-of-way would be taken care of at
the time of SIA and Subdivision. This correspondence is attached.
4) The variance will not in any manner place the subdivision in nonconformance with any
adopted zoning regulations or growth policy; and
o Response: The requested variance will not in any manner place the subdivision
in nonconformance with the adopted zoning regulations.
o Planning Department Response: The Planning Department does not accept the
stated reasoning that this variance will not place the subdivision in
nonconformance with the adopted zoning regulations or growth policy.
o Planning Department Findings: The standard of the Laurel Municipal Code for
Chapter 16.11.010.4 has not been met. The following information supports this
claim.
The updated 2020 Laurel Growth Management Policy which will be
officially approved in November 2020 highlights the need for consistent
roadway widths as a transportation system goal.
The current proposed thirty (30) feet of right-of-way dedication does not
align with the right-of-way directly north of the Yellowstone County Park.
Inclusion of the additional ten (10) feet of right-of-way will align with the
roadway adjacent to High Points Subdivision which was established in
1970.
5) The subdivider must prove that the alternative design is equally effective and the
objectives of the improvement are satisfied.
o Response: The proposed ROW dedication width not only aligns with the
surrounding ROW widths, but also provides more total width along Yard Office
Road than is necessary for the projected road classification of a collector road as
outlined in the City of Laurel Long Range Transportation Plan — 2014 and the
Required ROW as outlined in Table 16.4.C1 within section 16.04.060.C.8 of the
City of Laurel municipal code.
o Planning Department Response: The Planning Department does not accept that
the proposed design is equally effective as the requirements of the Laurel
Municipal Code.
o Planning Department Findings: The standards of the Laurel Municipal Code for
Chapter 16.11.010.5 have not been met. The following information supports this
claim.
m The email dated February 15, 2019 from Interim Planner Forrest
Sanderson to Scott Aspenlieder outlined requirements for platting and
design that followed from the Pre -Application meeting.
® This includes "Dedicate additional ROW for Yard Office (Where you can)
to the City of Laurel as Commercial Collector (80') ROW."
® The existing right-of-way East of the Section Line is made up of at least
forty (40) feet of area dedicated to a drainage ditch identified on the plat
for the Village Subdivision First Filing.
® This portion of right-of-way should only be considered as useable if the
developer is willing to prepare and execute the engineering and
construction of this portion of right of way.
The Applicant also provided Two (2) reasonings for the Variance request in addition to the
specific justifications to the Laurel Municipal Code,
The Developer is requesting to dedicate 30 feet of ROW from the section line along Yard Office
Road west toward the proposed subdivision in -lieu of a 40 -foot -wide ROW width. The variance
is requested for the following reasons:
1. A 30 -foot ROW dedication on the west side of the section line along Yard Office Road
aligns and is consistent with the existing ROW directly to the north of the proposed
subdivision.
2. The City of Laurel Long Range Transportation Plan — 2014 classifies Yard Office Road as a
collector, which by section 16.04.060.C.8, Table 16.4.C.1 "required Dedications and
Street Improvements for Subdivision" only requires an 80 -foot ROW. There is already 80
feet of ROW dedicated on the east side of the section line along Yard Office Road and
the additional 30 feet of ROW dedicated on the west side would give a total of 110 feet
of ROW which is more than required ROW for a collector road, it would even provide
more than Is necessary for a minor arterial road (100 ft) per Table 16.4.C.1 within
section 16.04.060.C.8
Planning Department Response to Point #1:
High Point Subdivision, which is directly north of the Yellowstone County Park, provided a total
of forty (40) feet of right-of-way west of the section line to Yard Office Road on its subdivision
plat which was created in March 1970. Consistent right-of-way widths are key to ensuring
traffic management. Providing this additional road dedication at this time is proper and
financially responsible for the City of Laurel. The cost to acquire these ten (10) feet of right-of-
way due to increased traffic flow at a later date would be a major financial burden for the city
and its taxpayers.
Planning Department Response to Point #2:
It is anticipated that Yard Office Road will be a major transportation route for future
development on the east side of Laurel. Approximately fifty (50) feet of the existing right-of-
way for Yard Office Road east of the section line is made up of a drainage ditch. This ditch and
right-of-way was identified on the plat of Village Subdivision First Filing. This portion of right-of-
way should not be considered viable for roadway development unless the developer is
prepared to finance and construct adequate infrastructure above the Ditch along its length of
the subdivision.
The property directly to the south of the proposed Goldberg Sporting Estates subdivision is
unplatted and outside of Laurel city limits. If this situation were to change, either through
subdivision or annexation, the City of Laurel would require the dedication of forty (40) feet of
right-of-way west of the Section line to provide consistent road widths from East Main Street to
the culvert of the Nutting Drain Ditch north of East Maryland Lane.
LMC 16.11.010 —Variances provides the review criteria for the Planning Board and Governing
Body to review, consider, and decide on variances. The text of this subchapter is provided
below:
The AGB may grant reasonable variances from only the design and improvement standards of
these regulations when strict compliance would result in undue hardship and the result would
not negatively affect public health and safety. The granting of a variance shall not have the
effect of nullifying the intent and purpose of these regulations. The AGB may not approve a
variance that would permit structures within the one hundred -year floodplain, as defined in
MCA § 76-5-101.
The planning board shall conduct a public hearing on any variance requested for all subdivisions
prior to taking action on the preliminary plat application.
A. Requesting a Variance. The subdivider shall include with the submission of the
preliminary plat a written statement describing the facts of hardship upon which the
request for the variance is based. Each requested variance shall be deemed a separate
application, for which a fee shall be required, to be processed concurrently with the
W
preliminary plat. Information addressing each of the following findings shall accompany
the application to be approved by the AGB. The latter shall not approve variances unless
the subdivider has demonstrated that the request satisfies the following findings:
1. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety,
or general welfare or injurious to other adjoining properties;
2. Because of the particular physical surroundings, shape, or topographical
conditions of the specific property involved, an undue hardship to the owner
would result if the strict letter of the regulation was enforced;
3. The variance will not result in an increase in taxpayer burden;
4. The variance will not in any manner place the subdivision in nonconformance
with any adopted zoning regulations or growth policy; and
5. The subdivider must prove that the alternative design is equally effective and the
objectives of the improvements are satisfied.
B. In granting variances, the AGB may require conditions of approval that will, in their
judgment, secure the objectives of these regulations.
C. When any such variance is granted, the motion of approval of the proposed subdivision
shall contain a statement describing the variance and the facts and conditions upon
which the issuance of the variance is based.
D. An application for a variance is not necessary where planned neighborhood
developments are proposed, as modifications to the standards and requirements of
these Regulations may be approved by the AGB.
The Planning Director recommends the Planning Board deny variance request 2 and 3 with the
following conditions.
Set the waiting period for Preliminary Plat resubmittal to 3 months
The applicant provide an updated redesign of the subdivision to the City prior to
resubmittal
3. Provide for curb, gutter, sidewalk, and stormwater drainage on designs
1
1. Variance Request Letter 2 and 3
2. List of Adjacent Property Owners from Parcels Requesting Variance
3. Preliminary Plat for Goldberg Sporting Estates Subdivision
4. Pre -application meeting summary letter dated February 7, 2019
5. Annexation Agreement — Major Components email sent to Performance Engineering on
February 15, 2019.
6. Preliminary Plat Pre -Submittal comments email sent to Performance Engineering on
October 30, 2019.
7. Preliminary Plat Meeting Notes 11.08.19 comments follow-up email provided to
Performance Engineering on November 21, 2019.
17