Loading...
11-05-84 Annexation CommitteeSEWER & WATER AND ANNEXATION COMMITTEE MEETINGS 3:30 P. M. MONDAY CONFERENCE ROOM NOVEMBER 5, 1984 . Present: Mayor McDowell; Councilmen Manning, Nystul, Ruiz, Springer, Grainger, Palmer, Saverud and Schindler; City Attorney Neier; DPW Hammer; Building Official Peterson; Surveyor Zavodny; Garman Meadows and Jay Billmayer. Subject: Hawthorn West Chapman Manning explained that in the absence of City Attorney Neier, the Council approved the preliminary plat for Hawthorn West Resubdivision of Lot 6, Ports, Villa Subdivision #3 by motion rather than by resolution. Manning stated that he would correctly state it in resolution form at tonights regular meeting. Billmayer, Project Engineer, for Hawthorn West stated that they were there to request a building permit for the foundation only. They had waited 4z weeks for a storm sewer survey and this has put them behind schedule and the building season is near an end. The storm drain line has been installed, but is about two feet lower than the City?s. They will try to make it match. They need a statement from the City that utilities will be furnished and a statement from Montana Health Department on sewer and water. There is also a need for a Developers Extension Agreement and a security bond. - Councilman Palmer moved to recommend to the Council that a building permit for the foundation be issued by the Building Department. Seconded by Councilman Springer. Passed unanimously. Subject: BMB Annexation Councilman Nystul explained that there is a problem with water service for this annexation. There is a galvanized line on 5th Avenue East which provides water for some residences and businesses. This is not enough to furnish water and fire protection for the BMB annexation. Cost would be approximately $7500.00 to extend a water line on 3rd Avenue East to the area. Nystul suggested that the problem be researched and submitted to the PSC. Old lines would be abandoned and users forced onto the new line. The sewer line runs right in front and there is no problem. Councilman Manning suggested that instead of holding up the annexation, the City provide temporary water and keep things moving. After discussion, Councilman Palmer moved that we hold the annexation file open for one year and work on the water line, DPW Hammer to direct a route. Seconded by Councilman Springer. Passed unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 4:10 P. M. ti ANNEXATION COMMITTEE MEETING 8:30 P. M. MONDAY COUNCIL CHAMBERS NOVEMBER 5, 1984 Present: Mayor McDowell; Councilmen Ruiz, Nystul, Manning, Palmer, Schindler, Springer, Saverad and Grainger; Attorney William Astle and residents of Meridian and Storms Meridian Additions. Chairman Manning stated that since the Council has just rejected a land -use change for Meridian Addition, we have to start over. There have been several suggestions and reasons for the rejecting and Manning asked to hear these. Attorney Astle was asked if it was true that his clients objected to any kind of industrial or commercial zoning in Meridian Addition. Astle replied that this is true. However, they are willing to accept the non-confomming uses that are there and whicWerrmitted by variances, most of them years ago. Astle answered Council- man Springer's question about possible lawsuits by his clients by saying that what he said and believes is that there will probably be a lawsuit from one side or the other, depending upon the action taken by the Council. Councilman Ruiz stated that perhaps we can look at what FRDO has recommended and modify it. Make the north end commercial, going to industrial to Second -Street and leaving all the south side residential. Councilman Nystul stated he thinks our decision should be based on the history of the area. The original zoning of this area was residential, the Comprehensive Plan recognizes this area as residential and variances have been granted to the resid- ential that exist there. But, it is grossly unfair and inequitable to zone this residential with the non -conforming uses that exist in our zoning ordinance. For example, if we made a decision for residential, then Larry Lee's building, the old dairy on the corner, is now 180 days past the date and could not be used again as commercial. Provisions in the ordinance states that if a fire or similar loss of more than 50% takes place they have to cease. This is not equitable to grant the variances that exist there and then put them under such a burden. Nystul continued, "I see the solution as a combination of two things - 1) a motion or direction to see that the non -conforming use is revised so that it is more acceptable and less damaging to the property that is there and 2) a draft of a resolution to zone it residential of some nature that is compatible with what it has been operating under. I think there should be some sort of compromise, but I do not think that industrial is a fair adjustment to the uses that are there for either side. We need to make some decision soon - we cannot kick this around any longer." Councilman Manning asked Nystul if he would favor revising the non -conforming use city-wide and Nystul answered that this would be the only fair thing to do. Councilman Palmer stated that presently the Master Plan shows all this area as being residential so I propose that we do not need a change in the Master Plan. Secondly, I do not believe that Meridian Road is capable of handling any more traffic and if we put more businesses there we are going to be looking at more traffic and there is no way to solve the Meridian Road problem unless you drive over someone's front porch. There is lots of talk about a road on BNRR property on the other side and at such time and if this happens we may be able to change. You can go down Center Street to Meridian and wait and wait. We do not need to encourage anymore traffic, especially when there is a school across the street. We need to change the non -conforming uses - that is the reason people are having such a problem - I believe the purpose of plan- ning is to give direction to growth and not serve as a penalty - we sit here and • Page 2 ANNEXATION COMMITTEE MEETING (continued) 11/5/84 say "you cannot do this" instead of changing the rules and I do not think that is what planning is for. We need a pre-existing non-confo2M ng use and a present non- conforming use - you are talking two completely different things. We do not need a Master Plan change - we do not need a zone change - we need an R5 zone - this serves for transit people - keeps a pretty good value and for the businesses that are there we need a pre-existing non -conforming plan. Councilman Schindler stated that he agrees with Councilmen Nystul and Palmer. Putting an industrial zone against residential without a buffer is criminal. We need not change the Comprehensive Plan - I agree with the RA5 zone - Also, agree with changing the non -conforming use section of the zoning ordinance. Some parts should be thrown out, because they are too restrictive. The traffic is too heavy already and espec- ially because of the school. Recommendation is to change the non -conforming use in the ordinance. Councilman Springer stated that he voted no because of the residential hump in this proposal. I do not see any problem with commercial along Meridian and do not see the traffic problem as Councilman Palmer sees it. I would have no problem with this proposal if Second Street was used as a line of demarcation. Recommendation is to make Lots 4 through 15 south of Second Street residential. North could be zoned industrial and commercial. Councilman Saverud stated that his first concern about voting tonight is that we do not know the precise boundaries. I would like to see the Council vote on a policy . decision prior to any Master Plan change, that defines for us how we are going to look at that Plan. It may not be a major item, but it is an important one. I do not like the hump either. The most basic way to zone is to divide at a boundary - the railroad is a boundary and there are other things that could be used as boundaries that make more sense than the ones proposed. We are back to the old basic ax, that everytime we as a committee or as a Council have been presented with an idea we have taken it to our professional staff and they have justified it. I do not think that is a sign of terribly good planning. There has not been very good direction from our paid professionals. I like what Councilman Palmer says, but how could we legit- imize our structural ordinance to protect what is already there and not simply wipe them away? City Attorney Neier replied that without amending Section 7.31 and Section 5.6, massively amending, or writing a new ordinance, I do not think they are capable of being rehabilitated. I have not looked into writing a non -conforming statute that would do what Councilman Palmer recommended - let them keep what they have as well as zone property R5. It may be possible to do that, however it might open up the uses beyond what the Council enacted in those two sections. You might over a period of time eliminate those uses. The policy of the Council when the zoning ordinance was written was evidently to give an extension of time, like 90 days and 180 days. A new ordinance as suggested would have to be very liberally written, like time restraints of 5 years, which would be virtually meaningless. So you have to attempt to write an ordinance without limitations. It would have to be written to allow the old uses in Meridian, but prevent the same use from sneaking into Northridge, for instance. Councilman Grainger stated that if we leave the zoning as it is and worked on the non -conforming uses, it would not really be that bad. Leave as residential, but • let the businesses that are there or that anticipated being there do what they are doing or were going to do. Question as to what would happen to the old dairy building. It was started before there was ever a zone. It was not even in the City. Page 3 ANNEXATION COMMITTEE (continued) 11/5/84 • Mr. Houston explained that it started as a milk processing plant, then operated as a store, then as a bicycle repair and sales, and then to a body shop. All these uses were grandfathered in and required no variance. When First Federal foreclosed on the body shop, then that particular use of the building was stopped. Mr. Houston and Councilman Grainger agreed that if the wording was right and would only apply to this area or an area with a similar problem, it would work. Councilman Palmer moved to keep the area residential and address the non -conforming use provision in the zoning ordinance. Seconded by Councilman Springer. Carried. Meeting adjourned at 9:40 P. M. • •