Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-06-1996 DRC DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE TUESDAY, AUGUST 6, 1996 CITY COMMISSION ROOM, CITY HALL, 411 EAST MAIN 10:00 A.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Al Scholes, John McNeil, Karen Finke, Larry Woodward, Neil Poulsen, Dave Skelton STAFF PRESENT: Debbie Arkell, Carol Schott VISITORS PRESENT: Doug Smith, Joan Rudberg, Dennis Foreman, Charles Swart, Lowell Springer Chairperson Dave Skelton called the meeting to order. A. SECOND WEEK REVIEW 1. Diamond Estates MaSub P-9635 - (Saunders) 4521 Durston Road - A Major Subdivision Application to subdivide the southern portion of the parcel, 5.779 acres, into 9 lots for single family development and the remaining northern portion, 14.178 acres, will be considered Lot 5 of Block 1. Chairperson Skelton introduced the project. Doug Smith joined the DRC. Assistant Planning Director Debbie Arkell presented the project. She noted that the applicant is asking for a waiver for secondary access in the first phase, deadend water main policy, access to park, location of the park, and review of concept plan. Planner Arkell continued that Planner Saunders has developed a preliminary plan for streets on the northside of Durston Road in County Zoning District #1. She discussed the water main needs for duplexes and townhouses. Chairperson Skelton reiterated that if Mr. Smith is even considering putting in townhouses, now is the time as it will be more difficult to put them in after the street is paved due to the street cut moratorium. He also inquired if there could be a problem with the angle access from Meagher to Durston. Planner Arkell noted that last week Mr. McNeil of the Park's Department had commented that he'd like to see the ditch abandoned. Discussion ensued on the abandonment. Mr. McNeil requested that it either be abandoned or the diversion point moved. Mr. Smith commented that he is the only user of this ditch, and it could be abandoned or diverted. Planner Arkell read Planner Saunder's recommendation for moving the park due to the single ownership of adjoining land on the opposite corner and the possibility for a larger park if and when the adjoining property owner develops her parcel. Mr. Smith noted that the park was located for the neighbor's, Mrs. Swenson's, benefit. Planner Arkell reviewed Engineering's concern from last week and discussed cross streets. Chairperson Skelton asked that written comments be given to Planner Saunders next week for 1 his report to the Planning Board. Mr. Smith asked about the parkland and the availability of it for farming. He continued that he doesn't want a weed patch there and wants to farm it or plant grass on it. It was noted a lease with the City may be possible. Chairperson Skelton asked Mr. McNeil if the park at one end of a linear lot is possible. Mr. McNeil noted that ideally a park should be located in the center of a development, which allows all home owners access. However, in this case, the proposed park's location allows for the park to grow as development in the area continues. 2 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE TUESDAY, AUGUST 6, 1996 CITY COMMISSION ROOM, CITY HALL, 411 EAST MAIN 10:00 A.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Al Scholes, John McNeil, Karen Finke, Larry Woodward, Neil Poulsen, Dave Skelton STAFF PRESENT: Debbie Arkell, Carol Schott VISITORS PRESENT: Doug Smith, Joan Rudberg, Dennis Foreman, Charles Swart, Lowell Springer B. INITIAL WEEK REVIEWS 1. Woodhull MaSub Preliminary Plat P-9639 - (Arkell) 1915 West College - A Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat Application to subdivide 1.109 acres into 13 lots. (First week of a 2 week review) Chairperson Skelton introduced the project. Assistant Planning Director Debbie Arkell introduced Charles Swart to the Committee. She explained the location of the property and stated the owners are proposing to subdivide one lot into two. She continued that sewer services are close by in Cowdrey's property and water service is available on South 20th. Lot 2 will not be developed at this time. The applicant is proposing not to extend sewer to Lot 2. Public Service Director Phill Forbes stated that he could not support that proposal, however, it will be up to the City Commission to decide whether to allow it or not. Water Superintendent Woodward discussed the main sizes. He asked if there are water stubs already in existence. Planner Arkell stated that she didn't know. Chairperson Skelton asked if there will be a need for an extension of time to act upon this application. Planner Arkell noted that she will just squeak it in on the 34th day to City Commission, so an extension will not be needed. 3 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE TUESDAY, AUGUST 6, 1996 CITY COMMISSION ROOM, CITY HALL, 411 EAST MAIN 10:00 A.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Al Scholes, John McNeil, Karen Finke, Larry Woodward, Neil Poulsen, Dave Skelton STAFF PRESENT: Debbie Arkell, Carol Schott VISITORS PRESENT: Doug Smith, Joan Rudberg, Dennis Foreman, Charles Swart, Lowell Springer B. INITIAL WEEK REVIEWS 2. Tanner's Way MaSub Preapplication P-9640 - (Saunders) 2605 West Villard - A Major Subdivision Preapplication application to subdivide 1.857 acres into 10+ lots. (First week of a 2 week review) Chairperson Skelton explained the project. He noted that annexation has been approved, however, Mr. Horan has to complete the annexation process. The project has been approved for rezoning. Lowell Springer noted that the only change since the January meeting is the slight movement of some of the lot lines. Chairperson Skelton went over the issues identified by Staff for discussion by the DRC (entire list of issues on file at the Planning Office). He explained that the entire property being subdivided has to be shown. He noted that the 30' right-of-way is substandard and will only provide for the public utilities. Chairperson Skelton asked Mr. Springer to explain the sidewalk's location. Mr. Springer noted that it will be back from the street with a boulevard between it and the street. He also noted that the building will be 14' from the lot line. Chairperson Skelton asked Ms. Finke about parking and street standards. He also noted that the setback for the garage isn't enough. Chairperson Skelton continued by suggesting a zoning PUD for this development. He also suggested that Ms. Finke, Mr. Micholilo Mr. Springer, and himself meet next Thursday morning to discuss the application. Discussion ensued on streets and parking, curb and gutter, and moving the garage. Planner Arkell noted that the Yellowstone Peaks project needs to be reviewed due to its adjacency. Ms. Finke noted that detention/retention has to be in common ownership. Discussion ensued on retention/detention. 4 Mr. Springer noted that the applicant was going to request R-3A zoning, but decided to go with R-2A due to the makeup of the rest of the neighborhood. Chairperson Skelton noted that the building envelopes are too large. He continued that zero lot lines are not allowed in an R-2A zoning. He commented that zoning wouldn't blend with the rest of the neighborhood. Discussion ensued on the dedicated park land. Chairperson Skelton noted that in prior discussions, Tanner's Way was to be moved to the north. Mr. Springer stated that because of the setback requirements, the area remaining would be too small for park land, open space or private park. Mr. Woodward noted that the water main is located on the wrong side of the street on the Site Plan. Chairperson Skelton commented that the water will have to be looped. Mr. Woodward also noted that the manhole won't work as shown. He continued that the fire hydrant may have to be moved. Mr. Springer inquired if he can switch sides with the water and sewer. Mr. Woodward noted that he could as they will have to cross somewhere anyway. Mr. Springer summarized his application noting that he will not ask for the garages to be moved forward. Chairperson Skelton noted that they can ask for anything. He continued that the property is being maximized too far. He suggested moving the park to one of the middle lots and build on the land being purchased. Chairperson Skelton noted that the private street will have to be dealt with. Mr. Springer noted that he can work with the streets. Chairperson Skelton also noted that the building envelopes may be a problem. Ms. Finke noted that she nor Mr. Woodward will be doing an in depth review at this time. Discussion ensued on density. Chairperson Skelton noted that comments will be put into letter form and sent to Mr. Springer and Mr. Horan. He suggested that Mr. Springer use a PUD Concept Plan. Mr. Springer discussed different building possibilities. Chairperson Skelton suggested that the street be on one side and the houses on the other side. He noted that the applicant is asking for too much flexibility. Mr. Springer noted that the negative spaces created by subdivisions are difficult to build out and develop. Chairperson Skelton and Mr. Springer discussed the amount of flexibility necessary to develop this site. Chairperson Skelton noted that the park land needs to be recalculated. He also noted that the dedicated park land is to be 30% of all non-dedicated land, including the private street. Mr. Springer inquired if the group had a choice of how to develop this property, how would they do it. Mr. Forbes noted that it is not the function of the DRC to design the project. Mr. Woodward inquired what would happen if they didn't have to loop the water. He suggested moving the road to one side, making the narrow space a dedicated park, and build on the wider side. He noted that would allow a cul-de-sac and a 60' street. 5 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE TUESDAY, AUGUST 6, 1996 CITY COMMISSION ROOM, CITY HALL, 411 EAST MAIN 10:00 A.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Al Scholes, John McNeil, Karen Finke, Larry Woodward, Neil Poulsen, Dave Skelton STAFF PRESENT: Debbie Arkell, Carol Schott VISITORS PRESENT: Doug Smith, Joan Rudberg, Dennis Foreman, Charles Swart, Lowell Springer C. DISCUSSION ITEM 1. Carson Place Pre-application Chairperson Skelton stated that the pre-application for this subdivision has come in. He will hand deliver to all as there will be only next week for review comments. 2. Grading Policy Neil Poulsen noted that there is no grading ordinance in Bozeman's Codes. Discussion ensued on whether or not one is needed and the reasons one might be needed. Discussion ensued on who will be impacted, who adopts the ordinance, who enforces it. Planning Director Epple and Mr. Poulsen noted that the UBC has a fee schedule all laid out and the Building Department enforces it. Mr. Poulsen inquired as to when the developer/builder would be allowed to do the grading from a zoning point of view. Planning Director Epple explained that the definition for development includes grading. Mr. Poulsen noted two problems - (1) How will the UBC grading policy link to the zoning ordinance, and (2) When a project gets to 5000 cubic yards, then whose project is it? Mr. Poulsen noted there is a problem now with people doing grading before coming in for a building permit. He continued that the minimal grading ordinance in place now doesn't address grading that is extensive or that has been done improperly. Planning Director Epple noted that the question is whether the current ordinance is adequate. If so, then nothing needs to be done. The problem is with the large amounts of fill being done with no control over the size, type of material, compaction, etc. Discussion ensued on problems associated with the absence of an extensive grading ordinance and the conflicting sections of the Code pertaining to excavation, grading, etc. Chairperson Skelton suggested adding the UBC requirements to final site plan approval. He 6 noted care would have to be taken to not contradict other sections of the Code. Mr. Poulsen noted that the grading problems are most common in commercial and high density residential projects. Planning Director Epple added that fill sites are also a problem as they aren't going through site plan review. Mr. Brawner noted that site plan review would be beneficial for keeping track of fill sites. Mr. Poulsen noted that single family projects probably wouldn't be a problem. It is multi- family units and commercial projects that may not be on buildable sites. Is the process we have now adequate to handle a commercial or multi-family structure on a fill site? Is there an adequate opportunity to address the concerns of each department? Planning Director Epple asked if DRC wants to require site plan review for any fill site. Mr. Poulsen noted excavations should also require one. Ms. Finke noted that this is an opportunity to unify the Code in various sections. The group decided a unified approach to regulating excavation and grading would be preferable, and agreed to discuss this item again in 3 to 4 weeks. Mr. Scholes moved, Ms. Finke seconded, that the meeting be adjourned. Motion carried unanimously by voice vote. 7