Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-17-1995 DRC DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE TUESDAY, OCTOBER 17,1995 CITY COMMISSION ROOM, CITY HALL, 411 EAST MAIN 10:00 A.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chuck Winn, Fire Marshal; Richard Mabee, Building Official; Phill Forbes, Public Service Director; Larry Woodward, Assistant Water/Sewer Superintendent; Dave Skelton, Senior Planner, Chairperson; Craig Brawner, City Engineer; John Paysek, Project Engineer; Roger Sicz, Street/Sanitation Superintendent STAFF PRESENT; Dean Patterson, Assistant Planner/Urban Designer; Carol Schott, Recording Secretary VISITORS PRESENT: Jerry Gaston, Rex Easton, Keith Beldon, Mark Iwaniak A. SECOND WEEK REVIEW 1. Bozeman Ford MiSP/COA #Z-95136 - (Patterson) 1804 W. Babcock - A Minor Site Plan and Certificate of Appropriateness Application for construction of a 54' X 18' auto storage building and related site improvements. Planner Dean Patterson reviewed the project. He discussed the location, zoning, and parking. Planner Patterson reviewed the issues from the last meeting-SID waiver, fire lane to the rear of the lot, parked cars out of side yard setbacks, extra uses besides storage for the small structure, and landscaping. He stated that the property owner said the storage structure will be used mostly for parts and maybe for one or two cars. No repairs are done there. Usually a car is stored there until all necessary parts have accumulated, then it is moved into the shop. Planner Patterson also reported that the light posts at the rear will have the fixtures changed to prevent over-illumination in the residential area. The owner plans to spruce up the existing front of the lot. Mr. Sicz asked about drainage off the lot. Planner Patterson stated that the engineer would address the drainage issue. The increased area of paving will drain towards the northwest corner, the same as the existing pavement drains. The code calls for performance points, this lot calls for 23 points of landscaping. Planner Skelton asked if there will be some screening from residential lots on the rear of the property. Planner Patterson explained the existing screening and landscaping. Mr. Gaston asked if Langohr's was required to put in curbs, gutters, and sidewalks. Planner Skelton stated that they were waived. Mr. Woodward asked if sewer, water and sidewalks were to be installed. Mr. Gaston stated that they may install on-site water in the storage structure, however, they don't want any utilities in it. Mr. Sicz stated that none of them were in the plan. Mr. Gaston replied that right now drainage is into the street. Mr. Paysek expressed concern about the edge of the pavement and the eventual putting in of curbs, gutters, and sidewalks. Mr. Gaston stated if and when curbs, gutters, and sidewalks are required to be installed, he'll do 1 something about them. Mr. Sicz had a concern about oil leakage from vehicles in the storage structure. Mr. Gaston replied that vehicles have been stored in the old building for several years and haven't proven to be a problem. Planner Skelton asked where the new pavement will be. Planner Patterson explained the pavement would reach from the storage structure to the existing pavement. Planner Skelton asked if the owner was requesting a deviation for encroaching into the sideyard setback. He suggested that he, Planner Patterson, and Mr. Gaston get together following this meeting to share their concerns. They need to confirm the side yard setbacks. Mr. Gaston stated that as to the fire emergency lane requirement, there will always be a lane open as they need to get cars into and out of the storage structure every day. There followed a discussion about the possibility of the signalization of West Babcock and 19th. Mr. Sicz stated that signalization was not in the plans as of now. Planner Skelton asked if the owner would have problems with signalization if required in the future. Mr. Gaston replied probably not, however he questioned the need for two signals so closely located. Planner Skelton summarized by stating that they may need waivers for the sidewalk and possibly for signalization. The decision will be made next week. This project will also go to DRB next week. 2 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE TUESDAY, OCTOBER 17,1995 CITY COMMISSION ROOM, CITY HALL, 411 EAST MAIN 10:00 A.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chuck Winn, Fire Marshal; Richard Mabee, Building Official; Phill Forbes, Public Service Director; Larry Woodward, Assistant Water/Sewer Superintendent; Dave Skelton, Senior Planner, Chairperson; Craig Brawner, City Engineer; John Paysek, Project Engineer; Roger Sicz, Street/Sanitation Superintendent STAFF PRESENT; Dean Patterson, Assistant Planner/Urban Designer; Carol Schott, Recording Secretary VISITORS PRESENT: Jerry Gaston, Rex Easton, Keith Beldon, Mark Iwaniak B. FINAL OF TWO WEEK REVIEWS 1. MSU Foundation ZMA #Z-95130 - (Skelton) 2750 W. College - A Zone Map Amendment Application to change the zoning designation on a 3.9 acre tract from "PLI" to "BP". Planner Dave Skelton reviewed the project. If it does develop, the Committee will write conditions or comments. Mr. Paysek gave written recommendations as follows: (1) The intersection of West College Street and West Main Street is of concern. The ingress/egress driveway must be located far enough east of the intersection to avoid conflict with westbound traffic stacked up at the signal. (2) The developer is prohibited from disrupting the new pavement. (3) Water and sewer utilities must have adequate capacity for the full development. (4) The developer will be required to install curbing, gutter, and sidewalk improvements on the south side of West College Street as well as necessary improvements along U.S. Highway 191. (5) There has been discussion regarding realigning West College Street through a residential neighborhood. Planner Skelton stated that it would be up to the applicant to overcome the hurdles stated in Mr. Paysek's #2 concern. He stated that the purpose of the two two-week reviews is to red flag concerns so that the application can progress in a more timely manner. The impact on the West College Street and West Main Street intersection will be a problem. Mr. Forbes stated that Mr. Springer is meeting with MDOT about the intersection problem and it will come before the Transportation Committee tomorrow. Planner Skelton stated that the tentative plan for the intersection design will have to be resolved. Mr. Sicz stated that the other day traffic was held up 10 minutes while waiting for 5 cars to turn into the bank. Mr. Skelton restated that the proper access needed to be developed. He has met with the potential developer of lot 1 and Staff will support a Zone Map Amendment. 3 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE TUESDAY, OCTOBER 17,1995 CITY COMMISSION ROOM, CITY HALL, 411 EAST MAIN 10:00 A.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chuck Winn, Fire Marshal; Richard Mabee, Building Official; Phill Forbes, Public Service Director; Larry Woodward, Assistant Water/Sewer Superintendent; Dave Skelton, Senior Planner, Chairperson; Craig Brawner, City Engineer; John Paysek, Project Engineer; Roger Sicz, Street/Sanitation Superintendent STAFF PRESENT; Dean Patterson, Assistant Planner/Urban Designer; Carol Schott, Recording Secretary VISITORS PRESENT: Jerry Gaston, Rex Easton, Keith Beldon, Mark Iwaniak B. FINAL OF TWO WEEK REVIEWS 2. Bridger Creek, 2 & 3 MaSub Pre-application #P-9542 - (Skelton) 2700 Block of McIlhattan - A Major Subdivision Pre-application Plan for Phase 2 (43 single family lots & one townhouse lot) & Phase 3 (47 lots). Planner Skelton reviewed the pre-application. He presented information from the Park/Rec Board. Mr. Sicz stated that he was still convinced that there must be a buffer of 100' to 150' between the landfill and housing. He stated that there were lots of reasons-two are (1) odor and (2) wind blown paper. The buffer must be there. Mr. Paysek asked if there were any State or BPA restrictions. Mr. Sicz stated no, however, the potential for problems was still there. The City is putting in chain link fences and planting trees to help contain waste products. He'd like to see one long park along the landfill. Planner Skelton stated that the Rec/Parks Board would rather have trails than one long park. Mr. Sicz stated that there is a retention pond right next to the fence. Planner Skelton stated that when someone buys a parcel, they will know the landfill is there. Mr. Sicz stated that was not necessarily so and he foresees problems. Mr. Forbes stated that the City will be done with the landfill in the near future. Mr. Sicz replied that it would be ten or fifteen years down the road. He asked why the developers chose to plat that end of the landfill. Mr. Beldon stated that the landfill wasn't visible from the west end. Mr. Sicz drew a pen map showing where the new retention cell is located. He stated that all traffic going into the landfill will be visible from the west end. The noise, smell, and flying paper will be a problem. There are refuse trucks in and out of the landfill several times each day. Mr. Skelton stated concerns written to him by Mr. Shields, including the applicant had to be sure to meet the water requirements. Mr. Woodward stated that the water mains would have to be moved on the Site Plan. He stated that Mr. Paysek spoke to the water concerns in his memo also. 4 Planner Skelton asked if they had looked into dealing with road shoulders, should the applicant get input from Mr. Gianfrancisco. There could be a need for a trail along a paved shoulder. Mr. Brawner stated that the road width varies from 24' to 28'. Mr. Beldon stated that they tried to build 27' roadways where ever possible. Some places didn't allow for that or for shoulders. Mr. Paysek asked what the county's side slope is. Mr. Sicz didn't know. Mr. Paysek asked if the side slope was achievable in this area. Mr. Sicz stated that there may need to be a guardrail next to the creek. Mr. Beldon stated that they have discussed a guardrail. Mr. Brawner recommended that there be a recreational bicycle route system in the area. For that there should be at least a 14' allowance. The extension of McIlhattan should have at least a 28' road width. Mr. Paysek asked if the shoulders should be 2'. Mr. Beldon stated that was the County standards. Mr. Skelton asked if the secondary access to Phase 2 was of any concern. Mr. Paysek stated that condition #4 should follow our guidelines. Mr. Brawner asked if there are topographical features that would prevent the second access-that's what the applicant wants to know. Code says there may be a secondary access OR an emergency access. Mr. Beldon asked what would the Planning Office like to see in the preliminary application. Planner Skelton reviewed the requirements. Mr. Beldon stated that he thought the problem of the second access was best resolved in this Committee rather than with the City Commissioners. He stated that the wet lands are part of the drainage plan. Mr. Brawner stated that the emergency access parallels primary access. He asked if a 20' access would do. Mr. Winn stated that 20' is the minimum. Mr. Sicz asked how this project is different than Greenway. It looks the same. Mr. Brawner stated that it is. Mr. Paysek stated in his memo that one of his concerns is the two curves adjacent to Lots 15 and 18, respectively, appear to be less than the 150 foot minimum radius curve allowed for a minor street. Mr. Beldon stated one option is to put in a cul-de-sac. Their first choice is to put in 150-foot radius curves. Mr. Sicz stated parking shouldn't be a problem as the residents should be parking in private driveways, so drifting and snow removal should be no problem. Planner Skelton stated that he is not going to recommend any parking restrictions on the condos and there is only one townhouse proposed. He went over Mr. McNeill's written recommendations, which were: (1) an overall network of trails, (2) dedicated trails system rather than dedicated parks, and (3) the park in Phase 3 is inaccessible to the public. Planner Skelton stated that these recommendations will probably become part of the recommendations to the DRC from the Staff. Mr. Forbes asked if the monitoring well on Lot 32 could be relocated. In answer to a question 5 about an easement for off-road drainage via cross-culverts, Mr. Brawner stated that he is real skeptical of drainage ways through an owner's property. The owner tends to think he can do whatever he wants with the area - rock gardens, landscaping, etc. Mr. Beldon explained how lot sizes were changed to meet concerns about drainage. Planner Skelton asked if a building envelop was a possibility. Mr. Brawner stated that those envelopes don't always work. Mr. Easton asked if culverts would be better. Mr. Brawner stated yes they would. They would be such that property owners wouldn't dig up and redesign. Mr. Sicz stated that drainage from Story Mill Road comes into that area, however, that shouldn't be a problem as long as vegetation is maintained. Mr. Beldon asked if there were any other comments or questions on the buffer. Mr. Forbes stated that he sees Mr. Sicz's reasoning. Mr. Easton stated that they looked at the visibility of the landfill area. The rise of land goes up. He explained what was proposed for that area. He noted that when the landfill is closed, the closure will be 15' above ground. Mr. Forbes stated that the park should be accessible from the other side of the creek. Mr. Sicz noted that the area would be great for cross country skiing. Mr. Easton agreed. Planner Skelton suggested that they present the idea to the Rec/Park Board. Mr. Easton explained his idea for winter use of the area across the creek. Mr. Forbes asked if 100' does anything for people who don't like dust, noise, or odor. Mr. Sicz stated noted that 100' may not seem like much, but the City may need the area for future gas control wells. Mr. Brawner stated that part of the problem is no buffering has been allowed for monitoring wells due to property boundaries. Mr. Sicz stated that it would be nice to have junipers or some other fast growing trees in that area. Planner Skelton asked if park plans meet the requirements. Mr. Beldon stated that in fact they exceed the requirements. Mr. Sicz added that stop signs should go up along Story Mill Road intersections. There was discussion as to how to eliminate the park land in Phase 2 and provide an easement to the park land in Phase 3. Planner gave recommendations for presenting ideas to the Park/Rec Board. Mr. Winn stated that the emergency access would be for the property owners as their equipment wouldn't negotiate the curve below there. 6