Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-24-1995 DRC DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE TUESDAY, OCTOBER 24, 1995 CITY COMMISSION ROOM, CITY HALL, 411 EAST MAIN 10:00 A.M. MEMBERS PRESENT Chuck Winn, Fire Marshal, Vice Chairperson Richard Mabee, Building Official Larry Woodward, Assistant Water/Sewer Superintendent John Paysek, Project Engineer Debbie Arkell, Assistant Planning Director STAFF PRESENT Dean Patterson Carol Schott VISITORS PRESENT Jerry Gaston-Gaston Engineering Randy Johnson Vice-Chairperson Winn called the meeting to order at 10:10 A.M. A. FINAL 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, increase paving, and related site improvements. Planner Patterson reviewed the project. Additional comments included that the project is opposite the Bozeman Ford dealership. Several years ago, the applicant paved the area without a permit. He then applied for a variance from code requirements. The Board of Adjustments granted the variances with several conditions. Some of the conditions and parts of the original proposed plan still have not been met. Based upon a review of the zone code and the variance file by Planner Patterson, the variance conditions and new conditions already agreed to must be met. Such conditions include the elimination of head- in and angle parking, landscaping, removing paving from within the front yard setback, and changing the lighting in the rear. Chairperson Winn asked Engineer Paysek to go over his conditions. Mr. Paysek stated that condition #4 -- "Applicant shall provide and file with the County Clerk and 1 Recorder's Office executed waivers of right to protest creation of SID's for the following: (a) Street Improvements to Babcock Street (from 11th to 19th), including paving curb/gutter, sidewalk and storm drainage. (b) Signalization at Babcock/11th and Babcock/19th" -- was very important. He also indicated that #5 and#6 are important and must be met. #5 -- "The FSP shall demonstrate the following: (a) Adequate site drainage (including existing and proposed contours, flow directional aerials, and sufficient spot elevations along drainage courses); (b) Adequate drainage to an acceptable discharge device (i.e., drainage swale, storm drain inlet, etc.); (c) Storm water discharge destination (i.e., ditch basin, etc). If the site design discloses any adverse impact to off-site properties, necessary design alterations and/or drainage conveyance devices and storm water easements must be provided; The applicant is encouraged to drain site runoff through vegetated areas along Babcock to achieve some level of storm water quality control." #6 -- "In the event the applicant proposes he ditch owner for approvaltocent discharge, the into applicant shall obtain written permission said ditch. He stated that condition #11 from the DRC Staff Conditions -- "The applicant must apply for and obtain a Building Permit prior to commencing work, and within one year of Final Site Plan approval. Building Permits will not be issued be met it the Final Site Plan is approved" -- is also an important condition that The discussion continued with Mr. Mabee stating that the building must built on a foundation. Mr. Woodward stated that he had no comment on the project as long as there were no plans for sewer or water inside the building. Mr. Gaston stated that if there is water at the existing shed, they will irrigate from that source. Planner Arkell asked if there are any proposed storm drainage infrastructure improvements located in the public right-of- way planned. Mr.Paysek stated that he doesn't foresee them, but wanted to cover changes in the Final Site Plan. Planner Arkell asked if the same was true for #3 -- "No building permits will be issued prior to completion and acceptance of the public infrastructure improvements." Mr. Paysek stated that was true. Planner Patterson stated that the owner wants security lighting for the back lot. Planner Arkell asked how high the poles are; if they exceed 20 feet, then the applicant cannot just change the globe. There followed a discussion of suggestions for altering the lighting to the satisfaction of DRC. Planner Patterson stated that the lighting will be corrected by an addition to condition #10. Planner Patterson stated that the fence in the front yard setback will be moved. Condition #7 states the fencing requirement. Mr. Gaston asked if the fence can be left as is. Planner Patterson stated no, because no parking is allowed in the front yard setback. Mr. Gaston asked if a barrier could be put into the area to prevent parking and then leave the existing fence. Planner Arkell stated that if there is a fence, its best to set it on the front yard setback line. Mr. Gaston and Planner Patterson discussed landscaping in the front yard Mr. Gaston asked if he can leave the asphalt,if the fence were moved back. Planner Patterson, Planner Arkell, and Mr. Gaston discussed the 75% live vegetation requirements. Mr. Gaston asked if he can leave 25% of the front yard setback asphalt and vegetate the rest. Planner Patterson thought so as long as the percentages were met. Planner Arkell stated yes, as long 2 as the fence is on the setback line, 25', then it should work. Planner Patterson stated that he would reword condition #6 to read -- "The applicant shall rehabilitate the landscaping in the front yard setback of the subject property to Bozeman Zoning Ordinance standards. Fully 75% of the front yard shall be covered with live vegetation when in a mature state. 25% of the remainder of the front yard maybe covered by non-vegetative material. ..." Mr. Gaston asked if leaving the asphalt and vegetating the river rocked area would meet this condition. Planner Patterson stated that it probably would, however, it may look odd. Mr. Paysek moved, Planner Arkell seconded, that the Plan be accepted with changes to items #6 and #10. Motion carried unanimously. Planner Arkell reminded Mr. Gaston that this decision can be appealed to City Commission if done by this Friday, with written reasons to them by Tuesday. 3 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE TUESDAY, OCTOBER 24, 1995 CITY COMMISSION ROOM, CITY HALL, 411 EAST MAIN 10:00 A.M. MEMBERS PRESENT Chuck Winn, Fire Marshal, Vice Chairperson Richard Mabee, Building Official Larry Woodward, Assistant Water/Sewer Superintendent John Paysek, Project Engineer Debbie Arkell, Assistant Planning Director STAFF PRESENT Dean Patterson Carol Schott VISITORS PRESENT Jerry Gaston-Gaston Engineering Randy Johnson B. FIRST OF TWO WEEK REVIEWS 1. Amended Plat of Lot 48 Bridger Creek MiSub/#P-9545-(Skelton) 2401-2403 Par Court - A Minor Subdivision Preliminary Plat for Lot 48 for construction of two townhouse units (one structure). Planner Arkell presented the project. She asked Mr. Johnson to review the project as Planner Skelton was on vacation. Mr. Johnson stated that he has decided to put two townhouses on Lot 48 Bridger Creek Minor Subdivision. This requires a split of the property. He asked for suggestions and comments on his project. Mr. Woodward stated that there could be a problem with water. There is one 2" water main to that property. It will have to be split by the contractors to service the two townhouses. The city will install one meter. It will be up to the townhouse owner's association as to how they split the water bill. The city will only figure one bill-on the 2" main. Also, there is an 8" sewer main to the property which must be wyed to each unit. Mr. Johnson asked if they have to put in a manhole. Mr. Woodward stated yes. Mr. Johnson asked if all lots are set up this way. Planner Arkell stated that most of them are, unless townhouses were in the original plat. Mr. Woodward stated that it was set up as a 4 multiple family lot. Planner Arkell stated that because he is splitting the land and there are not enough service stubs for each unit, there needs to be a meter pit. The water bill will be sent to the homeowners' association to be split however they set it up. Planner Arkell stated that a homeowners' association would probably be needed for grounds upkeep also. Mr. Woodward stated that a shut off valve to each water line out of the pit is required for servicing purposes. The plumber can take off from the 2" service line after the meter as he wishes. Mr. Woodward asked where the pit will be located. Mr. Johnson stated that it will be in the driveway on the property Iine. Mr. Woodward stated that he would have to build it substantial enough for traffic to cross, noting it would be better if the pit were outside the driveway. Mr. Johnson stated that only the entrance is joined and splits soon after entering the lot. Planner Arkell stated that the pit could to be shown on the plat. Mr. Woodward also stated that a utility and access easement has to be shown on the plat. He stated that the sewer is coming into the property at the line, so it will automatically be split by the city. The water meter has to be in a 6' manhole. Mr. Johnson asked if he could use a key shut off for the water. Mr. Paysek further explained the suggestion for using a key shutoff. He stated that as far as engineering is concerned this is a pretty straight forward subdivision. Planner Arkell noted sidewalks must be constructed as the structure is built. Mr. Johnson asked how soon he can plan to start building as he has the townhouses sold. Planner Arkell explained that the City has 35 days to review the subdivision and either approve, conditionally approve, or deny the subdivision. The Planning Office will not sign off on a building permit until the final plat is approved. Mr. Paysek stated that DRC will come back next week with final comments. Planner Arkell and Mr. Johnson discussed the timing of getting the building started. Mr. Woodward stated that city water and sewer can't be installed until November. Mr. Mabee stated that he can have the research done so that when the final plat is approved, he is ready to act upon the building permit. Planner Arkell reminded everyone to have their conditions next week for the Final of Two Week Reviews. Vice-Chairperson Winn adjourned the meeting. 5