Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-24-1995 DRC DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES - JANUARY 24, 1995 Members Present: Skip Hoagland Rick Hixson John Paysek Roger Sicz Phill Forbes Bud Tuss Fred Shields Craig Brawner Staff Present: Therese Berger Dave Skelton Dale Beland Visitors Present: Dave Penwell Bonnie Sank Greg Vidmar Gerry Gaston A. Final Week Review 1 . Lucky Lil' s Casino Planner Skelton reviewed the proposal and noted for the record a letter from Bob Ward. He reminded Gerry Gaston that a request for landscaping in lieu of parking would need to be submitted before Thursday, January 26th. Planner Skelton reviewed Staff condition #2 in regards to a pedestrian link to the southern property line . He opened the condition to a discussion as he expressed uncertainty whether a sidewalk should extend northerly as well . Planner Skelton reviewed conditions #9 and #10 and explained that although the 310 permit is supposed to include a recommendation from the Farmer' s Canal, Staff wished to reiterate the importance of feedback from that body. He indicated that the two conditions could possibly be combined. He further explained that all of the conditions from DRC and DRB would be combined in the Staff Report to the Planning Board. Planner Skelton remarked that before the Planning Office can recommend approval for the stream encroachment variance, some sort of documentation from Dick Vincent would be required. Planner Skelton commented that runoff from 191 should be handled with the Department of Transportation' s (MDOT) enhancement project . Roger Sicz said he is not going to comment on runoff as MDOT is handling it . Planner Skelton gave Gerry Gaston the boilerplate conditions . Fred Shields submitted his comments . Planner Skelton added that a condition would need to be added that the stream easement be provided to the Clerk and Recorder prior to final site plan approval . Bud Tuss remarked that he has no problem with the building permit . 1 Roger Sicz confirmed with Planner Skelton that the subject streets are private and would not be repaired or maintained by the City. Skip Hoagland reiterated the Fire Department' s condition that a second ingress/egress for fire access to the north east of the site and an unobstructed connection with U.S . 191 be provided. After a general discussion concerning Staff conditions 11 & 12, Craig Brawner recollected that the 36" culvert under US191 has been frequently bottle-necked and clarified that the condition would require that the drainage system handle the load or all of the drainage from the. 48" pipe . Roger Sicz commented that, regardless of the language of the condition, that it should be made clear that the City of Bozeman will not be responsible for maintaining the drainage system and that the developer should be responsible for installing and maintaining a trash rack. Craig Brawner questioned whether condition #14 is adequate and whether a time limit should be placed on the installation of sidewalk after occupancy. Dave Skelton remarked that 9 months after occupancy might be adequate . Craig Brawner asked if the applicant should be required to extend the sidewalk if the State fails to. Planner Skelton responded that to maintain consistency with the conditions of Oakwood Square, that the condition be worded such that the sidewalk installation is tied into the improvements agreement with specific language . Gerry Gaston voiced concern that the Highway Department might not install the sidewalk if they know the developer will be required to. Craig Brawner remarked that the Highway Department is moving forward with the project and that the bid documents have been secured. Planner Skelton asked the Committee members if they are comfortable with the 40' wide with utility/public road easement . He clarified that the road is public but not dedicated. Roger Sicz remarked that he doesn' t have any comments in regards to parking on the street if the road is not dedicated. Planner Skelton indicated that he will meet with Bill Wright, a representative of the Soil Conservation District, to discuss the possibility of combining conditions pertaining to the ditch relocation. Craig Brawner remarked that pedestrian facilities for the interior of the development should be closely looked at . Dave Skelton remarked that he would feel more comfortable requiring a pedestrian circulation system to the north of the site if there was more commercial development to the north. He pointed out that a sidewalk is proposed from the south end of the larger building to the south end of the property line as well as pedestrian signing from the west end of the large structure to the south end of the St . Esteve Street . He continued that the sidewalk, as proposed on the west end of the site, would serve the use . Craig Brawner voiced concern that the sidewalk should extend from the north end of the property to Main Street . Planner Skelton reiterated that delineated crosswalks on both sides of the southern east-west driveway should suffice . Gerry Gaston asked for clarification of the wording for condition #14 . Planner Skelton remarked that the language would dictate that the sidewalk would need to be installed within nine months after the Department of Transportation improvements are completed. He added that he would discuss the issue with Rob 2 Bukvich. Craig Brawner commented that, even if the sidewalks are not financially guaranteed, the City Commission can order sidewalks in. Planner Dave Skelton moved, seconded by Roger Sicz, to recommend conditional approval of the project . The motion carried with a unanimous voice vote of the members present . B. Discussion Item 1 . Penwell COA Planner Beland reviewed the project and explained that although the proposal is a minor site plan review, he wants to ensure that any site development issues are addressed prior to the afternoon' s DRB meeting. He pointed out the 30' sewer easement at rear of property, the proposed valve box, and the applicant' s intention to preserve the existing evergreen within a median installed in the driveway access . Dave Penwell indicated that the units will be fire sprinklered and noted a problem with the depth of the two lots . He remarked that the structures would not sit on the property line . He further commented that there would be two domestic water service lines as well as two fire lines serving the site . Dave Penwell remarked that members from the SOS group voiced concern only about the amount of asphalt and suggested that one way to reduce the asphalt would be to eliminate the curbs on both sides of the driveway. He explained that drainage will be two- directional, some of the runoff would go to the creek and some would be retained possibly in the lawn via a crowned drive . He continued that although Jeff Downhour, Southeast Bozeman Neighborhood Association, suggested a rotation of the units; the footprints of the structures are limited by the setbacks and the stream easement even with the elimination of the driveway hammerhead. Dave Skelton commented that there needs to be some reasonable alternative to a concrete curb for runoff . Roger Sicz remarked that the curb would keep the road from disintegrating at the edges . Roger Sicz confirmed that the accessway is private . Skip Hoagland inquired about the distance from the nearest hydrant to the furthest end of the structure. Greg Vidmar indicated that the closest hydrant is approximately 200 feet from the entrance to Dell Place . He explained that the applicant is willing to build a box with extra hose at the corner. Skip Hoagland remarked that he doesn' t like the precedence that such a hose box would create . Skip Hoagland remarked that the hammerhead design is a minimum of what is required for emergency vehicle turnaround. He commented that people will park on the hammerhead given the number of bedrooms per unit, further complicating emergency response . Greg Vidmar suggested "no parking" signs . Roger Sicz commented that "no parking" zones would be unenforceable . Bonnie Sank argued that the units will be upper-scale, that the residents would wish to preserve the view by not parking in the hammerhead, and that parking will most likely occur in the two-car garages . Dave Penwell added that he can insert a declaration that parking is prohibited in the hammerhead as the units will be "condominiumized" . 3 Fred Shields asked for clarification of the lot lines as the site plan only shows one lot . Mr. Penwell said that the setback from the northern unit to the property line is more than 8 feet . Fred Shields concluded that water access to the southern most unit is through the northern lot . Dave Penwell remarked that the lot lines will be eliminated when the units are "condominimized" . Fred Shields commented that if the property line is to remain as is, there will need to be water line easements on both lots . He continued that a 4" water main is in the street . Planner Skelton confirmed that with the sprinklerization of the units, , the developer would not need to loop .the water main. Craig Brawner questioned the bridge across the creek. Dave Penwell remarked that the bridge is over a headgate and that he is not proposing to do any modifications to it . Bonnie Sank commented that the subject proposal would eliminate kids running across bridge as it will be made private . Craig Brawner confirmed with Fred Shields that there is no manhole in the area. Phill Forbes questioned the median tree maintenance . Greg Vidmar remarked that the tree will be trimmed to the height the Fire Department would require . Phill Forbes suggested the driveway wind around the tree more rather than trimming it up to 14 feet . Dave Penwell remarked that he would need a variance to extend the driveway further. Planner Skelton suggested moving the driveway further south. Dave Penwell reiterated that the driveway is drawn where a variance would not be required. Fred Shields questioned the adjacent neighbor' s (Van Chadbourne) sewer line which runs onto the subject property. Dave Penwell indicated that the sewer line would remain. Greg Vidmar commented that even the City has no record of the exact location of the sewer line . Fred Shields remarked that the line is in the area south of the entrance and voiced concern over liability if the City puts the water lines in. He indicated that he would need to review the situation further and feels the sewer should be moved to the Chadbourne property. He continued that a sewer easement would be required even if it is grandfathered in. Dave Penwell said that Mr. Chadbourne wants to leave it as is and he would be glad to give him an easement . 4