Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-14-1995 DRC DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES - MARCH 14, 1994 Members Present: Chuck Winn John Paysek Rick Hixson Kurt Albrecht Roger Sicz Fred Shields Craig Brawner Staff Present: Therese Berger Dale Beland Debbie Arkell Lanette Windemaker Patrick Morris Visitors Present: Eugene Vodjansky Mike Potter Jeff Downhour Hilary Dustin Final Week Review 1 . Nelson PUD Planner Beland reviewed the proposal and subsequent issues from the previous DRC discussions . He suggested the Committee review the entire property as one complete submittal inclusive of the CUP, the PUD and the preliminary plat. He distributed and reviewed staff reports for both the DRB and the Planning Board and indicated that the Planning Board would get a compilation of all of the conditions . Rick Hixson indicated that the staff report adequately covers all concerns of the Engineering Department. Planner Beland read a letter just received from Rick Kerin which the Planning Office did not have a chance to review which addresses four items . After a general discussion regarding the items mentioned in the subject letter, Planner Beland remarked that regardless of Mr. Kerin' s letter, the City would have to ensure an adequate connection with the existing and future infrastructure. Fred Shields remarked that concerns of the Water/Sewer Department have been covered by the Staff Report. Craig Brawner voiced concern that information provided at the last minute could substantially change the review. Planner Beland explained that the conditions have been drafted to protect all of the City' s public safety and infrastructure concerns . He suggested that, absent any particular concerns, the DRC move the PUD forward so that the City Commission can consider the entire package April 3rd. He added that there is ample opportunity to address any additional concerns that may arise between today' s meeting and the City Commission. Fred Shields suggested that plans for each building be submitted for review and approval by the Water/Sewer Department. Craig Brawner asked that plans be routed to all of the city departments represented by DRC as well . He confirmed with Planner Beland that the detailed site grading and storm drainage plans are requirements of conditions of the subdivision. Planner Beland remarked that there will be an overall drainage plan. Craig Brawner remarked that such plans will need to be detailed enough so the city will have the ability to go back and see what the previous storm water master plan was for the site. Planner Beland reiterated that the DRC would reserve the right to take another look at the proposal if committee members feel that there has been some oversite. Roger Sicz moved, seconded by Rick Hixson, to conditionally approve the proposal per the Staff Report and the additional comments from Fred Shields and Craig Brawner pertaining to standard building permit routing of the PUD lot proposals . The motion carried with a unanimous voice vote of the members present. 2 . Security Bank Z-9518 Planner Arkell reviewed the proposal and discussed the revision of the landscaping islands and the relocation of the driving aisle with the MDOT improvements . She reviewed the conditions per the Staff Report. Planner Arkell reviewed written comments from the Water/Sewer Department. Roger Sicz, Chuck Winn and Kurt Albrecht indicated that they had no comments . Rick Hixson remarked that most of the concerns of the Engineering Department have been addressed by Fred Shield' s written comments . He remarked that a sidewalk would be required to connect to the Montana Department of Transportation sidewalk and that the driving aisle within the parking lot would need to be 26 ' in lieu of 251 . Planner Arkell commented that the subject sidewalk could lead into the entrance desired by the applicant. Roger Sicz moved, seconded by Fred Shields, to approve the proposal with conditions outlined by Planning Staff and the DRC. The motion carried with a unanimous voice vote of the members present. Planner Arkell noted the conditions of appeal to the applicant. Hilary Dustin confirmed that review of the the minor subdivision would commence next week. 3 . Blackwood II Chuck Winn moved, seconded by Roger Sicz, to open and continue the subject proposal to March 28, 1995 . The motion carried with an unanimous voice vote of the members present. Initial Week Review 1. Landon Industrial Z-9526 Planner Arkell briefly reviewed the proposal and indicated that it will be on city sewer but not city water. She remarked that the project is out of the city limits but within planning jurisdiction and is located in an M-1 District. Planner Arkell confirmed with Chuck Winn that the subject proposal is within the Rae Fire District. She noted that the covenants of the property require a 100 ' front yard setback, 40 ' side yard setbacks and 60 ' setbacks along the culdesacs . Planner Arkell remarked that until the subdivision architectural committee approves a plan for the site, that the city should not consider reviewing the proposal . Planner Arkell said that she believes the old North 19th Avenue has been officially changed to Simmental Way. Craig Brawner commented that when the- subdivision development was done none of the interior roads were put in. He remarked that the Bozeman Solvent Site would need to be a consideration and the applicant would be responsible for any treatment systems and maintenance required by the Water Quality Bureau. He added that SIDs or RIDs would need to be considered for the extension of city water to the subdivision. Chuck Winn remarked that the applicant can expect some conditions from the Rae Fire District as there are currently no fill sites . He added that the building would most likely need a fire suppression system. Fred Shields remarked that any applications for sewer hookups would need to be approved by Phill Forbes . Craig Brawner remarked that he has some problems with the sewer connection out there and added than connection to city sewer would require some groundwater monitoring. 2 . Vander Jagt Planner Windemaker reviewed concerns of the Informal Review regarding installation of curb and gutter, the accesses , and the drainage in the immediate area. Roger Sicz remarked that parking would not be allowed along Plum or Avocado. He added that the applicant may possibly need to pay for no parking signs along those streets . He added that there may possibly be a tradeoff concerning the street cut moratorium if the applicant does the engineering designs for the street. He asked how can the City force curb and cutter on other developers in the area if they are not required of this developer. Craig Brawner noted that storm drainage is a mess for the area. Roger Sicz added that if the city doesn' t start requiring the proper development of vicinity developments , appropriate development will never occur. Craig Brawner suggested that the applicant come up with an overall street design so that the curb and gutter will at least be piece-mealed in. He urged that a storm drainage master plan be considered. Planner Arkell noted that the adjoining streets are paved. Roger Sicz added that they are 26 , wide with no curb and gutter and that drainage dumps into Simkins Lumber yard. Craig Brawner remarked that the fire protection requirements would depend on the occupancy. John Paysek voiced concern regarding on-site and off-site drainage. He questioned why the applicant is proposing 16 , X 12 , header across the alley and suggested the eastern alley be realigned to be at a right angle from the street . Craig Brawner remarked that right-of-way considerations make the project difficult. Planner Windemaker noted that the proposed building lays over several lots . Discussion Item 1. Willowbrook Condominiums Planner Windemaker reviewed the project and explained the review process . Roger Sicz remarked that he has no comments to add. Fred Shields commented that the applicant would still need to meet the conditions of the original approval . Craig Brawner remarked that payback fees would be more easily assessed with the subdivision review of condos . There was a general discussion regarding building footprints over water and sewer lines . Two Week Review 1 . Master Plan Amendment Planner Arkell reviewed the proposal and noted the current and history of zoning in the subject areas in relation to the Master Plan. She indicated that she feels that the Master Plan is correct between East Frontage Road and the Interstate and that more residential uses in that area would not be appropriate. She remarked that a small portion of B-2 designated property will remain on the west side of Heritage Christian School on Durston Road. She asked that the Committee comment on the service area and growth boundaries . Informal Review 1 . Chris Salacinski Planner Arkell reviewed the proposal as she understood it from a previous discussion of splitting lot 12 . She remarked that code would restrict him from splitting it because the property is less than an acre. She indicated that he was also interested in rearranging lot lines to make one small parcel and one large parcel . Craig Brawner remarked that the subject property could be subdivided if annexed. Chuck Winn remarked that the vicinity needs water desperately. Fred Shields noted 12" water line proposed to be installed by Gener Cook. Planner Arkell confirmed that the general feeling from DRC is that until water is available to the site, the property cannot be subdivided.