Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-21-1995 DRC DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES - MARCH 21, 1995 Members Present: Dave Skelton Chuck Winn John Paysek Roger Sicz Staff Present: Therese Berger Lanette Windemaker Debbie Arkell Visitors Present: Dave Grigsby Ursula Neese Second Week Review 1 . Vander Jagt Z-9529 Planner Windemaker reviewed the proposal and asked that the Committee address the proposed water service from the existing building, the issue of street improvements, and whether the proposed accesses to the property will be adeqate. She noted neighborhood conerns expressed pertaining to traffic, noise, and on-site improvements . She asked that the Committee determine whether the proposal would require some traffic analysis and indicated that, per calculations based upon the 5th Edition of Trip Generation by the Institute of Transportation Engineering, the project should generate 12 -15 trips per day. Planner Windemaker reviewed a memo from Kurt Albrecht of the Building Division in regards to fire wall requirements on the eastern elevation. Roger Sicz remarked that the alley would need to be paved to the south property line if it is to be used for parking and access . He added that curb and gutter should be required on one side of Avocado Street and possibly on Plum. Roger Sicz commented that the elevation of the lot seems to be lower than the street and the developer would most likely be required to post "no parking" signs on Avocado and the east side of Plum Street if no street improvements are required. Chuck Winn indicated that he had no comments . John Pavek remarked that the elevations on the site plan will need to show more details in regards to drainage. Planner Windemaker noted that water service is shown to be extended from the existing building, and asked the Committee whether an extension of that service line across the property line would be allowed or the installation of an extension from the main in the street would be required. Phill Forbes remarked that he had no comments . Roger Sicz noted the current street cut moratorium on both Plum and Avacodo. Dave Grigsby indicated that the building occupant would be Big Sky Racks , a small assembly firm for gun rack parts with only 3 -6 employees . He remarked that the site is on a UPS route and UPS trucks would visit the site once, possibly twice, a day. Dave Grigsby noted the proposed curbed parking area, the paved alley, and landscaping. He remarked that he is not sure how appropriate curbing would be on Plum. He indicated the water line, as proposed, is a result of the informal discussions with DRC; however he noted the existing water mains near the site which could be accessed. Initial Week Review 1. Spring Meadows Z-9535 Planner Arkell reviewed the proposal and the 1987 PUD approval . She voiced concern that the project lies in what could possibly be considered wetlands, although the building and parking lot are located on Zone X designated land. She explained that the lot to the north of the subject lot is approved for multi -family construction. Dave Skelton asked if state approval would include a 404 permit. Planner Arkell remarked that she would check with Wendy Williams . John Paysek noted that the water is 400 , from the building and no sewer and water are shown on the site plan. Chuck Winn remarked that the developer will have to install an on-site hydrant and a sprinkler system which will dictate the size of the water line. Phill Forbes confirmed with Planner Arkell that the units are proposed for assisted living and show no kitchenettes . Roger Sicz asked if the occupants would own cars . Planner Arkell responded that she imagines that a few will . Planner Arkell noted the one-way in and one-way out access to the site via 3rd to Graf , as Graf dead ends . Chuck Winn remarked that the applicant would need to provide fire access to within 150 , of the furthest portion of the building as well as a legitamate turnaround pavillion or culdesac. He indicated that grass crete would not be acceptable. John Paysek suggested a walkway from Graf Street to the building. He said that, due to the proximity of the creek, Engineering would require state review of erosion control and pollution run-off . Planner Arkell indicated that adequate parking is proposed. Second of Two Week Review 1. Master Plan Amendment Planner Arkell explained that now the Committee would just be reviewing the area west of Ferguson. She indicated that the intent is to get the master plan and zoning designation to comply with each other. Planner Arkell remarked that the owners are meeting with Planning to discuss the chunk of "B-211 zoned property at the insteresction of Durston and Cottonwood. Roger Sicz asked if the trend is to fill in the gap between Ferguson and Cottonwood. Planner Arkell remarked that the push is for city sewer. She indicated that the owners can develop on private wells, but cannot subdivide until the Master Plan complies with the sewer service boundary which separates the urban and suburban residential areas . Phill Forbes remarked that the sewer service boundary could be relocated as the trunk of the line could go to Cottonwood. He added that the goundwater issue, considering the Bozeman Solvent Site, would be the driving force to change the area to urban residential . Roger Sicz asked how often the sewer service line is updated. Planner Arkell explained that it is reviewed every 5 years and is up for review next fiscal year. Phill Forbes asked if the applicant is interested in city services that would support urban development . Planner Arkell commented that interested developers in the area would probably want city sewer and water. Planner Arkell asked the Committee to provide comments before Tuesday, March 28 , 1995 . Initial Week of Two Week Review 1. Mail Mall Minor Subdivision Planner Arkell reviewed the proposed artificial lots and explained that the subdivision plat will not be surveyed or recorded. She noted that the new sewer and water easements are not shown. She indicated that there will be condition requiring the parking lot improvements to be made when Parcel B develops and noted that the actual survey of Parcel B shows it to be larger with the realignment of the main access . Phill Forbes inquired about the width of the main access . Planner Arkell remarked that van Bryon, the architect, has a copy of the Department of Transportation plans and the access is shown to be 4 lanes wide. Roger Sicz commented that the light would need to be phased and there is no left turn arrow. Planner Arkell noted that the state plans do not show whether the eastern entrance will change. Discussion Item 1. Countryside Subdivision Pre-Application Dave Skelton reviewed the proposal . John Paysek confirmed that the original submittal was denied due to the excessive relaxations submitted for zoning requirements . Planner Arkell pointed out the 24 ' phased private street . Dave Skelton remarked that a 60 ' right-of -way is noted from West Babcock. Roger Sicz noted a problem with snow removal when the public portion of the street becomes private. He recommended that Ravalli be made public all the way through. Phill Forbes noted that the orginal proposal was to continue Ravalli as a public street through the subdivision and to designate all the other streets as private. He added that the strip across the Fish, Wildlife, and Parks property would be dedicated and remarked that that portion of land is not to count as part of the parkland dedication. Phill Forbes noted a change in his written comments that would require the first signall on Main to be at Fowler in leiu of Ferguson. Dave Skelton remarked that there doesn' t seem to be adequate area for on-street parking. Roger Sicz noted the length of the driveways and asked if the occupants would share driveways . Phill Forbes commented that the applicant would need to design a less tight radius on the curve of Ravalli where it meets Countryside Drive East and suggested an eyebrow, rather than a 150 ' radius . John Paysek suggested sidewalks be installed on both sides of Ravalli and on half sides of the private streets . Dave Skelton voiced concern regarding the possibility of some of the townhouses double fronting and suggested a no access stip along one side of Countryside Drive to ensure that the townhouses all front the same direction. Planner Arkell remarked that if the applicant is asking for a relaxation of setbacks, they would need to apply for a Planned Unit Development.