Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-04-1995 DRC DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES - APRIL 4, 1995 Members Present: Dave Skelton Fred Shields Roger Sicz Kurt Albrecht Rick Hixson Staff Present: Therese Berger Debbie Arkell Dale Beland Lanette Windemaker Visitors Present: Mrs . Dorsch Mike Teslow Rick Pierzina Michael Garrity Sher Rosenberg Ben Lloyd Paul Ellis Final Week Review 1. Spring Meadows Z-9535 Planner Arkell explained that the project will be extended for two weeks due to the sewer concerns and a likely relocation of the building to the east side of the site. She indicated that the plan still does not address a turnaround and maneuverability for fire protection. Roger Sicz remarked that his comments would probably not change. Planner Arkell noted that final week review will be April 18th. Second Week Review 1. Bridger Arms Condo Z-9533 Planner Beland reviewed the proposal and concerns regarding water and sewer, as well as the difficulty in understanding the contour lines on the plans . He remarked that the applicant, Mike Teslow, has indicated that 6" lines are available for water and sewer in Babcock Street, and asked Fred Shields to review the 3/41, line proposed. He noted the projected drainage. Roger Sicz remarked that he will require that the alley be paved westerly to the property line. He commented that the trash enclosure will not be big enough; the enclosure will need to be enlarged to accommodate a four yard dumpster. Planner Beland noted the area south of the building for snow storage. Mike Teslow remarked that snow storage will also be provided on both sides of the drive to the north of the site. Roger Sicz cautioned against snow storage interfering with the site triangle. Planner Beland noted that the plan shows the alley to be 15 ' wide. Roger Sicz commented that the alley is only 12 to 13 feet maximum. Mike Teslow explained that the old plat shows the alley as 15 ' and narrows down. He added that he could widen it. Roger Sicz remarked that the whole area is tight on parking and voiced concern that the developer would request that "no parking" be posted. He added that 4th will most likely be posted in the future. Planner Beland noted that the applicant is requesting a one parking space reduction as a deviation. Kurt Albrecht noted that the height of the proposed foundation is lower than the contour of the existing parking lot. Mike Teslow responded that the structure plans don' t correlate with the grade and he will adjust the foundation to meet code. Planner Beland confirmed that the applicant will confirm the existing grade and ensure that the finished floor elevation is appropriate. 2 . Auto Body Experience Z-9537 Planner Arkell reviewed the proposal and explained that the existing shop facilities have been used for an individual to service his own personal bus fleet. She indicated that the applicant is proposing to pave the parking area for the required six spaces and one handicapped space. Planner Arkell noted that DRB gave the adjacent business Matzinger Electric a deviation which allowed him not to pave his driveway. She added that Matzinger might share the cost of paving the western driveway as well as the shared driveway easement. She explained that the shop was tied in with the same septic system as the residence back in 1979 . With seven employees , she noted the County Environmental Health Department may require the shop to have its own system. She said that the storage areas would need to be screened per code, and employee parking has to meet paving requirements . Planner Arkell said that the applicant told her that the floor drains have been filled with cement. Fred Shields remarked that he confirmed with Andy Kerr the existence of a 12" sewer line in Bridger Drive that the applicant is not hooked up to. He asked if there will be screening between the north parking area and the property line. Planner Arkell responded that if the area is designated as employee parking it must be paved with some screening due to the residential adjacency to the north. Planner Arkell reviewed the main issues with Rick Pierzina, who arrived late to the meeting. Rick Pierzina indicated that he will most likely block the existing gravel drive out. He remarked that the was told that the employee parking would not be required to be paved. Planner Arkell explained that if the area is to be used for clients vehicles or fleet vehicles there would be leniency in regards to paving, but paving is required for employee parking. Planner Skelton commented that the Committee would need to be sensitive to the type of screening on the north. Planner Arkell explained that the project would not go before the Design Review Board as there are no proposed exterior changes . 3 . Amalgamated, Inc. Z-9534 Planner Windemaker reviewed the proposal and noted adjacencies . She indicated that the applicant is one space short of meeting parking requirements and so is asking for landscaping in lieu of parking. Roger Sicz remarked that there is no place to turn around and the applicant won' t be allowed to have traffic backing into the street . He said that the applicant will need to pave the alley. He said that he doesn' t want them coming back and asking for 2 hour parking zones in front of their building. Skelton noted Section 18 . 50 . 120 .B005 . Planner Skelton asked Planner Windemaker to look into the physical measurements from the property line. Rick Hixson agreed that preferably a commercial use would not back out into North 5th. Roger Sicz suggested the parking situation be discussed with Phill Forbes . After a general discussion concerning clarification of the square footage of the structure to be used for offices, Planner Skelton explained that the DRC does not entertain deviations and that the applicant will find that staff will be unable to support the deviation for backing into the alley. Roger Sicz reiterated his concerns . Lanette Windemaker asked the applicants if they have considered taking down the garage to gain more parking spaces . She added that five spaces plus one handicapped space is required. Mike Garrity responded that they would like to maintain the garage if at all possible. Planner Skelton remarked that 26 ' backup maneuverability would need to be ensured. He suggested that the applicant and the adjacent business , Bangtail Bikes, participate together in improving the alley. Mike Garrity remarked that they are trying to do a stand alone project. Roger Sicz question the proposed snow storage. Mike Garrity noted the proposed snow storage in front of the parking stalls and to to the side where the landscaping is at. Ben Lloyd explained that a curb is designed in to provide a wheel stop and that the plantings will occur far beyond the front of the potential vehicle. He added that that landscaped area to the east will also be available for snow storage. Sher Rosenberg asked for clarification of the turnaround and backing problem. Kurt Albrecht explained that if the upstairs area is used for offices , the applicant may be required to provide a second exit. Sher Rosenberg remarked that it is her understanding that if the occupancy is less than 10 people, one exit would suffice. Dave Skelton noted the need to confirm the distance of the west wall from the property line as well as verify the property lines . He suggested that a condition of approval should be the location of a pin. Mike Garrity commented that he checked with the Engineering Department and feels that the plans are representative of the actual property lines . Second of Two Week Review 1. Speedy Lube Z-9531 Planner Skelton reviewed the proposal and explained that the Committee will forward recommendations to Planning Director Andy Epple. He noted the memo from Randi Triem included in the packets in regards to the third bay. Paul Ellis confirmed that he is currently using the third bay for minor modifications and that he plans to continue using the 3rd bay. Dave Skelton confirmed with Paul Ellis that the floor drain runs into the sewer. He indicated that the floor drain would either need to be plugged off or an oil/grit separator installed. He added that the use of the 3rd bay will determine how it is reviewed under code. Paul Ellis explained that minor service work includes flushing cooling and transmission systems which utilize a machine that drains the fluid. Planner Skelton remarked that he will require that the applicant obtain written approval from the Fire, Building, and Engineering Departments to ensure that all deficiencies have been addresses regarding the use of the 3rd bay. He added that if the floor drains are to be plugged, the applicant would need to maintain a dry shop and not hose down any spills . Paul Ellis commented that they currently use dry down and sweep it up for any spills . Chuck Winn remarked that he requires that the welder be removed and that the garden hose used to transfer flammable liquids be replaced with a material approved for the transport of flammable liquids . Paul Ellis confirmed with Chuck Winn that a gas hose could be used. Chuck Winn added that the modifications discussed are not necessarily an approval for the use of the third bay. 2 . Danhof Concept Plan Planner Windemaker reviewed the proposal and noted that the alley is only 20 ' wide. Roger Sicz remarked that the applicant will need to pave the alley. Planner Windemaker reviewed written comments from John Paysek, Engineering Department and noted that the applicant will not be able to install the terracing and stairs in the public right-of way. Fred Shields remarked that water and sewer stubs are into the lot and it would be up to the developer to determine whether the existing 3/4" water line is adequately sized. walk. Planner Windemaker noted that the sidewalk proposed is a curb One Week Review 1. The Willows Pre-application Planner Windemaker reviewed the project and noted adjacencies . She explained that the only access to the site is Mendenhall and noted that there doesn ' t seem to be a sewer stub at Mendenhall . Fred Shields remarked that he will require that the developer loop the water main. Dave Skelton confirmed that the zoning is R-3 . Planner Windemaker commented that she guesses that the applicant is proposing fourplexes as the lots are just over 12 , 000 square feet. Dave Skelton remarked that conditions should included additional right-of-way for West Babcock and SID waivers . He remarked that the City should entertain the condition that no additional developments be allowed to impact West Babcock until it is improved to a full 60-90 foot right-of-way. Planner Windemaker noted a 15 , dedication to the City of Bozeman shown on the site plan. She added that the developer has proposed to pay $400 per lot in lieu of parkland. Fred Shields remarked that "Willows" is an unacceptable street name.