Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-15-1995 DRC DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES - AUGUST 15, 1995 Members Present: Dave Skelton, Chairman/Planner Kurt Albrecht, Building Fred Shields, Water/Sewer John Paysek, Engineering Al Scholes, Fire Staff Present: Georgiann Youngstrom Debbie Arkell Dave Skelton Patrick Morris Visitors Present: Gene Rice Roger Matthew Dick Shanahan Gerry Gaston Ken LeClair Tammy Harms B. Second Week Review 1. Bridger Greens MaSP Z-95101 Planner Skelton suggested that since Karen Finke of engineering was late due to a power outage while working on her report for the Final Week Review of State Capitol Employees Credit Union and since Ken LeClair, the applicant for the Bridge Greens review, was in attendance that the committee begin their meeting by doing the second week review of Bridger Greens . Planner Skelton stated that a letter of approval from the home owners association review committee was needed in regards to this project. He noted there is ample area for the detention/retention area but stated that plans for that area are needed. Planner Skelton pointed out that last week there was concern about the placement of the water and sewer service lines in relation to the driveway. John Paysek stated that he and Fred Shields had discussed this aspect of the project and that they think those service lines will not be an issue. He stated that the manhole in the southeast corner of the plan does need to be moved so it is 3-4 feet further away from the sidewalk. John noted that the applicant meets the code requirements of being less than 250' from the main and that the services are less than 1501 . John Paysek asked if internal sidewalks were going to be required of the applicant. Planner Skelton stated that they will be required on the exterior of the loop as the Carkeek project was required. John Paysek asked if there would be parking on the interior loop. Ken LeClair stated that there is 33 ' for the driveway and that parking could be on both sides but that they intend to have parking on one side only. John Paysek stated that no parking signs will need to be put up on the one side. Fred Shields asked if the buildings are on slab or if they will a have crawlspace. Ken LeClair stated they have crawlspaces . Fred Shields asked if location of the fire hydrant is o .k. or does it need to be moved back a little. Al Scholes replied that the location is o.k. . Planner Skelton asked if Ken LeClair had any questions . He had none. Planner Skelton stated that he will contact Mr. Grigsby of Cikan Architects and go over the project with him. He noted the project will go on as a consent agenda item for the Planning Board. A. Final Week Review 1. State Capitol Employees Credit Union Z-9596 Dave Skelton stated that this week a decision will be made by the committee on this project. Planner Arkell reviewed the Planning office' s conditions for the proposed project . Among those conditions she stated that a cross walk would need to be added by the sidewalk that is being required in the one-way driving aisle. She stated that the lighting from the attachments will be used instead of the lighting shown on the site plan and that a detail of the retaining wall is needed to show the height and materials it will be made from. Planner Arkell stated the amount of cash in lieu for water service and the amount for the paybacks for SID 621 and 622 . She noted, as indicated last week, that the Huffine Lane access must be moved a minimum of 15, from the east property line and that the applicant must contact the Montana Department of Transportation to have it moved. Planner Arkell stated that condition #11 requires that all correct easement be shown on the final site plan. She noted that the subdivision had provided a 30, easement but the water and sewer were actually placed on the Fish and Game property to the north so the applicant may not need the easement. Planner Arkell stated that the "as builts" for the water and sewer main extension must be submitted from the subdivision developer' s engineer. Planner Arkell stated that the Park Department is asking for screening with berming and shrubs and trees for protection from the Fish and Wildlife Ponds . Planner Arkell noted a correction in the conditions that the address is to be shown as Huffine Lane instead of Shawnee Way. Fred Shields stated that all his comments were typical . Gerry Gaston stated that the ,as builts" are in the mail as the improvements were finaled yesterday. Gerry Gaston asked Dick Shanahan if the building was going to be sprinkled. Dick Shanahan stated it was not. Gerry Gaston stated he had written a letter to the Department of Transportation about the access . He stated that when the access is to be moved he will be contacted. He asked Planner Arkell if the Planning Office would need to receive confirmation of the move. She indicated they would not but reminded him that the access must be at least 15, from the property line. Al Scholes stated that the fire hydrant will need to be moved to the south so it will be usable. Gerry Gaston stated that it will be pulled down from its present location and set in the 8' setback. Planner Arkell asked Al Scholes if that was to be a condition. He confirmed that it was . Planner Arkell asked if moving the hydrant will require a main extension. Fred Shields stated that it will not. Al Scholes stated that the applicant needed to be sure to use a line size big enough for 1500 gallons per minute minimum. Karen Finke reviewed the engineering conditions . She pointed out #2 , #4 , and #7 especially. She asked if there were any others that the applicant or anyone else wanted reviewed. Planner Arkell noted that the "hatched area" referred to in condition #2 now belongs to Montana for the Huffine Lane widening. Planner Arkell asked Karen Finke to review conditions #10 a. and b. She read the conditions and Planner Arkell asked if the applicant is going to be required to reimburse the city for the street the city has already installed it. Karen Finke stated she thought that was the requirement and noted that this condition was directed by City Engineer, Craig Brawner. Planner Arkell commented that she understood that Fowler Lane was going to have two lanes going north and two lanes going south with a median in the middle. She stated that she would feel much better about it if the committee required this project, as they had the Balian project, to have Waivers rather than requiring them to finish a chunk of street that will dead end in a field. John Paysek went to contact Craig Brawner to receive a clarification concerning this condition. Karen Finke stated that the storm water drainage plan submitted in July, 1994 , shows the drainage in a different area than the plan that is being reviewed. Gerry Gaston stated that the discharging will not take place in the ditch but will be in a detention pond. Karen Finke stated that the plans for the detention pond are needed. Planner Arkell addressed concerns she had about the applicant being able to access U. S . 191 during their construction. Gerry Gaston stated that if they wanted to start construction they could get access from Fowler or from the other side but that they shouldn' t be detained because of the construction on Huffine Lane. Planner Arkell stated he was right. She noted that the Design Review Board will review the project next week. John Paysek reported that Craig Brawner had stated he didn' t know what type of street Fowler would be but that he was requiring the applicant to be responsible for the typical 37, wide street . Dave Skelton asked if Craig was talking about a Waiver, John Paysek replied that he was not but that he was talking about getting the improvement installed for the length of the property. Gerry Gaston stated that he and his client' s would like to know the appeal process and who to talk to to get clarification on Engineering condition #10 a. and b. Planner Arkell stated that they would talk to Craig Brawner about what he wants in that condition and that the appeal needs to be in by Friday afternoon, August 25 . She stated she would explain that process to him. John Paysek stated that the last sentence of condition #10 a. was to be stricken as Craig Brawner had requested. Planner Arkell, after referring to the entire condition, stated that all of #10 a. should be stricken and just have 10 b. as the condition. John Paysek concurred with her. Gerry Gaston stated that it is still very confusing because the applicant would have to pay for half of the street and also pay for the improvements . John Paysek moved, seconded by Fred Shields, to conditionally approve the project as outlined by the DRC with the modified Engineering condition #10 and with the clarification pending on 10 a. and b. The motion carried with a unanimous voice vote of the members present . C. Initial Week Review 1. Dana Design MaSP Z-95103 Planner Morris reviewed the project and noted that Single Tree Court as shown on the plan is actually Simmental Way. He stated that the applicant is proposing only one access from North 19th with the parking in the back of the property. Planner Morris stated that there are significant parking issues and that the applicant is proposing to expand the parking lot with this structure expansion. Planner Morris stated that the addition to the existing building appears to be compatible and that this type of project is always more tricky to review due to the additional building code, water and sewer hookups, and parking when there is an existing building. Planner Morris noted that next week will be the 2nd week review. Dave Skelton stated he had one comment for Al Scholes concerning the one access and the need for a loop to turn on for any fire emergency. Planner Morris stated that they are putting a lot of parking from a single access and that the fire department will have concerns with a single access being blocked at an emergency. Al Scholes stated that this will be a RAE Fire District review and not city but that he was aware that they have the same concern. Al Scholes questioned what the correct name of the street was and Dave Skelton stated that Sam Gianfransisco, County Roads Supervisor, may be contacted to have the correct name. John Paysek asked if the applicant will use the same water and sewer as in the existing building. Planner Morris stated that he believes they will . He noted that the plan shows a y service and a saddle into the existing building. Kurt Albrecht stated that the applicant is on a well . John Paysek wondered if they are going to extend the sewer. Al Scholes asked when the applicant' s are going to get city water. Kurt Albrecht stated there had been a preliminary meeting concerning that question and that there wasn' t an answer. Al Scholes stated that right now there isn' t adequate water protection for a fire and with an expansion there will be less . He noted that he didn' t think that RAE Fire District will stand in the way of the addition but he knows they are concerned about this problem. Planner Morris asked if the concern was in regard to fire suppression or if the building was going to be sprinkled. Al Scholes stated that their concern was in fire suppression as all the water has to be hauled in to fight a fire. Kurt Albrecht asked if there are any fill sties close to the property. Al Scholes stated that he did not know. He noted that this will be a concern with all new construction in this area. D. Informal Review 1. Williams Plumbing I-9553 Planner Morris introduced Tammy Harms the representative for Ken Williams . He stated that the expansion would be of an existing facility of 50' X 118, . He stated the applicant would like to take the fenced area that now has a gravel grade over fill and put a building over it for cold storage. Planner Morris stated the building will be in the M-1 zone where it can be located on the edge of the property with 0' setback. He stated the applicant had indicated that they might divide the two structures but that they would like to connect the cold storage onto the current structure. He stated that parking is a concern and that the parking they have is not shown on the plans in front of the committee today. John Paysek asked if this is an existing site plan. Tammy Harms stated that this is one of the original plans and that they know 5 . 16 extra parking spaces are needed. She noted that the spaces will be in the area that is off the site plan. John Paysek asked about a parking isle on the site plan and Tammy Harms explained the purpose of it to him. Dave Skelton asked how large is the existing structure. Tammy Harms stated that she is not certain. Kurt Albrecht stated that the building is currently on the property line. He asked if she knew what type of construction the existing building has . Tammy Harms stated that she did not know. Tammy Harms stated that the proposal is to only cover the storage that is already on the property. Planner Morris asked if the applicant would be using solid, enclosed walls . Tammy replied yes . Al Scholes stated that the building and fire codes are very explicit for a modification to an existing building. He said that they will need to bring it up to code. Dave Skelton stated that the applicant will need to find out the construction of the existing building. Al Scholes noted that the applicant will need to have an updated drawing showing where the property lines are and the existing building. He said Building and Fire may have to go and look at the building and can help make a determination of what will need to be done. He stated that when a building is on the property line the effect of the proposed building on the adjacent property owner needs to be taken into account. He asked when the existing building was built. Tammy Harms replied 3 years ago . Kurt Albrecht stated that he had also talked to the applicant' s representative and that the representative didn' t think the existing building had one hour construction. John Paysek asked if the paving is existing. Tammy Harms replied yes . John Paysek stated that engineering will be concerned about the retention/detention area due to the added impervious area. Kurt Albrecht stated he had noticed on the two hour separation wall the 12' X 12, overhead door. He noted the area of the wall may limit the door area and kind of door used. Fred Shields asked if there will be any bathrooms . Tammy Harms stated it will be used just for cold storage.