Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-19-1995 DRC DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 19, 1995 CITY COMMISSION ROOM, CITY HALL, 411 EAST MAIN 10:00 A.M. MEMBERS PRESENT Chuck Winn - Fire Marshall - Acting Chair John Paysek - Engineering Department Phill Forbes - Director of Public Services Richard Mabee - Acting Chief Building Official Fred Shields - Water and Sewer STAFF PRESENT Shelly Miller Debbie Arkell Dean Patterson VISITORS PRESENT Martha Lonner Terry Lonner Joe Sabol A. FINAL WEEK REVIEWS 1. Cook ZMA #Z-95117 Planner Arkell reviewed the project, noting the new zoning would allow use for a mobile home park. The property is adjacent to the Babcock Meadows Subdivision. The Planning Staff has no objections or concerns, they should be passed on to the Planning Board, if not, this is not a project that the committee is required to make a recommendation to the Planning Board. No comments from the Committee were made. It will go to the planning board on 10/3. 1 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 19, 1995 CITY COMMISSION ROOM, CITY HALL, 411 EAST MAIN 10:00 A.M. MEMBERS PRESENT Chuck Winn - Fire Marshall - Acting Chair John Paysek - Engineering Department Phill Forbes - Director of Public Services Richard Mabee - Acting Chief Building Official Fred Shields - Water and Sewer STAFF PRESENT Shelly Miller Debbie Arkell Dean Patterson VISITORS PRESENT Martha Lonner Terry Lonner Joe Sabol 2. LeClair ZMA #Z-9581 Planner Arkell reviewed the project noting, this piece of land is approximately 17 acres. Right now it currently has a small section of B-1 (neighborhood business). There is a sliver of R-3 from Babcock to Ravalli. The remainder of Ravali to Fallon is R-4. What the owner is proposing (keeping in mind that Valley Common is south of him) is to leave the R-3 and change the B-1 to R-4. The existing R-4 will remain. To the south of Ravalli they will change the remaining R-4 to R-O keeping in mind the lot adjacent to the corner of Fallon and Ferguson has been approved for a convenience store, retail and some offices uses. The Planning Staff generally supports this project. Phill Forbes commented that wn B-d ls intended to s Bal area should bee services so erezonedts should not always need to go into to questioned if thi Planner Arkell reviewed the previously approved commercial uses in the Valley Commons Business park, nothing these uses could also serve this neighborhood. She noted Mr. Forbes comments would be considered during the staff s final review and report preparation. 2 use area as a result of this realignment. The application is straight forward, with no staff objections. A concern is that the realignment of zoning boundaries would create odd shapes of zoning on the individual parcels. With the property line following the road easement, they are triangle shape. That might cause problems with the M-1 and R-3 which might be difficult to use. Planner Arkell had mentioned that the owner has projects in the works to realign property boundaries with the proposed zoning. Phill Forbes stated he had no objection, however, it creates an interface between M-1 and R-3 that is odd. He understood the east property line is the eventual extension of North 15th Avenue. Mr. Forbes suggested that a road right-of-way might be a buffer between those zones. He also wanted to take a look at the over all road layout. If the re-route of Baxter may be abandoned, a substitute route will be needed. Planner Patterson commented that he discussed this situation with Mr. Hixson and he suggested not to worry about abandoning the easement until the owner requests it from the city. A new easement will be needed for the north end on 11 th Avenue. 4 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 19, 1995 CITY COMMISSION ROOM, CITY HALL, 411 EAST MAIN 10:00 A.M. MEMBERS PRESENT Chuck Winn - Fire Marshall - Acting Chair John Paysek - Engineering Department Phill Forbes - Director of Public Services Richard Mabee - Acting Chief Building Official Fred Shields - Water and Sewer STAFF PRESENT Shelly Miller Debbie Arkell Dean Patterson VISITORS PRESENT Martha Lonner Terry Lonner Joe Sabol B. SECOND WEEK REVIEW 1. Sundance Springs (Z-95125 and P-9539) Planner Arkell will provide comments from the previous review to DRC members this afternoon. She reminded the committee these are two projects, one dependent on the other; however, each are reviewed separately. The PUD must be approved before the subdivision can be approved, and there will be comments specific to the zoning PUD and specific to the subdivision. Planner Arkell reviewed the project noting they are proposing to develop the property into 141 residential lots and six acres of neighborhood services. The neighborhood service areas will be developed at a later time probably by other developers. Further subdivision to create individual tracks for the neighborhood services development may occur. The uses would be limited to neighborhood services. The city sewer and water will be utilized. The first phase is shown in the application packet regarding water usage. All streets within the subdivision are proposed to have a 70' right-of-way, and are 5 proposed to be private and constructed to a paved county 24' standard. There were questions with the first application regarding South Graf Street being constructed to a city standard, the feeling is if we can't get city standard here on South Graf we won't be able to get it to the north, either. The Master plan PUD proposal shows South Graf intersecting with Peace Pipe and it then turns to Wild Flower Drive. Planner Arkell asked for comments regarding South Graf ending at Peace Pipe and beginning into Wild Flower Drive or should the name South Graf continue all the way through. The lots have been significantly re-clustered and there are some distinct residential pods so the re-clustering is easier and more visual. The open space areas are talked about in Section 5 in the manual. They will develop space to play ball or other activities for the neighborhood. This is not scheduled for DRC review week; final comments will be due October 3. John Paysek commented that in reviewing the proposal, there is a concern with adequate water pressure, which presents potential problems that DRC can not discuss in detail right now. The Engineering Department and Water and Sewer Department need to discuss the situation and come to some potential solutions. Planner Arkell expressed her preference that the conditions do not get bogged down with details for water and sewer. It is common knowledge to follow city and state requirements. She would like to keep the details out of the conditions. John Paysek said that the sewer has bottlenecks north of Kagy which needs to be addressed. It is the developer's responsibility to provide capacity to that section and the DRC should leave this up to the developer's engineer. As far as streets are concerned, he strongly recommended city standard streets. He would like to stick to city standards for safety, maintenance etc. He would like to see that the streets are adequately located vertically so that there aren't any lots sitting incredibly high. Richard Mabee commented on high ground water in the area, and the types of foundations that must be used in this type of development. Planner Arkell asked how to address that, because the owner is buying and then selling to other developers. Mr. Mabee said it was something that he was throwing out on the table for discussion. John Paysek asked Planner Arkell if there is any way that they could require restrictions on basements. Planner Arkell responded that it is not typical to restrict, they just put an informational note on the plat basements are not recommended. Phill Forbes expressed more concerns with South Graf Street, noting PUDs are used to allow alternative street standards. He asked if Graf Street was proposed as a private street. Planner Debbie Arkell confirmed this. 6 Phill Forbes mentioned that he doesn't have any answers today. He asked Planner Arkell if the master plan designate South Graf as a collector street. Planner Debbie Arkell will check on this. Chuck Winn stated that the violation of an off street parking can be enforced by the police department. Included in the submittal is a letter from the fire chief stating that commercial buildings must be sprinklered. Chuck Winn commented that there may be a problem with S. Graf turning into and Wild Flower. He noted it is inevitable that the streets will be used for parking and they will get crowded. Fred Shield needed clarification on Phase 1 regarding water and sewer as the submittal doesn't indicate which times are for future phase or Phase 1. Planner Arkell stated that Section 4 talks a little of water, but not enough to clarify. She asked Fred Shield if he has enough to provide conditions. Mr. Shield answered yes, it will be sufficient. Planner Arkell stated she is still concerned with roads and feels the collector roads should be a greater standard than 24 ft. This isn't an isolated development and the property north of it will be served by the collector roads also. Phill Forbes asked about the setbacks proposed for the single family homes. Planner Arkell reviewed the setbacks from Section 8. Phill Forbes pointed out to Chuck Winn (pg. 27) street parking over night is acceptable for temporary visitors. Planner Arkell pointed out a paragraph on foundation design, and asked him to review it. Joe Sabol asked John Paysek to clarify his comment regarding the street plan relevant to the vertical, if he wanted to see a profile of the streets. John Paysek said he wanted to ensure that the designs were accurate. Phill Forbes asked John Paysek if he wanted something more detailed regarding the streets layouts and Mr. Paysek agreed. Planner Arkell asked if the developer would be required to fill in space if the road is up two feet. John Paysek answered no, the street would be brought down. Planner Arkell stated that final comments are due by 10/3. 7 Fred Shields commented that the lot appears to be too small to do what they want to do and suggested it be sold to the Parking Commission for a parking lot. Phill Forbes asked if the Parking Commission gave any reason for their denial. Planner Arkell answered that the Parking Commission received letter from an adjoined and an elderly resident, and letter of petition with 18 signatures expressing concerns regarding about the lot being so close to a major intersection and that parking is already so crowded. She also said that perhaps they could move the building back and create parking. Fred Shields commented that the water and sewer would be a problem if the building was moved. Phill Forbes commented if it was a single family residence it would be fine. But as it is, it will not work. The Committee generally had no problem with the proposal, provided a variance be granted, but summarized their concerns regarding moving the building (due to utility location) and crowding of the site. 9