Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-03-1995 DRC DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE TUESDAY, OCTOBER 311995 CITY COMMISSION ROOM, CITY HALL 411 EAST MAIN 10:00 A.M. MEMBERS PRESENT Chuck Winn, Fire Marshal Richard Mabee, Building Official Phill Forbes, Public Service Director Larry Woodward, Assistant Water/Sewer Superintendent Karen Finke, Project Engineer Dave Skelton, Senior Planner, Chairperson Craig Brawner, City Engineer John Paysek, Project Engineer STAFF PRESENT Shelly Miller, Recording Secretary Dean Patterson, Associate Planner Debbie Arkell, Associate Planner VISITORS PRESENT Joe Sabol Bob Lee Ken Thorsen Dave Crawford Betty Litle Dan Kamp Martha Lonner Don Hannah Terry Simms Bob Daugherty A. FLNAL WEEK REVIEW 1. Sundance Springs PUD/Preliminary Plat #Z-95125 and P-9539 NE Corner of Intersection of South Third Avenue and Goldenstein Lane. Planner Arkell noted comments from Don Weaver from the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board. She also noted conditions given by Sam Gianfrancisco, the County Road Supervisor. Planner Arkell reviewed the project for a Planned Unit Development and Preliminary Plat Application to create 141 lots for single family residential development and 6 plus/minus acres for neighborhood service development on 147.2 acres of land. She also reviewed the Planning Staff comments and recommended conditions as outlined in the memo to the committee (see file). She noted concern with the flow of South Graf and Wind Flower Drive. This street will serve as a collector street within this subdivision, as well as the subdivision to the north, and 1 questioned if consideration should be given to straightening Wind Flower to "T" with Goldenstein. She also expressed concern with the confusion of the names of South Graf and Wind Flower Drive. She noted that a documented market study must be provided in conjunction with final site plan review of the zoning PUD that shows the proposed neighborhood service uses will be supported by the area residents. All commercial structures must be fire sprinklered, unless waived by the fire chief. The business hours should be limited to 7:00 AM to 9:00 PM, as has been required of other neighborhood service centers. John Paysek provided copies of his conditions for any approval of the project from the Engineering Office. There was concern and discussion on condition 22: The private drives for Phase I, including pavement, gravel shoulders, curb and gutters (where applicable), drainage swales (where applicable), drainage improvements and sidewalks shall be constructed prior to plat filing for Phase I. Street infrastructure improvements shall be constructed with each subsequent phase of the described development. John Paysek mentioned that the City may not have jurisdiction to require sidewalks to be installed at a later date and therefore, is requesting that all sidewalks be installed by the developer. Chuck Winn reviewed his comments from last meeting regarding street parking. He mentioned that 24 foot streets are fine by the Fire Department standards, as long as there is no on-street parking and if the parking restriction can be enforced through parking regulations. Larry Woodward reviewed Fred Shields conditions and commented that John Paysek mentioned most of them with the exception of item number 2. Their acceptable length for water main dead-ends is 250' maximum. Any main extension that exceeds 250' must be looped. Dave Skelton asked for a provision for no parking signs to be installed. Planner Arkell answered that it will be a requirement. Phill Forbes provided written comments with additional commentary. He found that most of his comments regard the street standards that are proposed. He stated he continues to believe that subdivisions within the city limits should be required to develop their internal streets to city standards. However, the city commission has identified the "PUD" process as a means of an alternative standard for internal streets. While this subdivision is a PUD by all appearances, it is technically a single family residential subdivision. Future owners and residents of the area will likely not perceive the difference between their subdivision and other city subdivisions- except when paying both City Street Maintenance District assessments and homeowner's association dues that include private street maintenance costs. Phill Forbes applauded the developer's proposal to install city standard sidewalks on both sides of all internal roads. He added that if the application is accepted as proposed that No Parking" signs should be installed with initial roadway construction. He indicated, for the record, the roadway connections to the three existing dead-end rights-of-way adjacent to this property should be provided. 2 He stated if the Commission decides to accept an alternate roadway standard, a more direct north-south extension of Graf Street should be provided through this property. Additionally, this Graf Street extension should be constructed to City Standards. Mr. Forbes also stated that there will be social events such as a Christmas party, or family gatherings which will result in on-street parking. In the interest of safety, he and other DRC eet standards. An alternate standard would be to provide Members continue to support city str parking on one side of the street. Joe Sabol, a developer, replied to Phill Forbes suggestion if they could park on gravel. Craig Brawner answered he would prefer pavement. Mr. Forbes reviewed his remaining comments (memo in file). Dave Skelton mentioned that in the past one-side street parking has not been very successful unless it was only for a social event. He questioned if the committee was recommending a city standard street. Phill Forbes confirmed that a city standard street was being recommended. Dave Skelton stated that in lieu of the city standard they suggest parking on one side. Phill Forbes confirmed that it was definitely a formal recommendation. Craig Brawner added that in their recommendation they will include a tier type of alternative standard for the Commission to consider. Dave Skelton asked if there were several options they were considering and Mr. Brawner confirmed. Craig Brawner noted waivers may be required for the future expansion of the internal streets to City Standards, which would include curb and gutter, as these improvements would be necessary should the city be requested to take over maintenance of the streets In response to a question from Joe Sabol, Dave Skelton commented that he is finalizing the annexation agreement and it would only take one more month. It will not be finalized before Oct. 17. Mr. Sabol stated he was concerned that the agreement will not be completed before the Planning Board meeting, as he wants to assure the developer is not "doubled up" with conditions. John Paysek inquired if Planner Arkell was requesting Goldenstein Road be improved. Planner Arkell answered that it was not being required by the County Road Superintendent. Planner Arkell stated she will double check on those annexation conditions while preparing her report. Phill Forbes stated that Graf Street is very important, not only to this development, but to the property to the north. He stated it is incumbent upon D.R.C. to look at the overall traffic circulation in the area, and that it is important to consider secondary access. These are the reasons he's requesting a higher construction standard on Graf Street, and that standard will carry over to the property to the north. Mr. Forbes felt that the developer might make a case that adequate access is provided by Goldenstein and South 3rd and that Graf Street will be an alternate route. 3 Craig Brawner mentioned that Goldenstein Lane is going to be both a city and county road and we need to look at who will be responsible for maintenance. He noted the County Road Superintendent's comment regarding site distance on Goldenstein and the possibility that some improvements may be required. If the site distances are inappropriate for the travel speeds, they must ensure those conditions are corrected with this project. Dave Crawford, developer's engineer, stated they looked at those issues with Mr. Gianfrancisco 6 months ago and he indicated at that time there wasn't a site distance problem. After discussion, it was concluded that the County Road Superintendent's condition leaves the situation open so it can be studied. Phill Forbes stated he will not be satisfied with only the County Road Supervisor's "OK", but the developer's engineering analysis of the site distance must provide sound assurance that there are no site distance problems. David Crawford, developer's engineer, asked for clarification on conditions regarding sidewalk timing listed in Planner Arkell's memo versus those required by John Pavesek. Mr. Paysek said he wanted sidewalks installed before final plat. Mr. Crawford questioned why parking on one side of the street is discouraged. Mr. Paysek stated his concern was if a gravel shoulder was added, that would be encouraging parking and then there is a fire department access problem. Mr. Crawford also questioned the condition that the full cost of the realignment of Goldenstein Road and South 3rd be borne by this developer noting this intersection is not used 100% by this project. He asked why this project should pay for all of that when others will be using it also. Mr. Crawford noted the developer is dedicating the necessary right-of-way, which is 50% of the cost of the project. Phill Forbes re pondaed that due forecessary right-of-way dedication is a that Wi h the large volumes of traffic requirement of subdivision, and no "credits" using this intersection from this development, it must be reconstructed now. Mr. Crawford mentioned that the condition requiring water mains to be in a standard location will require reconstruction of Goldenstein and South 3rd, and it would be more efficient if it is built on the side of the road. It was clarified that this condition provided a possible exception for Goldenstein and South 3rd. There was discussion regarding sewer bottlenecks, with Craig Brawner stating the Engineering Dept. believes there is a capacity problem based on the models. This issue will be studied further during review of the design report. If there are corrections needed, they must be included in the plans and specs and completed up front rather that being included in an Improvements Agreement. Joe Sabol asked if the corrections would be subject to share cost or payback. Craig Brawner noted if the improvements are designed to serve this development only, there will be no cost t increasing the sizes over and above what is needed for this participation. If the City looks a agreement. He noted the mains don't have a lot development, they will work up a cost share of capacity now, and they may not elect to oversize the mains. However, if they do, a cost share agreement between the City and developer will be entered into. If oversized, the city 4 would pay those costs ..id the developer will not be eligP for payback from future developments. Mr. Brawner reiterated that the City Engineering Department's condition only requires sizing of the mains for this development plus existing flows. Future development does not have to be considered. Don Hannah asked how the Middle School and Westfield South factor into the capacity. Mr. Brawner explained that existing on-line capacity was reviewed and there was capacity for their developments. He noted capacity is used on a "first-come, first served" basis, and there comes a time when there is no capacity. He stated the City cannot approve a development knowing there is no capacity, and this developer is not being asked to provide extra capacity for other future developments. There was further discussion regarding the timing of the installation of sidewalks. Dave Crawford asked why the standard 3-year policy was being changed now. Craig Brawner noted it is not as easy to install sidewalks when there is no curb. Joe a culvert would be needed for destroying sidewalks during construction. Craig Browner noted each driveway, only one crossing should occur. He concurred that there is the possibility of ruining a sidewalk during construction. Mr. planner Arkerawford noted stated she wou d defe the discrepancy r to the the engineer's and planner's sidewalk conditions. Engineering Department's condition. Mr. Skelton asked for a motion. John Paysek moved to forward a recommendation of conditional approval with alternate street designs rtnn andng from the City it passed to a unarumous�voice ring Department. The motion was seconded by Chuck W vote. This project goes to Planning Board on October 17, 1995. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE TUESDAY, OCTOBER 3, 1995 CITY COMMISSION ROOM, CITY HALL 411 EAST MAIN 10:00 A.M. MEMBERS PRESENT Chuck Winn, Fire Marshal Richard Mabee, Building Official Phill Forbes, Public Service Director Larry Woodward, Assistant Water/Sewer Superintendent Karen Finkel Project Engineer Dave Skelton, Senior Planner, Chairperson Craig Brawner, City Engineer John Paysek, Project Engineer STAFF PRESENT Shelly Miller, Recording Secretary Dean Patterson, Associate Planner Debbie Arkell, Associate Planner VISITORS PRESENT . Joe Sabol Bob Lee Ken Thorsen Dave Crawford Betty Litle Dan Kamp Martha Lonner Don Hannah Terry Simms Bob Daugherty B. SECOND WEEK REVIEW 1. Thorsen Minor Site Plan/COA #Z-95126 617 East Lamme Planner Dean Patterson reviewed project and noted that it was a Minor Site Plan and COA for the construction of a 20' x 32' garage/workshop with a one bedroom apartment. Next week there will be decision on this project from DRC. Karen Finke questioned applicant regarding sewer and where they were, Mr. Thorsen reviewed the plans with her and mentioned that the sewer line would connect with the existing lines. Phill Forbes asked if there is a way to put another sewer there, and Mr. Thorsen answered that there wasn't. Larry Woodward mentioned that the sewage may leak into the neighboring basement. 5 Mr. Thorsen answered that he had talked to his plumber and they are very aware of that possible occurrence. Mr. Woodward said that the alley is 14' on the drawing but it is actually 12' wide. He also commented that instead of being 210', it was really 200'. Mr. Thorsen mentioned that they would still go with the 25' set back. Planner Patterson mentioned that the grade of the sewer might be too shallow. Thorsen believe that that would be no problem and that they were considering using pumps. Phill Forbes questioned the access of the alley for the apartment dweller and if it was privately owned. Mr. Thorsen answered that there were six people owning the alley. He also mentioned that there is a neighbor, Mr. Sypes, who provided an access easement to the alley, and the Clerk and Recorders Office has record of this. Mr. Forbes commented that if the alley was not vacated, this issue needs to be cleared up as this may have very serious implications. Mr. Thorsen stated that there is a 2-car garage across the alley that is used. Planner Patterson raised the issue regarding commercial character. Planner Skelton questioned if the workshop was for private use and Mr. Thorsen said yes. Planner Skelton asked Planner Arkell about home occupation. Planner Patterson commented that this was for non-commercial use. Larry Woodward asked how far the access was from the street and Mr Thorsen answered 70 feet one way and 180 feet the other way. Phill Forbes commented that there are some zone codes that have to be met. Larry Woodward confirms Mr. Forbes comment and that is why Mr. Woodward was asking how far the access was. Planner Arkell said that if the alley is 12.5 feet, it is not adequate for one way traffic. Planner Dave Skelton closed the meeting mentioning that there will be a decision made on 10/17. 6