Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-01-1995 DRC DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES - FEBRUARY 1, 1995 Members Present: Roger Sicz Chuck Winn John Paysek Fred Shields Rick Hixson Dave Skelton Roger Sicz Phill Forbes Staff Present: Therese Berger Debbie Arkell Patrick Morris Dale Deland Lanette Windemaker Visitors Present: Kate Reid Chuck Ferguson Bob Baldwin A. Initial Week Reviews 1 . Montana Kids Daycare Planner Morris briefly reviewed the proposal and noted items of concern including the eastern setback and the location of the drive access in relation to the intersection of Campbell Road and Reeves Road East . He pointed out the proposed trail, the sewer easement, and the existing stop sign on Reeves Road East and remarked that the roadway easement for the westerly continuation of Reeves Road is in the process of being abandoned or is abandoned altogether. Dave Skelton indicated that he will meet with Sam Gian- francisco, County Road Office Superintendent, in regards to the access placement tomorrow morning. Planner Morris asked if the Committee sees the potential for a stop sign on Campbell Road. Phill Forbes remarked that he doesn' t see that the proposal will impact traffic enough to warrant a stop sign on Campbell Road. Rick Hixson remarked that he will need to make a site inspection. Dave Skelton reminded the Committee that during the Informal Review, there was a discussion of flip-flopping the plan; however, the topography limits the options . Planner Morris asked if it is desirable to consider a shared access with the parcel south of the subject site . Dave Skelton remarked that the southern property line shown is not the current property line and that the applicant would likely relocate the boundaries . He indicated that the applicant may be able to obtain 1 a shared access easement on through an exemption process . John Paysek remarked that, if the accessway lined straight up with Reeves Road East, the effect would be a more desirable four-way intersection. Roger Sicz asked what the Transportation Plan indicated regarding the subject roads . Dave Skelton explained that the tunnel under the interchange has been eliminated and that the only access onto the southern adjacent lot would be Campbell Road. Planner Morris inquired about the refuse enclosure . Roger Sicz responded that a private front-loading garbage service could be retained as the site is out pf the City jurisdiction. Fred Shields pointed out the existing 8" main which was laid to serve the Walker Subdivision. John Paysek inquired about drainage. Planner Morris noted the designated snow removal areas and remarked that the subject property slopes down along the northeast property line . He remarked that the snow removal areas may be located such that they may be used as storm water detention areas as well . Planner Morris voiced concern that the snow removal area to the north of the drive may be in the vision triangle . John Paysek asked if the applicant was planning to fill in some of the area that has an 8' drop at the north east end of the property. Planner Morris commented that he believes the developer does not intend to do any filling and therefore he would like to see the fence step down in sections rather than slope down with the grade . Rick Hixson remarked that he would need to see some storm water calculations . 2 . Bridger Blacksmith Planner Arkell ensured that Committee members had the revised plans and indicated that the building has been moved to the west to allow for the 40 , right of way. She indicated that the proposal meets parking, landscaping and setback requirements . Phill Forbes asked if there was still a question about trail easements . Planner Arkell responded that the applicant will have to provide a minimum 20' wide future trail easement on either the west or the north side of the site . Phill Forbes asked if there is any rationale for not building the trail . Dave Skelton inquired if Staff had any feedback from the Trail Committee . Planner Arkell indicated that she has had little feedback and remarked that it would make sense to have the trail cross at the intersection. Phill Forbes confirmed that the only point of contiguity between the trail systems is the corner of the site . Planner Arkell pointed out that the 80 ' right of way would allow enough space for the trail . Planner Arkell reviewed the conditions resulting from DRC' s last review. 3 . Nelson Major Subdivision & Concept Plan Planner Beland reviewed the project and indicated that Fowler 2 Lane would be improved to Huffine Lane . He explained that the project application is essentially three-part, and includes a Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat , a Planned Unit Development Concept Plan and a Conditional Use Permit . Planner Beland noted a page change in the submitted traffic study which suggests that Fowler be developed with this project in the west lanes only. Planner Beland pointed out the 25' beautification strip would be located in the US191 right-of-way. He remarked that Rob Bukvich will not grant an easement for the strip, but may grant some sort of permit . Dave Skelton remarked that believes the USDA is going to acquire the adjacent northeastern parcels and would provide a trail along their existing property. He continued that the USDA trail system could be consistent with that on the Potter property. Planner Beland noted that the mid-block accesses off Fowler, south of Fallon are substandard and pointed out a minor problem with one of the street names . He indicated that the applicant has asked for concurrent review by Planning and the DHSS . Craig Brawner commented that the Water Quality Division now reviews plans and specifications and noted a self-certification process that the engineer can undertake . He further commented that the Committee would need to be fairly sensitive to the phasing of the entire project in regards to roads and infrastructure. Planner Beland indicated that the would check with the applicant on phasing of the subdivision in concert with sewer and water needs for the PUD. Planner Beland indicated that he will need to confirm the parkland dedication with the applicant . Phill Forbes commented that the parkland dedication may have been done with the original Valley Unit Subdivision. Craig Brawner remarked that it is unclear whether the applicant proposes to tie into the existing Valley Unit storm drainage system. Dave Skelton confirmed with Planner Beland that city standard streets would be required throughout the development . Phill Forbes confirmed that the ditch would be relocated. Planner Beland explained that the ditch would be placed in the common open space and would have a path running adjacent to it . Phill Forbes remarked that the Valley Commons development will put in a signal . B. Informal Review 1. Sue Haggarty Property Planner Windemaker opened the discussion to Tract 7 Wilda Lane, a lot that Mandeville Real Estate has taken interest in for the development of a fourplex condo unit . Dave Skelton remarked that the property would need to annexed and rezoned in order to get city infrastructure . Planner Windemaker asked the Committee if the city would be willing to annex one lot or require the entire subdivision to be annexed. Phill Forbes remarked that the annexation of one lot out of the 3 subdivision would create more problems than solutions . Dave Skelton commented that the current residents of Wilda Lane have seem growth encompass them and would most likely oppose any development other than single family residences . Chuck Winn pointed out that there is currently no water or sewer service to the site. Kate Reid confirmed that the lot would need to be on city water to get city fire protection. Kate Reid asked if it would be difficult to get a multiple family dwelling on the site. Planner Arkell remarked that the best shot at getting a multiple family dwelling on the site would be to keep the property in County Zoning District No . 1 and put a septic system in. Kate Reid explained that the required drainfield and septic system would be too large . Chuck Ferguson remarked that, with the development of West Babcock and the multiple family developments adjacent to the site, he finds it hard to believe that the area has not been annexed. Planner Windemaker suggested they see if the neighbors are interested in annexing. Kate Reid confirmed with Planner Skelton that, even if the property were annexed, Planning Staff would have difficulty supporting anything other than single family residences . 4