Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-28-1995 DRC DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES - FEBRUARY 28, 1995 Members Present: John Paysek Rick Hixson Doug Hughes Roger Sicz Fred Shields Phill Forbes Dave Skelton Chuck Winn Staff Present: Therese Berger Patrick Morris Debbie Arkell Lanette Windemaker Visitors Present: Don Turner, Applicant Jerold Surdahl , Fort Ellis Fire District Dennis Durham, Applicant Mike Potter Joe Sabol Rick Kerin Eugene Vodjansky Final Week Review 1. Yellowstone Traditions Planner Morris reviewed the proposal and recommended conditions of approval . He explained that the conditions generated from DRC will be combined. Jerold Surdahl, Fort Ellis Fire District, commented, for the record, that there are no developed water supplies within two miles of the proposed development. He stated that, while the Fort Ellis Fire District, will not mandate that the new developers fund a water source for fire protection, it is a large concern of the District. He noted that the proposed change in use from automotive to office would probably lesson the hazard; however, the business community in that area would benefit to develop some sort of water supply closer to the sites . He suggested that a 5" water line with a sand cap and hose connections could be extended from Bear Creek to a signed site off Frontage Road that the Fire District ' s trucks could access . He remarked that the cost would probably only be a couple thousand dollars . Dave Skelton suggested the developer entertain some sort of participation in an RID and explained that such waivers are generally initiated by the County. John Paysek reviewed the Engineering Department comments pertaining to site drainage and detention, the paving and curbing of the parking lot, adequate handicapped accessibility, fire truck access, and landscaping irrigation. He noted that conditions were standard and there is a real concern regarding the drainage plan for the site. John Paysek explained that if the access to the public right- of-way is going to be improved, the details need to be noted on the final site plan. Dennis Durham questioned the review process and conditions and noted the existing parking lot, utility hookups , and driveway currently on the site. Dave Skelton explained that the review process will ensure the project is in compliance with the Uniform Building Code and ultimately the Zoning Ordinance. Planner Morris added that the improvements the developer has proposed and the increase in use of the site are what trigger a site plan review which will bring the site up to code. Dave Skelton confirmed with Planner Morris that paving of the drive and parking lot would be required per code. Planner Morris indicated that Sam Gianfrancisco did not comment on the proposal . Roger Sicz remarked that potholes always develop at the division where the asphalt meets the gravel . He continued that it is in the developers best interests to pave into the parking lot to avoid future maintenance. Roger Sicz questioned the traffic to be generated from the site. Dennis Durham responded that less than 12 people will use the site on a daily basis . Planner Morris remarked that the proposal far exceeds the required parking with 24 plus 2 handicapped spaces . Dennis Durham indicated that he would consider redrawing the parking to 18 spaces as it will not be a retail use. Dave Skelton suggested the Committee either move forward with a decision or continue the proposal to allow input from Sam Gianfrancisco in regards to paving of the parking lot and driveway to Frontage Road. Phill Forbes remarked that there are no exceptions to surfacing requirements per the code. Planner Morris and John Paysek agreed to meet with the applicant to discuss drainage requirements . Dennis Durham remarked that he would rather not get Sam Gianfrancisco involved if he initially had no comments on the project . Dave Skelton moved, seconded by Doug Hughes, to approve the proposal with the conditions outlined by staff and members of the DRC. The motion carried with a unanimous voice vote of the members present. 2 . Turner Minor Site Plan Planner Morris reviewed the proposal and recommended conditions of approval . He noted that the applicant would need to provide a master signage plan. John Paysek reviewed comments from the Engineering Department . He remarked that more detail is required regarding the drainage treatment and recommended that the asphalt be increased from 2" to 3" . John Paysek voiced concern with the overhead power lines and would require some sort of letter or written easement from Montana Power Company. Don Turner agreed with the conditions . John Paysek questioned Lowell Creek to the west of the site. Don Turner remarked that it is not a year around creek. Planner Morris noted staff conditions E and 11 in regards to specific ditch conditions . Don Turner stated that he will not be altering the stream. Jerold Surdahl, Fort Ellis Fire District, commented, for the record, that there are no developed water supplies within two miles of the proposed development. He stated that while the Fort Ellis Fire District will not mandate that the new developers fund a water source for fire protection, it is a large concern of the District . He noted that the proposed change in use from automotive to office would probably lessen the hazard; however, the business community in that area would benefit to develop some sort of water supply closer to the sites . He suggested that a 5" water line with a sand cap and hose connections could be extended from Bear Creek to a signed site off Frontage Road that the Fire District ' s trucks could access. He remarked that the cost would probably only be a couple thousand dollars . Planner Morris remarked that there is a possibility that eventually a RID for fire suppression would be created for the area. Don Turner explained that he signed a general RID waiver with the subdivision application. Planner Morris questioned a comment from the Department of Health and Environmental Sciences regarding the occupancy load for the septic system. Don Turner explained that, as part of the preliminary subdivision approval, he will be putting in a new septic system which will be shared with the existing structure to the south of the site. He indicated that the type of use, mainly rental warehouse space, tends to generate only 2-5 people per unit and agreed to watch that the occupancy doesn ' t exceed 24 people. Roger Sicz moved, seconded by Chuck Winn, to approve the proposal with conditions outlined by Planning Staff and the DRC. The motion carried with a unanimous voice vote of the members present. *Second Week Review - Security Bank Planner Arkell explained that review on the subject project will not continue until the subdivision plat is received. Dave Skelton confirmed with Planner Arkell that if the plat is not received by the Planning Office by Friday, March 3rd, it would not be on next week ' s agenda. * This is the second week that the subject project has been on "Second Week Review° for the DRC agenda pending receipt of the subdivision plat from the applicant. Second Week Review 2 . Nelson CUP Planner Windemaker reviewed the proposal and asked that the Committee take a close look at the lack of curbing shown at the northeast corner of the drainage plan. Planner Windemaker remarked that the applicant can proceed with the subject project with the approval of the subdivision plat and installation of the infrastructure. She indicated that the project will likely be the first building on the site. Phill Forbes noted a discrepancy regarding curbing between two pages of the submittal . Roger Sicz confirmed that the infrastructure will be installed prior to the issuance of a building permit with the first phase of the project . Fred Shields noted that the infrastructure would need to be installed prior to the paving of the road. Planner Windemaker commented that the applicant would need to eliminate one of the two proposed signs, and indicated that the main concerns with the project are the infrastructure and drainage issues . Initial Week Review 1. Nelson PUD & Preliminary Plat PRELIMINARY PLAT Planner Beland reviewed the proposal and noted the location of the CUP. He remarked that the two comments of DRC at the Informal Review concerned the length of Winchester and the possibility of a north-south connection from Winchester to Fallon adjacent the common open space. Roger Sicz questioned the street light noted on the plans at the intersection of Fallon and Fowler. Joe Sabol explained that the lights indicated would be Wilson type street lights , but not signalization. Dave Skelton remarked that ornamental lights should not be in the right-of-way. Mike Potter remarked that they wish to carry on the same low level street lighting theme throughout the PUD. Roger Sicz confirmed with Mike Potter that the property owner will maintain any street light fixtures . Doug Hughes asked if a soil test has been done on the site. Planner Beland indicated that he would look into whether any soil tests have been performed. Dave Skelton remarked that he assumes that the project will utilize the Valley Unit storm drainage proposed north of the site. Rick Kerin explained that the subject site will be the last area to use the retention area in the park for storm sewer. Roger Sicz confirmed with Phill Forbes that stop signs will be installed at all the intersections on Fowler once it is connected to US191 . Phill Forbes voiced concern with the length of the proposed block as it would likely become a speedway. He suggested that the access to the common open space be expanded so that users could drive to the park and not have to park their cars on Fallon. Mike Potter argued that park goers who drive would most likely use the Babcock Recreational Area to the north. He remarked that he would like the property owners to have a nice park frontage that they could walk to as it is a component of the larger scale linear park system. He continued that he views the subject open space area as simply a south to north linkage to allow pedestrian access to the recreation area to the north. Planner Beland commented that the issue of any north-south linkage through the open space would be decided at the third and final DRC review. Joe Sabol inquired about an easement on Fallon and south along Fowler that was given to the City, and indicated that the paperwork was signed. He remarked that he would initiate that paperwork again. After a general discussion on the relocation of the ditch/stream, Rick Kerin remarked that they would be working through the 404 permit process . PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT Planner Beland reviewed the PUD preliminary plan and noted that the 25 ' beautification strip will involve a permit from the Montana Department of Transportation. He explained that the PUD design guidelines, once approved and if adhered to, would minimize review other than through the building permit process . Planner Beland commented that in the initial phase of development, all infrastructure and "Cimmaron Drive" will be installed. He indicated that by the next DRC meeting, staff would have more detailed conclusions . Dave Skelton suggested that the Engineering Department closely review the locations of the ingress/egress points onto Fallon. Mike Potter remarked that the applicants feel they have made good overall decisions in regards to the access points . 2 . Blackwood II Planner Morris reviewed the proposal and explained that the Blackwood I building is included on the site plan to aid the analysis . Planner Morris asked Roger Sicz to review the location of the trash enclosure and noted that the building might be too large for the site. Doug Hughes remarked that all of walls on the east side of the structure would need to be one hour walls if the building is within 20 feet of the property line. He continued that if the structure is within 10 feet of the property line, the openings would require one hour glass and the walls one hour fire protection. Fred Shields noted that no water and sewer lines are shown on the site plan. Dave Skelton noted the lack of on-site detention areas and questioned whether the drainage is proposed to go into the alley. John Paysek remarked that the entrance to unit 1 on the southwest corner of the building looks dangerous as people could potentially walk out right into the driveway. Chuck Winn commented that the applicant will have to prove that a fire truck will fit into the back parking lot. He remarked that the 15 parking spaces proposed for the Blackwood II building would not help the situation at the Blackwood I building. Roger Sicz agreed that parking is a problem in the area. Phill Forbes noted that the Department of Transportation uses the Blackwood I building as an example of what not to do regarding landscaping. Planner Morris indicated that Rob Bukvich would like to Ste the four boulevard trees at the Blackwood I building removed with the review of the subject proposal . Planner Morris indicated that he will discuss DRC ' s concerns with the applicant and ensure that the applicant attends next week ' s meeting. Dave Skelton noted that the driveway would be altered with the new proposal . Planner Morris remarked that it does not meet the minimum width requirement. Doug Hughes commented that with the approval of the Blackwood I building it was understood that they would provide a handicapped accessible conference room on the first floor. He remarked that the location of that conference room has changed locations three times and is now a storage room. He continued that if the current proposal does not provide an elevator, the will have to provide a first floor conference room that will remain as such indefinitely. Phill Forbes asked if there is a limit on the number of parking spaces they can buy "cash in lieu of" . Dave Skelton responded that the Parking Commission would need to make that determination as there is no limitation per code. Planner Morris remarked that the cash in lieu of price has gone up from $2000 to $3000 per space.