Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-02-1995 DRC DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES - MAY 2, 1995 Members Present: Dave Skelton Fred Shields Al Scholes Kurt Albrecht Phill Forbes Rick HixSon John Paysek Karen Finke Craig Brawner Staff Present: Therese Berger Debbie Arkell Visitors Present: Lowell Springer Eugene Micholio Mrs . Dorsche Norma Lee Williams Terry Rader Don Hannah Bob Lee Dave Crawford Garth Voight Martha Lonner Terry Lonner Betty Litle Jim Bangs Brooke "Sam" Cunningham Craig McVicker Bruce Foley Rick Kerin Lonnie Walker Final Week Review 1 . Spring Meadows Z-9535 Planner Arkell reviewed the proposal and staff report. She explained staff ' s recommendation to rotate the building entrance to face Graf Street and indicated that the developer has argued that, as proposed, the building would have better sun exposure. Planner Arkell noted the receipt of an additional letter from Sandy Osbourne and Tim Carlson, both residing on Spring Meadows Drive, which expressed concern with the aesthetics of the parking lot, the configuration of the building, and the issue of sidewalks . She noted that they suggested that the individual homeowners should be required to install sidewalks on 3rd Avenue. Dave Skelton explained that a Conditional Use Permit has previously been approved for the proposal. He noted the turnaround shown on the revised site plan. Fred Shields indicated that his conditions are standard boiler plate conditions . Kurt Albrecht reviewed written comments from the Building Division. Rick Hixson reviewed written comments from the Engineering Department . Phill Forbes remarked that the City Commission has suspended the sidewalk program for approximately one year. He indicated that he is unsure where the suggested sidewalk section lies on the priority list and recommended that staff take a look at that list in light of the subject project. Lowell Springer commented that the soils investigation and the storm water calculations have been completed and that they are ready to submit a building permit application. He indicated that he has been working with the Corps of Engineers and the SCS offices and that a 404 permit may not be required. Lowell Springer remarked that he would prefer to keep the building orientation as proposed primarily for public safety reasons . He voiced concern that the recommended change would affect the orientation of the sun and create ice hazards for the elderly who will be living there. He presented a proposed elevation and indicated that the materials would be dryvitt with wood stain and natural brick to highlight the peaks and gables . He further explained that he believes the location of the building will eliminate the need for manholes and that they are proposing a water service line rather than a main extension. Planner Arkell noted that the lot to the north of the site could be developed with 6 townhouse units . Phill Forbes commented that he finds it hard to impose a reorientation of the building considering the public safety concern. He added that, when Graf Street is developed further to the south, the structure will be facing the street. Planner Arkell remarked that, given the fact Graf Street will be extended soon and the building would front on the new portion of Graf and given the issue of public safety, the developers comments regarding the orientation of the building make sense. Phill Forbes moved, seconded by Al Scholes , to approve the proposal with conditions set forth by the DRB and the Planning office, with the exception of the requirement of reorienting the building. The motion carried with a unanimous voice vote of the members present. 2 . Sundance Springs Z-9538 Planner Arkell reviewed the proposal and review process . She indicated that she has not completed her review and asked that the Planning Office be allowed to continue added concerns to the report to City Commission. Planner Arkell read from the staff report and indicated that Planning cannot support the proposed street standards . Planner Arkell questioned whether South Graf Street should be developed to a width less than a city standard. She reviewed City Commission' s concerns from the concept review that have not been addressed and questioned whether the proposed open space is truly usable. Planner Arkell reviewed comments from John McNeil, Parks Department, asking for an amendment to Section 3 of the "Open Space Management Plan" to require City Commission approval before any changes be made. She indicated that she anticipates comments from the Park Advisory Board as well . Planner Arkell read and distributed comments from the Gallatin County Road Office, US West, and the Soil Conservation Service. She noted that all letters from the public have been provided to the DRC Members and noted no letters have been received in support of the project. Fred Shields read written comments from the Water/Sewer Department. John Paysek read written comments from the Engineering Department. Dave Skelton noted that Chuck Winn commented last week regarding the inadequacy of the 20 ' wide street widths . Al Scholes remarked that the developer must maintain a minimum 20 ' width for fire access . He added that the Fire Department concurs with John Paysek' s comments on the provision for an emergency water system. Planner Arkell indicated that Chuck Winn had also indicated that there would be no need for each individual home to be sprinklered. Dave Skelton commented that the subject proposal is an example of a development that seeks to reap the benefits of having city infrastructure without having to mitigate the impacts . He explained that as an advisory and technical staff from various departments, the DRC members have to require city standard streets . He continued that Planning staff fails to see the hardship with the subject proposal to entertain different street standards . Craig Brawner remarked that in spite of Sam Gianfrancisco ' s recommendation of a 80 ' right-of-way for South 3rd Avenue, the City would be looking for 1/2 of a 90 ' right-of -way at minimum. Phill Forbes noted that Middle School was required to anticipate a full 100 ' right-of -way. He indicated that the developer would need to provide a full 100 ' for the portion that adjoins the two properties . Craig Brawner remarked that he is in support of making Graf Street a full city standard as it is destined to become a collector. Dave Crawford remarked that the applicant hasn' t yet had time to digest all of the conditions and comments and would like to receive a complete written set of conditions . Dave Skelton responded that the applicant would receive written comments prior to the Planning Board meeting. Bob Lee pointed out that the city has proposed no real definition of clustering and he feels that it is unfair to attach negative labels to the proposal when there is no real definition of what the city defines as clustering. Dave Crawford asked Fred Shields if the applicant can consider putting a water main outside of the drivable access area. Fred Shields commented that he doesn' t want the water main in the burrow ditch. Dave Crawford asked for the City' s written policy on the dead- end length limitation. Fred Shields explained that there is no written policy; however, it is a standard condition to limit dead- end mains to 2501 . Dave Crawford questioned city policy in regards to storm water treatment. John Paysek indicated that the applicant would most likely have to pull a permit with the MDHES if they don ' t have a detention system. He continued that he would hate to see trash get into the creek. Dave Crawford explained that the ditches on the sides of the roads will act as treatment swails, whereas a standard curb and gutter would provide no treatment. Phill Forbes questioned the two remaining parcels that the phasing creates . Planner Arkell responded that the two sections can remain Tract A and Tract B on the plat for future development. Phill Forbes voiced concern that ownership and maintenance of the landscaped islands in the cul-de-sacs be addressed. He recommended that the tangent length on Goldenstein before Peace Pipe, be longer. He noted that City Commission has already indicated that they feel Graf Street should be developed to a full city standard at a minimum. Craig Brawner noted that, with the proposed street standard and a 15 , setback for the low income housing, there is not adequate parking room and no guest parking area. He suggested the applicant consider two driving lanes plus parking on one side of the street as an alternative in addition to posting all streets that do not accommodate parking. Don Hannah explained that the distance from the r/w to the street is actually 181 , whereas a city standard street would provide only half that distance. Craig Brawner remarked that he would like the sidewalks to be placed in the city standard location, 1 ' off of the property lines . Dave Skelton added that the developer and the city have a responsibility to the people who will eventually live there and he feels that anything less than a city standard does not mitigate the impacts of the development . MOTION - Dave Skelton moved, seconded by John Paysek, to recommend approval of the project with conditions outlined; a condition that the streets be constructed to a full city standard street with full curb and gutter on both sides, or if the City Commission approves sub-standard streets, the streets should be wide enough for parking on one side signed for no parking. One- half of a 100 -foot right-of -way shall be provided for South 3rd Avenue. The vote on the motion was 5 - 1, with the Public Service Director voting nay. Dave Skelton explained that a negative vote gives veto power to a member. Phill Forbes responded that he was not aware of that and he would then wish to abstain from the vote. The motion carried with a 5 -0 vote, with one abstention. Second Week Review 1. Blackwood II Planner Morris reviewed the proposal and concerns addressed in previous meetings . Fred Shields noted the lack of existing or proposed water and sewer lines on the plans . He added that he will not be able to review the project until that information is provided. Dave Skelton asked that the applicant submit plans and allow the DRC sufficient time to review them before making a final decision. Kurt Albrecht remarked that the applicant would still need to verify the property lines as fire protection issues would need to be addressed. As submitted, he continued, the property line on the east elevation appears to be close to the distance where openings would not be allowed. John Paysek voiced concern regarding adequate drainage and on- site turning movements . He noted that the plan shows snow removal in areas where there is vegetation or trees . Dave Skelton added that Roger Sicz had indicated that the width of the area for snow removal is inadequate. He pointed out that Roger Sicz has major concerns regarding parking in the alley as well . Dave Skelton remarked that the project would have a substantial negative impact on the surrounding area for parking. Planner Morris stated that on April 26, 1995, he prepared a letter for Jerry Locati and Richard Landon regarding the need for either a deviation or an access from the public street to the parking lot. Dave Skelton confirmed with Planner Morris that the applicant has not made a formal request for deviations . Kurt Albrecht commented that only those people in Units 3 and 4 would be able access the second exits . He added that Unit 5 appears to only have access to one exit . Al Scholes voiced concern regarding fire truck access and noted that there will need to be some assurance that the alley remains clear. He added that a dedicated fire lane would need to be posted behind the new building. Dave Skelton confirmed that John Paysek would like to see turning movement templates for the parking lot. Initial Week Review 1 . Empire Building Materials Dave Skelton reviewed the proposal and explained that staff is not in a position to support deviations or variances from the code. Supporting the project, he said, would essentially allow a nonconforming structure to remain for eternity. Dave Skelton noted potential problems with the storm runoff as well as traffic circulation in the area. He indicated that the applicant is proposing landscaping in the existing right-of-way. Phill Forbes remarked that the northernmost curb cut would need to be closed. He said that the applicant should install a curb sidewalk rather than pave up to the curb. Dave Skelton commented that the chain link fence proposed on the property line would not be allowed in the B-2 District without a variance. Proposed Street Standards for Countryside Subdivision Rick Kerin reviewed the proposed street standard for the portion of Ravalli Street from Fowler to West Babcock. He indicated that this portion of Ravalli Street would be a public street. He added that the street would fall within the right-of- way and the sidewalks . Planner Skelton confirmed that the curb sidewalk would be on the west side of the street. Bruce Foley explained that the property width does not allow the sidewalk on the east side. He noted the proposed valve boxes with utilities in the front yard. Rick Kerin indicated that the utilities would be installed concurrently with the valve boxes . He added that they would look into accommodating a boulevard on both sides of the street where the units front. Dave Skelton remarked that DRC would not be too concerned whether the sidewalks on the private streets are on the property line as the Homeowner' s Association would be responsible for them. Fred Shields stated that he would not support curb boxes being set back in the property as they should be located I off the property line. Lonnie Walker appealed that a boulevard on both sides doesn ' t leave enough room to keep the valve box on the property line. He noted that they are not asking for any deviations to setbacks . Fred Shields indicated that any alternatives to the standard valve box location would require an easement. Dave Skelton suggested that the DRC discuss the valve box location next week when the applicant can submit a design showing them. He said he would like to discuss the valve boxes more next week if the applicant provides the DRC a sense of where the they will be located. Planner Skelton remarked that the DRC needs to see how the ditch works in the street section presented in relation to the easement. John Paysek suggested the applicants provide a vertical/horizontal scaled section with the stream. Lonnie walker commented that his main objective is to get a favorable recommendation from the DRC for the project whether he is capable or not of designing a boulevard sidewalk on both sides of Ravalli . Phill Forbes remarked that, if the City considers an alternate street standard for this section, parking should be on the east side of the section and the corner should be kept open for visibility purposes . He added that, if only one boulevard is possible, it should be on the side that does not allow parking. Planner Skelton indicated that he has recommended the applicant apply for a Zoning PUD to reduce the setbacks, rather than a Subdivision PUD which deals with street standards . Phill Forbes suggested the applicant meet with members of the DRC to discuss the design issue further. Planner Skelton intimated that the applicants are trying to put 10 pounds into a 5 pound sack and remarked that it is important not to put any City department into a predicament which would result in negative repercussions in the future.