Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-24-1998 DRC Minutes DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 24, 1998, 10:00 A.M. CONFERENCE ROOM CITY HALL, 411 EAST MAIN STREET DRC Members Present: Staff Present: Rick Hixson, City Project Engineer Therese Berger, Planner Craig Brawner, City Engineer Phill Forbes, Public Service Director Debbie Axkell, Recorder Greg Megard, Fire Department Chuck Winn, Fire Department Roger Sicz, Street/Sanitation Superintendent Dave Skelton, Senior Planner Mike Certalic, Water/Sewer Superintendent Kirsten Emborg, Building Permit Coordinator A. FINT4L NVEEK REVIE«' Henderson Concept PUD r Z-98191 - (Bey jet) 1005 East Griffin Drive - A Concept Planned unit Development proposal for the development of roughly 500 storage units and 28 mobile home lots on approximately 18.5 acres located north of Griffin Drive, between Bridger and Griffin Drives. Carroll Henderson and Lou Burton joined DRC. Ri:k Hi-.;sots dis<n'uted its comp e is that must be addressed in the preliminary plan submittal (on file in the PIanning Office). Roger Sicz asked that a waiver of right to protest creation of SIDs for a signal at Griffin Drive and Rouse Avenue be added to Mr. Hixson's comment no. 14. Debbie Arkell suggested that Mr. Hixson's comments be revised to refer to the preliminary submittal, and not the final site plan. Roger Sicz asked about condition 12, and if it required paving of Griffin from Rouse to Story Mill. Mr. Hixson stated that is his intent. Chuck Winn agreed with Mr. Hixson's comments to allow parking only on one side of the street in the mobile home park, and the cul-de-sac requirements. Mr. Winn stated they do not allow locked crates for emergency access. Mr. Burton stated that at the DRC meeting last week there was a lot of comment about the gate and what could be done about it, but no one had a solution. He asked Mr. Winn if it is better to not have a gate at all, and thus, no second access from the storage unit facility. Mr. Henderson stated a manager will Live on the site. Mr. Winn stated he doesn't consider a locked gate as a secondary emergency access. He stated he reviews a project based on the merits of the site, and as Iona as turnincr radii can be provided in the site, a secondary access will not be required. He added a note of caution, stating that some things could be stored' in the units that may require additional fire protection. Mr. Henderson stated it is not advisable to have combustible rental units, because they are locked, so they must be non-combustible construction. Mr. Winn agreed, but stated he is referring to the use and not the construction. Mr. Burton stated they don't have a lot of control over what individuals put inside. Mr. Winn stated some units are used for businesses, which creates a problem. Mr. Henderson stated their contract 1 doesn't allow a business to be conducted in the units. Mr. Winn stated the hydrant shown at the east end of the storage area is not accessible. Mr. Burton stated they will relocate it to a usable area. Therese Berger distributed her comments, which summarized comments made at the last two meetings, and reviewed those issues which have not yet been discussed (see file). Her item 3 discusses other intersections for waivers of SIDs and asked if they should be included, Phill Forbes agreed that they should be included. She stated a concern of the Planning Department is the closeness of the east-west street to the existing Christie home, and suggested a 25-foot setback be provided. Mr. Henderson stated he thought the house was already 25-feet from the property line. With regard to eliminating the four foot boulevard from the street, Lou Burton stated they have other areas for snow removal. Lou Burton confirmed that the proposed 20-foot planter strip is on the adjacent property. He clarified that the present drive is on Mr. Henderson's property, and the planter strip exists. Phill Forbes stated he thinks the railroad right of way is owned by the City. Carroll Henderson agreed that was the case. Mr. Forbes agreed the POST plan must be reviewed to see what kind of link the right of way anticipates. Mr. Henderson stated he is concerned with the stipulation that he improve Griffin Drive, noting he doesn't have a problem participating in an SID, but he cannot finance the entire project. He referred to the use of the street from the stockyards, especially on i1•iondays which is the sale day. Lou Burton asked if he understands, from mr. Hixson's comments, that N,-T- He1d.r;o ; obligation is limited to his fair share. Mr. Hixson clarified that the condition states that improvements must be in place prior to development, it doesn't say who must do them. There is a concern about the condition of Griffin Drive, and adding more traffic to it. The County Road Superintendent also expressed concern with that. Dave Skelton asked Mr. Henderson why he is only proposing an 8-foot side yard setback between the storage units and the mobile home park, noting they had discussed the need for a larger setback early in the process. Mr. Henderson stated the mobile home regulations allow an 8-foot setback. Mr. Skelton stated it is imperative to provide a legitimate transition between the two uses. Mr. Henderson stated he held a meeting with residents in the existing mobile home court and reviewed the 8-foot setback with them and they agreed with it. Dave Skelton stated it would be difficult for the Planning Staff to look favorable on an 8-foot setback, as the regulations require a 20 foot setback. Lou Burton stated they plan a trade off of berming and landscaping. Dave Skelton stated it is imperative that they provide those details in the preliminary plan. Citv Engineer Craig Brawner stated the existing utilities and easements must be shown on the preliminary plan, as well as the relocated utilities, and the plan must indicate whether the existing easements will be abandoned. Mr. Burton stated they are still waiting to hear from Montana Power on that. Mr. Brawner stated this is only concept plan, with limited information, and that a traffic impact analysis must be submitted with the preliminary plan so they can determine what improvements will be required. Mr. Henderson stated he has no argument that one bridge needs 2 corrected, and will answer any identified problems on a fair basis, but he cannot do all of the improvements himself. Lou Burton stated that would make the project unfeasible. Craig Brawner stated they are not asking for full city standards, which they normally would, on the street improvements. They are just asking for a safe standard, and if the traffic impact shows there are unsafe conditions, Mr. Henderson can either wait until the city or county makes the improvements, or be a party to making the improvements. Mr. Henderson stated it was not his original intent to put in mobile homes, but he was guided by the Planning Staff that his project would be more favorably considered if they were added. He would prefer to leave it all storage units. Dave Skelton stated Therese Berger will put these comments in a letter for their use in preparing the preliminary plan. 3