Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Land Use And Transportation topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Developer and city staff discuss Spring Haven master-plan conformity, right-of-way dedication and traffic methodology

2978672 · April 9, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

City staff and the developer discussed a major development plan for Spring Haven (formerly Chandler Hills) April 9, with the project team describing right-of-way dedications and staff confirming traffic studies include entitled and under-construction nearby projects.

City project staff and the applicant discussed a major development plan for Spring Haven (formerly Chandler Hills) at the committee's April 9 meeting, with questions focused on right-of-way dedication, traffic study methodology and construction access.

The project manager told the Development Review Committee the major development plan (MDP) is consistent with the master plan and the rezoning the City Council recently approved to allow the KPI development. The project team said they will dedicate 50 feet of right of way on the west side of the project and that an adjacent developer (IMB Homes) will dedicate additional right of way when commercial development to the north proceeds.

Committee members asked whether Chandler Road will become a public road and who would be responsible for constructing it; staff said the city would likely assume responsibility for constructing the road in the future. The project representative explained the current situation includes a 15-foot private track owned by the Orchid Estates homeowners association and some parcels that lack formal access easements. The developer said the project will dedicate a 50-foot right of way where it controls property and will preserve the existing 15-foot strip to avoid denying access for existing residents.

Traffic impacts were a core topic. A committee member asked whether the project's traffic study accounted for other subdivisions that have been approved or are under construction on Kelly Park Road. A project consultant described the standard methodology: traffic consultants submit a methodology report, staff review background trips and the consultants include entitled and under-construction projects within a one- to two-mile radius. "My understanding so, the traffic consultants that we use typically are couple different ones. My understanding is they submit what's called a methodology report to the city. And the city will respond and say, not only here's the exit because they'll have the background data they call it, so they'll go and get trips currently. And then they go to the city and say, okay," the consultant said. Staff identified Diana Almodovar as the reviewer who has overseen traffic review for this project.

The project team said they included the INB (IMB) development to the west in background trip assumptions, and because the site to the northwest has not defined commercial uses, the consultants assumed a generic commercial trip generation for that parcel.

The committee also discussed access and construction staging. The developer said construction traffic will come from Kelly Park Road, that the plan preserves an emergency access to Oak Hill and that the project will build a concrete paved connection up to the Orchid Estates emergency-access strip. The developer estimated construction would begin roughly six months after final approvals, with a likely six- to nine-month window before construction start depending on approvals and closings.

Police and fire representatives discussed the site's potential as a training area; the developer said he was willing to coordinate and sign a hold-harmless letter to allow training uses, and the committee said they would notify the training chief.

Public works comments remained outstanding at the DRC meeting; staff said they would provide those comments to the applicant for the record. No final vote or approval was taken at this meeting; the MDP remains under review pending public services and public works review.