DRC tables 2‑lot Highland Drive subdivision pending traffic study, access and accessory‑building resolution

The Development Review Committee on July 22 tabled a preliminary 2‑lot subdivision application for property at Highland Drive and 130 South that would create a church parcel and a second, irregular future lot. The DRC said the item requires a traffic study to resolve access spacing and grade concerns, separately recorded easement or right‑of‑way dedication tied to a planned realignment of Highland Drive, and resolution of an existing shed that would be an accessory structure without an associated primary building.

The item is significant because planned realignment and interchange work near Main Street may reduce available spacing for access on Highland Drive; the city’s master‑plan standard limits spacing between intersections to 250 feet unless a traffic study supports a different arrangement.

Aspen, planning staff, told the applicant that the city requests a PLSS certificate from the county surveyor and a USPS acknowledgement from the local post office as checklist items for the subdivision packet. When engineer David Peterson of Excel Engineering asked where to obtain those documents, Aspen replied that the county surveyor’s office issues the PLSS certificate and that the local postmaster can provide the USPS acknowledgement by email.

Aspen also raised a code compliance issue about an existing barn/shed on the site, noting that under current city code accessory buildings cannot stand alone without a primary structure. “Accessory buildings can’t be built, just stand alone,” Aspen said; the DRC advised the applicant that the shed either must be associated with a new primary structure on Lot 2 or removed. The applicant’s representative said the seller understands the future lot may remain a deep, narrow lot and that the shed likely relates historically to the adjacent house.

Transportation and engineering staff described an ongoing local design and environmental assessment for the Main Street interchange that extends south and may require right‑of‑way dedication along the north wedge of this property. The DRC noted potential grading and turning issues for any second access near the northwest corner of Lot 1 and said fire and public‑safety turning radii and approach grades must be verified. The DRC also discussed possible connections to an existing church site just south of the property as an option for a second access.

Stormwater comments requested verification that an existing inlet and roadway sump can accept additional runoff from frontage improvements; the applicant must confirm sump capacity in the storm‑drain report. Other technical redlines included updating a proposed 4‑foot sidewalk to the current 5‑foot standard and providing a roadway structural section.

Given these unresolved items, DRC member John made a motion to table the subdivision until a traffic study demonstrates acceptable access spacing or documents a right‑of‑way dedication; the motion stated redline comments must also be addressed. The motion was seconded and approved by voice vote; the committee instructed staff to provide the applicant with the specific checklist items and to re‑route the item after the study and corrections are submitted.

Next steps: the applicant will contact the county surveyor and local post office to acquire the PLSS certificate and USPS acknowledgement, complete a traffic study to resolve access spacing or provide a right‑of‑way dedication tied to the planned Highland Drive alignment, address stormwater and sidewalk redlines, and resolve the accessory building status for Lot 2 before the DRC will reschedule the item for recommendation to planning commission.