Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Site Plan Spring Haven topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
DRC reviews Spring Haven site plan; sewer capacity, school pedestrian access and trail right-of-way flagged
Summary
At the Oct. 8 Development Review Committee meeting, staff and the applicant discussed sewer capacity questions, pedestrian connections to a nearby school and constraints on the 12-foot trail and right-of-way dedications for the Spring Haven (formerly Chandler Hills) first submittal.
The Development Review Committee discussed the first submittal for the Spring Haven (formerly Chandler Hills) construction site plan on Oct. 8, focusing on sewer capacity, pedestrian access to a nearby high school and whether right-of-way constraints will allow the 12-foot trail the city expects.
Dane Hamilton, an Ashton Woods representative, said sewer capacity is his “primary concern,” and asked for an update from public works and the applicant’s engineer. Vladimir Simonovsky, city engineer and public works director, said sidewalk and crossing work should “make it safe for kids that actually go through that route and also for the other developments that are coming on the West side of that to be able to safely go to the school.”
Applicant representatives and staff described two alternative pedestrian routes. The applicant noted an existing tie-in point to an adjacent subdivision and emergency-access tract that would allow students to use sidewalk connections through Orchard Estates rather than walking on Kelly Park Road, where dedicated right-of-way is currently insufficient. The applicant said the connection would keep students on public right-of-way with street lighting and sidewalks rather than requiring a new sidewalk stretch on Kelly Park where property owners have not dedicated right-of-way.
Staff and the applicant flagged several right-of-way and design constraints. The applicant said neighboring corner parcels have not dedicated the 30-foot right-of-way typically required along Kelly Park and that at one corner the property-appraiser data showed only about three to four feet between roadway and property line. The applicant said, “We're building the trail as part of the development. There's definitely not room to build 10 foot trail. I mean, I I don't we can measure that, but I think it's, like, 3 feet. It doesn't even meet ADA standards or any city standards.”
The committee discussed the option of routing pedestrians through the subdivision and maintaining an emergency access connection rather than building a sidewalk on Kelly Park immediately. Public-works staff said that, ultimately, the city will likely require a 30-foot right-of-way dedication and the 12-foot trail when the remaining adjacent properties develop, but those dedications have not occurred yet.
Other technical issues raised included alley and pavement widths for fire access. Staff described the alley cross-section: “The pavement's 14, and then there's 2 12 inch ribbon curves on these sides. So it's 16 foot of pave material, but it's 20 foot cleared.” Fire and public-works staff said they would review the alley and turning areas further and provide comments.
Committee members agreed to meet offline with public works, planning and the applicant to pursue a solution on the right-of-way dedications and school access. Staff said further surveying and review would be provided and that public-works comments would be delivered by the end of the week.
No formal action, vote or permit decision was taken at the meeting; staff and the applicant were directed to continue coordination and return with more detailed responses to the DRC comments.
