Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Pacific aldermen take first reading on Highlands PUD, debate private road width and HOA maintenance
Summary
At first reading of Bill 5251, aldermen and residents questioned a developer proposal for 20 lots along Old Gray Summit Road that would use a private 24‑foot road, require HOA maintenance of detention basins, and omit sidewalks and street lights; developer agreed to provide draft covenants and tweak setbacks for the next reading.
The Pacific Board of Aldermen held a lengthy first reading on Sept. 3 of Bill 5251, a preliminary development plan for the Highlands subdivision on Old Gray Summit Road, drawing extensive questions about road width, drainage and long‑term maintenance.
Clerk read the ordinance accepting a PUD for about 20 lots; the developer representative, Elliot Reid of Cochrane Engineering, described a private internal road originally proposed at 22 feet that planning and zoning negotiated to 24 feet and a plan that places detention basins in low points and assigns maintenance responsibility to a homeowners association once roughly 14 homes are built. Reid said the design preserves about 30 acres of trees and aims for a “rural setting” with larger, wooded lots.
Several aldermen and residents pressed for changes. Alderman Cleave and others said a 26‑foot pavement width would better accommodate trash trucks, parked cars and pedestrians when sidewalks are absent; a planning member and staff said planning and zoning recommended 24 feet and the fire department had approved three hydrants for the plan. Public works staff noted that city minor‑street standards typically call for a 30‑foot right‑of‑way, but that private streets and smaller developments have been approved at narrower widths in the past.
Questions also focused on pavement and base thickness. Planning submittals showed a PUD pavement section of 5 inches of asphalt over an 8‑inch base, while adopted city construction standards list different thicknesses for R‑1 zones. Public works said the developer’s reduced rock and thicker asphalt approach is consistent with prior private subdivisions and, with proper compaction, should be sufficient for the planned traffic levels.
Aldermen raised concerns about long‑term risk if a developer or HOA cannot maintain private streets or detention facilities and whether the city could be asked to accept the private streets later without full compliance with city standards. Attorney Jones and staff explained that the city could require any public‑acceptance upgrades be brought to city standards before formal dedication.
Elliot Reid confirmed the developer will provide a draft of restrictive covenants and agreed to return at the next reading with clarifications on setbacks and the street width. The board did not vote on final approval at first reading; staff said the items discussed — setbacks, the HOA maintenance triggers and the final covenants — would be returned in writing for the second reading.
The board also discussed easements and utility clearings along the railroad right‑of‑way, mail delivery options (cluster box vs. individual mailboxes), and drainage routing to the railroad right‑of‑way. Planning staff noted that the project will advance to civil plan review after the PUD is approved.
Next steps: Bill 5251 remains at first reading; the developer committed to bring written revisions (setbacks, covenants and clarified road sections) for the next meeting’s reading.
