5-1-24 PB Agenda Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

200 Whitney Watson: So, I'm just looking and trying to determine where the property line is on the south, and if 201 Minnick Road, which is a private road, is impacted by the property line, or if there's any kind of easement there? 202 203 Phil Koch: It's actually not impacted by the property lines. Property lines were actually pulled away 204 slightly from Minnick Road to allow for that area that was part of this parcel. This parcel originally went to the 205 center line of Minnick Road, so the open space now extends from the centerline back into the property to where 206 the back of the property lines, and that's been provided as open space to make that essentially act as if it were a 207 public open space. Or a private right of way that had full right of way. 208 209 Whitney Watson: And so will there be landscaping buffers, plantings required along that line? 210 211 Phil Koch: No. There's not any that I know of that are required on that. Now, whatever is required by 212 the County would have to be there as part of the full design. But again, I want to point out, that's a private road 213 right now, and in fact, this property was subdivided out in order to help the neighbor who lives there actually have 214 a full access right of way to his house. 215 216 Marilyn Carter: Just following on Delores' question about road safety, can you talk about how the proposed 217 private road meets Miller? And what is the topography where the road meets the private road – 218 219 Phil Koch: But the road that we are currently putting in is a public road, not a private road. 220 221 Marilyn Carter: My apologies. So, the road that you would put in for the development, can you talk about 222 that road and how it interacts with the main road, and what's the topography of that junction? 223 224 Phil Koch: That is actually at roughly the high point there. That has been reviewed thoroughly by the 225 DOT. We have walked that with them. They actually asked for a sight distance study out there which has been 226 done, and they agree that this is, in fact, not only the best, but it does provide full sight distance for the 227 intersection south, as well as the roadway toward the north. 228 229 Marilyn Carter: Is there any visibility issue on that turn? 230 231 Phil Koch: No. The only visibility issue they have asked us to do some additional work on would be 232 there's a couple of trees out there that will require some pruning. That's it. But the sight distance itself is, I want 233 to say, it's 400 feet. Don't quote me on that right off hand. I can pull that analysis out. I think we actually 234 measured it out to 500 feet, and at that point the DOT was fine with it. It meets all AASHTO standards. 235 236 Beth Bronson: Does it include that turning lane in? They determined you did not need that. Correct? 237 238 Phil Koch: We do not need a turning lane out here, any type, no. 239 240 Statler Gilfillen: The property to the north, it's open land. Is that going to be available to the public for people 241 to walk through there, or be part of, or not? Or is that to be closed for this group? 242 243 Phil Koch: Well, I mean, technically it's part of this subdivision, but I know that neighbors are already 244 on the land regularly walking dogs, et cetera. I don't know that there would be a way to prevent that anyway, but 245 I do know they cross over the stream there and actually do walk their dogs there. So, I would imagine the trails 246 themselves would remain there. 247 248 12