4_3_24 Planning Board Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

APPROVED WITH CORRECTIONS 5.1.24 200 201 Whitney Watson: So, I'm just looking and trying to determine where the property line is on the south, and if 202 Minnick Road, which is a private road, is impacted by the property line, or if there's any kind of easement there? 203 204 Phil Koch: It's actually not impacted by the property lines. Property lines were actually pulled away 205 slightly from Minnick Road to allow for that area that was part of this parcel. This parcel originally went to the 206 center line of Minnick Road, so the open space now extends from the centerline back into the property to where 207 the back of the property lines, and that's been provided as open space to make that essentially act as if it were a 208 public open space. Or a private right of way that had full right of way. 209 210 Whitney Watson: And so will there be landscaping buffers, plantings required along that line? 211 212 Phil Koch: No. There's not any that I know of that are required on that. Now, whatever is required by 213 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 214 right now, and in fact,this property was subdivided out in order to help the neighbor who lives there actually have 215 a full access right of way to his house. 216 217 Marilyn Carter: Just following on Delores'question about road safety, can you talk about how the proposed 218 private road meets Miller? And what is the topography where the road meets the private road — 219 220 Phil Koch: But the road that we are currently putting in is a public road, not a private road. 221 222 Marilyn Carter: My apologies. So, the road that you would put in for the development, can you talk about 223 that road and how it interacts with the main road, and what's the topography of that junction? 224 225 Phil Koch: That is actually at roughly the high point there. That has been reviewed thoroughly by the 226 DOT. We have walked that with them. They actually asked for a sight distance study out there which has been 227 done, and they agree that this is, in fact, not only the best, but it does provide full sight distance for the 228 intersection south, as well as the roadway toward the north. 229 230 Marilyn Carter: Is there any visibility issue on that turn? 231 232 Phil Koch: No. The only visibility issue they have asked us to do some additional work on would be 233 there's a couple of trees out there that will require some pruning. That's it. But the sight distance itself is, I want 234 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 235 measured it out to 500 feet, and at that point the DOT was fine with it. It meets all AASHTO standards. 236 237 Beth Bronson: Does it include that turning lane in? They determined you did not need that. Correct? 238 239 Phil Koch: We do not need a turning lane out here, any type, no. 240 241 Statler Gilfillen: The property to the north, it's open land. Is that going to be available to the public for people 242 to walk through there, or be part of, or not? Or is that to be closed for this group? 243 244 Phil Koch: Well, I mean, technically it's part of this subdivision, but I know that neighbors are already 245 on the land regularly walking dogs, et cetera. I don't know that there would be a way to prevent that anyway, but 246 1 do know they cross over the stream there and actually do walk their dogs there. So, I would imagine the trails 247 themselves would remain there. 248