Joint City and County Planning Commission Meeting by BYh5mmL

VIEWS: 0 PAGES: 3

									              JOINT CITY AND COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
                         HUGHES COUTY COMMISSION ROOM
                                Monday, June 25, 2007
                                     5:15 p.m.

Members in attendance: Mike Kelley, Bill Johnston, Vern Bump, Greg Buntrock, Roger Inman,
Hal Rumpca, Stacy Bartlett, Jeanne Goodman, and Rick Hahn.

Guests present: Laurie Schultz, P.E. with Brosz Engineering

Staff present: Sharon Pruess, Mel Placek, and Kevin Hipple

Chairperson Hahn called the meeting to order at 5:15 p.m.

Inman made a motion seconded by Kelley to approve the minutes of the November13, 2006
meeting. The vote was unanimous. Minutes stand approved as written.

First on the agenda was Kendra Wendt’s request for approval of a sketch plat of Razor Ridge
Subdivision. This property is located in the extra-territorial joint jurisdiction adjacent to the north
boundary of Pierre City limits and west of Highway 1804 and the former 1804 Country Store and
west of the Right of Way (ROW) in Section 20 & NW ¼ of 21-111-79. It is zoned Ag A. Pruess
explained Wendt’s proposal to plat the 3 parcels totaling 292 acres into 13 lots ranging in size
from 17 to 26 acres. A single access is proposed at the ¼ section line off the west side of
Highway 1804. The proposal includes rural section roads with gravel surfacing, septic systems,
city water and rural electric. Laurie Schultz, P.E. with Brosz Engineering (representing Kendra
Wendt) had previously advised the NW cul-de-sac exceeds the maximum allowable length of
1000 ft. so the looped road would be reconfigured to meet the 1000 ft. requirement. The
minimum parcel size in Ag A zoning is 20 acres. The developer inquired about annexation as
part of city water and electric service. More than one access is recommended for new
subdivisions and access off Highway 1804 is subject to approval from the State Department of
Transportation (DOT).

Pruess advised the comprehensive plans for the city and county indicate rural subdivisions with
rural standards adjacent to or near the city would be very costly to serve with water, sewer, storm
sewer, streets and other utilities if, or when, annexed to the city. The plans recommend that any
development in the extra-territorial area be required to construct streets or roads to meet city
standards with curb and gutter and surfacing in place.

Pruess explained that the City staff met and discussed whether the parcel should be annexed;
whether the development would be an asset to the city and provide an adequate return to pay
costs on the requested utility services; what utilities should or could be provided including water,
roads, electric, sewer, streetlights, hydrants; who would provide the utilities and maintain the
infrastructure improvements over the long term; how would environmental issues such as
challenging slopes and soils be handled; how would the suitability for septic systems be
addressed; if the city provides water service would other fringe developments want the same
service, would the development facilitate further urban-type development further to the north,
etc. The City staff determined that limited city resources including the extension of city water
and electric service, would be targeted to the growth areas identified in the pending


C:\Docstoc\Working\pdf\26e8b5d8-3166-4adb-b41c-2ba194dc3202.doc
                                                      Page 1 of 3
06-25-07 Joint Planning Commission Minutes - Continued

Comprehensive Plan update. This would include large areas that can support an urban density
and provide a return on infrastructure investments. The City staff is recommending that the
property not be annexed and that the City provide a meter pit at the northern boundary of city
limits for water service. The water meter pit location would be similar to the location for the
private water service lines that extend outside of city limits for the 1804 Country Store and the
Chris Hipple residence. Pruess noted that she met with County Planner, Mel Placek, to discuss
many of the above issues as well. The staff further recommended a road and water district, lot
sizes of at least 20 acres, a geotech review that includes an opinion on the suitability of soils for
septic systems, a concern noted for one point of access off the highway and right-of-way
connections to adjacent land.

Bump asked if there is a potential area of access to the south, “where is it?” Laurie Schultz with
Brosz Engineering advised that the property commonly known as the “Feeney property”
provides a large plateau just to the south. She said that right-of-way would be dedicated between
one or more lots at the south end of the development to potentially provide a future road
connection to the southerly property. Schultz noted that American State bank owns a parcel near
the SW corner of the sketch plat and may sell it to Wendt. That parcel would be incorporated
into the sketch plat as well.

Schultz advised all the lots would remain at approximately 20 acres each. Bump said this is
essentially similar to Van Roekel’s property across from Farm Island. He further stated he
personally agrees with the city about annexation. Hahn said if the surrounding land is annexed
this area would likely be “scooped up” too. Pruess said if this property is developed with rural
standards and the land to the north would not support an urban density and urban services that
this subdivision is less likely to become part of city limits. Section 21 and 22 to the east have
been identified as growth areas and can support an urban density.

Pruess said water was the developer’s main concern because there is a moratorium on rural
water. Schultz said Wendt wants it to be a gated community so a fire hydrant would likely be
placed inside the gate adjacent to the road. Johnston mentioned there being a 6-inch water main
at the city limit line.

Rumpca asked if the road at Van Roekel’s development was gravel also. It was noted that
VanRoekel’s Farm Island View Estates does have rural section gravel roads.

Kelley expressed concern about soil suitability. Schultz and Pruess advised it would be tested
and Hahn reminded that they were just at the sketch plat stage now and that could be further
discussed at the preliminary plat stage.

Bump made a motion seconded by Inman to approve the sketch plat of Razor Ridge Estates in
Sections 20 & NW ¼ of Section 21-111-79. Rumpca requested the approval be contingent upon
the requirements specified by the joint staff. Placek said they would continue to discuss roads
and streetlights in particular. He said since the city doesn’t intend to annex he doesn’t see why
the city requirements for roads and street lights should be necessary. Bump amended his motion
to include the requirement that the joint staff concerns be addressed as the plans progress. All
members present voted approval. Motion carried.

Old/New Business


C:\Docstoc\Working\pdf\26e8b5d8-3166-4adb-b41c-2ba194dc3202.doc                        Page 2 of 3
06-25-07 Joint Planning Commission Minutes - Continued


Pruess received the first draft of the comprehensive plan and made some comments and
recommendations to Ulteig engineers. The goal is to have the plan ready to disburse to members
and any other that have been involved by July 2nd, then have a meeting on Monday, July 9 to
take comments on the draft and possibly have a public hearing by the end of July. Rumpca
suggested allowing more time to review the material before scheduling a public hearing. Others
agreed the 16th might be better. Bump asked who would be involved in the meeting. Pruess said
the steering committee and the Joint City/County Planning Commission members. To
accommodate the group, it might need to be held at the Chamber Community Room.

Pruess said the airport limitations contained in the draft were an “eye opener,” especially in
Section 22. Also of interest is a map showing development limitations, which include the airport
approach zones and flight path restrictions, flood zones, extreme slopes, and shale soils.

Rumpca made a motion to adjourn the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 5:40 p.m.

Minutes by Priscilla Hofer




C:\Docstoc\Working\pdf\26e8b5d8-3166-4adb-b41c-2ba194dc3202.doc                   Page 3 of 3

								
To top