HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/17/1970 - Minutes - Planning & Zoning Commission MINUTES
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS
August 17, 1970
7:00 p.m.
Members Present: Chairman C. D. Wells; Commissioners J. A. Orr, George Boyett,
Bob Evans, Carl Landiss; City Council Liaison Bill J. Cooley;
City Secretary Lynda Swoveland; City Engineer Lloyd James; and
City Planner George Eby
Members Absent: Carl Tishler and Douglas Stone
Visitors Present: Harry Seaback, T. W. Alworth, Edward H. Miller, J. B. Hervey,
D. E. McCrory, Bob Reese, Vernon Hallbeck, W. D. Fitch,
W. J. Kirkpatrick, John Culpepper, Jr. , James R. Gardner, and
John Garner
Chairman Wells called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Room of
the City Hall. On motion by Commissioner Orr, seconded by Commissioner Landiss, the
Minutes of August 3, 1970 meeting were approved as written.
P&Z Case No. 29-70:
• The first item on the agenda was the consideration of a preliminary subdivision plat
for Camelot Subdivision, Section I with the above captioned case number. This property is
located at the end of Langford Street (south end).
Chairman Wells read an excerpt from the Council Minutes of July 27, 1970, which
concerned the commitment of the city for the extension of Langford Street from Southwest
Parkway to the Camelot Subdivision.
Mr. McCrory, owner of the property, was briefly questioned by planning and zoning
commission members concerning his subdivision plat. The City Engineer and City Planner
both have examined the plat and stated they have no objection to its approval.
On motion by Commissioner Boyett, seconded by Commissioner Landiss, the
preliminary Subdivision Plat for Camelot Subdivision, Section I (P&Z Case No. 29-70),
was approved. Motion carried.
P&Z Case No. 30-70:
The next item on the agenda was the consideration of a preliminary Subdivision Plat
from McCrory-Hallbeck Properties, Inc. , on the University Oaks, Section 2, Subdivision. This
property is located between Culpepper Plaza and University Arms.
There was considerable discussion among Planning and Zoning Commission members
and the developers of the property, as well as citizens present.
Minutes of Planning and Zoning Commission Page 2
August 18, 1970
Commissioner Boyett moved that the preliminary Subdivision Plat of University
Oaks, Section 2, P&Z Case No. 30-70, be approved, conditioned upon the following:
1. Stallings Avenue be realigned to join Dominik Drive at right-angle, and
increase the right-of-way on Stallings Avenue to 60 feet.
2. The right-of-way width for Stallings Avenue, north of Dominik Drive, to be
determined on Lot 18, Block 5, by the City Engineer; this right of way width
will revert back to the developer if not used as a street within five years.
3. The park area in Block 3 to be extended to the tree line on the east side, with
the developer bearing the cost of the preliminary development for use as a
park. The park area north of University Oaks Boulevard to be deleted.
4. Blocks 1, 3 and 4 to be designated "for future development" in order to insure
that future fire lanes may be developed.
5. Developer to submit a request for zone change from apartment to duplex zoning
in Block 5.
6. Provide necessary drainage easements, to be determined by the City Engineer.
7. Sidewalks to be provided on all streets, on both sides as platted.
8. Dominik Street to be projected to Munson Drive, at the cost of the developer.
• Motion was seconded by Commissioner Orr. Motion carried unanimously.
On motion by Commissioner Orr, seconded by Commissioner Landiss, the meeting
was adjourned, subject to call.
APPROVED:
Chairman
ATTEST:
>ht-e4t14,1„b
City ecretary
las
•
•
August 10, 1970
PLANNER'S CRITIQUE ON CAMELOT ADDITION - SECTION ONE '
•
OVER
VIEW -- Camelot Addition, Section One is a small cul-de-sac
addition on the McCrory property immediately south of the Langford
Street Extention and behind the Southwood Section 1 area. Basically,
there are no faults with the plat as presented to the Planning
and Zoning Commission. The area is addequately served by existing
sewer facilities . (12" line)& a 6" ,water line at the stub of Lawyer
Place and Shadowood Drive. It has excellent natural drainage and
is crossed by a drainage esement which drains the Southwood Addition .
and the A&M Consolidated Elementary School.
COMMENTS --The developers of this addition, their engineer and
the City Planner have held several presubmission conferences. The
developers have diligently followed the recommendations of the
City Planner. The primary difference between this plat and the
previous plats is that the cul-de-sac is now derved directly by
the extention of Langford through the Area Progrees Corporation
Proper �y. This reversal of the cul-de-sac is a direct result of-
the request to be served via Langford Street which the developers
made of the City Council at the July 27, 1970 City Council meeting. . •
• The City Council agreed to pave Langford via a stage paving
process to be developed by the City Engineer.
•
1111 TECHNICALLY - -- The addition .has 1 lot in Block #1, and. 16 lots
• in Block #2. The lots are .80 feet wide for the majority of the lots ,
and 135 feet deep on the North side of the cul-de-sac and 145 feet .
deep on the south side, All zoning ordinance lot size requirements
are met and exceeded this additior:. . No master preliminary plat
has been filed that was accepted by both the Planning and Zoning
Commission and th City Council under the old Subdivision ordinance.
Amster preliminary plat has not been filed as' of yet due to
the difficulty that the Camelot Developers have had with the Area
Progress Corporation. It appears at this moment that the problem
(coordinating the platting of property on the common property line
of Camelot; and APC) is solvable only by the concerted effort of the
Planning and Zoning Commission and other city staff, working with
both developers.
PARK DEDICATION _.-- The requireme:.,; :), one acre of park land per
200 dwelling units in6icates that ;,neir share amounts to 0.085 acres.
Since that amount L:_ park land would hardly make enough park land
for a. tot lot I wc;al.. recommend that the requirement be forgiven
c that the city settle for a cash settlement in the neighborhood
y200, which f . 7ures out to be approximately $2300/acre. It seems
to me that thy. of having the land appraised would not be worth ,
the effort inv..,_ .:. : . Another
approach might be to have th., developer
file a master preliminary plat of his entire property. A'
realistic parks plan could then be established . It appears at this
• moment that a ,substantial portion of the land west of the Bee Creek
channel is so low that it may not be developable. without filling
the land . Some of this land is the logical place for a park, .
particularly if it is joined with low land on the APC property to
establish a large areal park.
NOTE: I recommend accepting this ' p : *•�. plat. But not aecepti:
7)la.t until the master .pr ,: ._�._ l.at is approved.
r b 1
.. • • • �+
, .
•,... . .
,... .
..
., - \ . , ,- ., ,•,/ .
• .
2 . / . • v..
.-- . •. .
i ,
/� 1
. .• _ .
_______._
I .
___ . _
.r ---.'"<:-....._/ . - CO &
!` t o /
1, a' . /
♦- r Coc.41r ant. - `- \° ' . r .
t- /, h'vtS/r)4 `•� ;. G.d.H •r •��.\ .
i i w T \
o s 249,'S4 3 ?C1 /¢o1 2c•4t-114 o 'r ` `a \� `
ii z8�. 241/9 Z 0 �, 26 S '44 9 1� \ E I
0 1 4. \
l3S C
---r,y., .-1s • - --/ou. c j - .-tOCc 157.93 ' } 275.c •y -- y4 - •
E..SJ�n� -r6F ,tre,{ ----;-. -`• 544.5�(' 53"W- 1:/:60 - I . f
• - i,C.-e 1• - 82. e2 - i11. 38- 8c.c -- ---80.c----- R0. c•---- -80,0------130.0 1\78 60.83 .59 0 .
It! 7 q C� .J G 1 t v cm - `• t✓ - - -? , r Cd
• i 0 r t 1 ) '1 E N N N tg' N N ss
• 'o
00
j • ...1 -• n 6.- lS� 1 0 O ` 0 �' 0 '. Q ' _ • yr •._ O-
f,• ck rl C O CQ 5c•.0 - r 25 --- ` • ________Iist CO *` p N 1
3.-. N 3 o oy �e� G1.7 80.o ^,c 8c.• �4.4 SS.64 7l os A°9"��•'.
�.•c
am— �o' l tl �r f• / /l ArT U/ Circle � G 66
�E A
- c,. EZSt,,t. }- E+ .S4;n� '2 ar�,ta ., , tWtr I__ ..0
_
:
- vr ► -- � - .�.
_ tir.7 a-o , 0,r .oc . -L - r N4-5°Z- o
j'a . o y S.p� 4 a
S - -- - ._ -So. c.
.
•
' ^ ' y°P�o6 c.• 0 .J o 0 C to Q •tv ' , Z --
123.F5 t ''
80.0 80.0— • 80.0 fi - �d 8 _ �L ..
N44'S/ S3"E- 4°5.03 'V - /9 j7 •60 0 .• „t !
Di. /4l CG ror 1 `E 467 ; , ,. II..
8 ' ti..
y. Zn 7 P. 4 21 , ,' s,-, �.
'.-t-.- .. _ :'(6. i
- -- - -• /1/ /°1a// V - ':
�. .
.
111
Planner' s Critique on University Oaks - Section 2
University Oaks when fully developed to the density expected
will have over 1000 apartmentdwelling units within its bounds.
That will house over 3600 additional residents who will own nearly
2000 automobiles. Each of these automobiles is expected to make
8 to 10 trips per day, meaning that they will leave the apartment
complex and return 4j:;to 5 times each way. The grand total amount
of traffic that the complex will eventually generate is consequently
between 16,000 and 20,000 trips per day. An example of trip density
roughly equivalent to the projected and expected traffic may be
found by examinining today' s Highway 6 in front of the City Hall.
Traffic on Highway 6 after the complete development of this
apartment complex could and probably will surge upward to
25,000 to 37,000 vehicle trips per day in front of the City Hall.
• I HOPE I HAVE POINTED OUT CLEARLY THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THIS NEW
APARTMENT COMPLEX; AT LEAST THE SIGNIFCANCE THAT IS RELEVANT TO
TRANSPORTATION. The street system previously approved by the
City may be unsatisfactory to handle this amount of traffic.
I, as city planner, felt that the situation was so critical that
I called upon Dr. Stover of the Safety Committee for help in
analyzing the situation and to try to effect the best solution to
the problem. Dr. Stover had previously indicated his concern over
• the problem. Dr. Stover is a transportation planning engineer
for the Texas Transportation Inst.i_tute at Texas A&M University and
has written numerous scientific papers , books and reports for
TTI, and other research organizations. His latest report was
National Cooperative Highway Research Program Report l#93 entitled
"Guidelines for Medial and Marginal Access Control on Major
Roadways" . The document was written for the National Academy of
Sciences. In analyzing the problem, Dr. Stover pointed out that the
existing street pattern will be marginal for the addequate flow
and safety of traffic. The Dominik Street exit onto Highway 6
is most critical. Short of redesigning the Culpepper Plaza plat
the best thing to do is to terminate Dominik Street so as not to
let traffic out of Dominik onto Highway 6. BUT REALIZING the
imposibility of that, the instalation of NO LEFT TURN SIGNS become
of paramount importance. There are several things wrong with the
technical aspects of the location of the Dominik Street exit. They
are that the terrific traffic density expected to make a right turn
off Dominik and onto Highway 6 will create a very hazardous intersec-
tion. It will be a dangerous intersection. There is no room to
manuver from the right side of highway 6 over to the left turn lane
to make a left turn onto Jersey -for the expected traffic flow
' desiring to turn left onto Jersey. THE SOLUTION: NO LEFT TURNS
OFF OF HIGHWAY 6 INTO DOMINIK, NO LEFT TURNS FROM DOMINIK ONTO
HIGHWAY 6 AND A MORE DETAILEDD ANALYSIS OF THE EFFECT ON JERSEY ST.
It is necessary to clearly point out that a left turn lane to
provide access from Highway 6 into Dominik would not be satisfactory
since the distance is too short to allow addequate queing of vehicles
desirous of turning left. Also, the city must pave the stub of
Puryear Street leading into the Culpepper Plaza.
Pri-------- •
_ The preceding is an analysis of whit the city must do to make
III The
possible for traffic to flow at a level consistant with the
desires of the apartment residents living within the University
Oaks apartment complex. Obviously, the area of concern is not
within the Subdivision itself. (A NOTE IN PASSING: Some cities
have insisted that when a subdivision has a detrimental effect
or an effect inconsistant with the needs of the city, the Subdivision
developers were to correct the situation under city supervision
and at the expense of the developers prior to plat approval: )
M
WITHIb THE SUBDIVISION PROPER:
The 2 enclosed 1:600 maps indicate 2 methods of platting the
subdivision. The plat submitted is UNSATISFACTORY in several
' respects. To enumerate:
1. Streets are substantially further apart than the 800 feet
required by the new Subdivision Ordinance.
2. The park site is inadequate. The park needs to include
all of the area between the proposed park and Stallings
Drive. (The park needs to be 7.9 acres. The dotted areas
are the park lands. ) The park needs to face Stallings
Drive and go back to the 75 foot drainage easement on
the creek. That will only provide 5. 5 acres of park out-
• side the drainage easement but enough of the park is over
the 200 foot width requirement to be able to use enough of
the drainage easement as an addition to the park to bring
the park size to 7.9 acres.
3. Munson Ave. should be deleted by Ordinance as being a
Principal Collector. It is not a principal collector, and
never will be a principal collector. It would be to the
cities advantage to forget Munson forever as being a
principal collector. Apparently , there is no way for
the city to make Munson serve as a principal collector
when most of the paving is only 28 feet wide. If the
city feels that it needs a principal collector (properly
termed a secondary arterial) in the area, Williams Street
extended to Tarrow Street, widened , with proper protection
provided to the school is a reasonable possibility.
MUNSON SHOULD NOT BE SHOWN AS A.:'PRINCIPAL COLLECTOR ON THE
UNIVERSITY OAKS PLAT. IT SHOULD BE MADE DISCONTINUOUS.
IT SHOULD DIRECT TRAFFIC AWAY FROM THE CRITICAL DOMINIK
STREET AND TOWARD STATE HIGHWAY #30.
4+. Stallings Street should be reoriented eastward so that
Stallings Street may be extended across to Gilchrist Ave.
The present alignment would . project Stallings into a
rather expensive home owned by Mr. S. 0. Brown whereas the
eastward alignment would project through an open lot owned
by Mrs. S.W. Bilsing. The purpose of projecting Stallings
III V
... 'l
across to Gilchrist is to serve as a ready access to
the elementary school on Williams Street. This would
• prevent traffic from having to go east on Dominik and
circle back through a very dangerous intersection down
Gilchrist and then over onto Williams. (the reason it
is a dangerous intersection, rather would be dangerous ,
is due to the extreamly short distance between Dominik
and Gilchrist Ave, along Munson. )
(Note: I have talked with Mayor Anderson about connecting
Stallings and Gilchrist, and he agrees. )
5. Block 5, wnicn is the narrow strip between Dominik Drive
and College Hills Estates. MUST BE REZONED FOR DUPLEX
TO BE WITHIN THE DESIRES OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND GOOD
URBAN PLANNING.
6. The creek needs to be rerouted so that it crosses diagonally
beneath the intersection of Dominik St. and Stallings
Avenue.
7. Sidewalks are required on all arterials, Dominik is an
arterial street. The street parallel with the park NEEDS
sidewalks. The reason that it needs sidewalks id to
provide a walkway (sidewalk) for children who walk to
the elementary school on Williams Street.
8. A recent conversation (Friday afternoon) with Harry
Seaback developed the fact that he (Seaback) has been
convinced by the Planning & Zoning Commission that the
subdivision he has platted (University Arms) is not a
good plat. Harry Seaback is concidering the replatting of
the entire University Arms Subdivision. The new plat
• appears to be a vastly superior plat to the old one and
I have great hopes for it. This necessitates the rethinking
of the location of Munson within the University Oaks
Subdivision.
ACTION ANALYSIS:
1. Consider Section #2 (revised) ONLY sine problems. 3, and 8
cannot be resolved at this time.
2. Accept the PRELIMINARY PLAT OF SECTION #2 (REVISED) only if
Problems 1, 2, 4, 6,&7 are alleviated..
3.Secure a promise from the developer to request duplex
zoning as a condition for final plat approval.
4. Allow developer to come in with a final plat next, with all
problems listed above corrected .
111
r , • , f�' `• [9 5. sir 11 rf' t.. .
•
•
4.
t'' .,:r, 4,J •tt' ,_t 3° •i + ♦ ".1l"i•••44, •,, ' 'tip .., ♦•„ a.`,.;',•, ,.t.,:. ' 1 , , ,
•
•
S,,•s•%.i{ • : ' :
r
• . \ . ,::.
• ' m
;, SA.
1 ,1 ,Iniye .• .f , � t I N ,1
. yM1 -S `1- tJ♦1•• t )� \•?,..:46..
1
' ' 'k*,,-,.• v."'1, ' '\
E Y
+1r w - ,.s-'_ t+sl e-•"--'
P+Nr.*OK .••..:�i.- O 13111
t�I'y s�i`i,7
v 1,jt; s ' 1 z L a. 1,. • CT I
1,1
►t: „� ;,= N' .x a '•., SH I1' EA. tCI old
1 - 0MCS 11 DRAIN ARK Iti Ifni r AS
v ,nS
e a.,,. . . �� SE tU`
i=. ;„ �' •� gr..t..-Ii.444,1%a�. j ' p ARK F OR W Ilj
+;,�.1 '.•i,,,,,, `-- ,.,,:,,.:3: • ..,. , BA 13 AREA
.tl»« «». �: �" TT \.
y <:::::: ::: '..� srrED•
S Lo EGT�
r t•w•N,Ntt R:. • i .r
•• I. VECil° ot\
li, , ' --�Hp IG REgUI
• Sx
1 N 1• N
- It
wp'� 2' 1 :,N'.. l _' s J ,• • \:-.2_;-__ _ ."' ;1 •
at
11 y �'.♦♦f t . I it , ,, . t 11 - •�^
• ..
4 I.
II 4I — 11.1., .** ,......A. 1.-.....) .L,,\I. 0
'--.',..,..... 10 S —---..--).ii(.
ZA• •. W11R•M A f t S r t i9 t t ��� 1 Z"!.4,•
„ti-�i f
; , ♦ : try N t �U PEPPC. I e. r •
• 42 " Y 't , s!{ t 1\1 i :r"'.. • , i •a ' ,.
•
`• , •44`^, a;4 •• ' 01' ttia,`,. r+{' '1 �'' ti ;.• j ` ~,.
i t.1,'..1 ..`- •,� ,•. e ,..-'‘t't .It at 1{t, I _ ( _ 1' • �,c� � _--'"-�'� »� r
,t .111.0., I'
t N �♦ 4 .•
I •M
twat �, } t , , 14 ; ,., d ,J..- t , ♦• - ._"' Tii fka j T`1, •i`, '•E',M'd'� 0 i ••�.• 1O A„ !' - •,t` .I ~ ttp/ „r.l,•1N - �:ur r ,; , ',�a0tt l•'�♦4 ...� • ` M il p 11 I N 1 1 11. > lat+ 1 • •14,
r
»1• N 5 /
•
7
[ »• t.1 It n `� t� • • l hw Y w1�ot►�il k �.` �M""+.J •
r{+t � t' a...��'� i 1 ,"
7 dL / fff ..,_._
1 C
'.�\� tt
c‘,i:
4 r . ,1 to ; N :tit \,•
{ V� ' 1 q , rM �t't�,Tt w
tt
I 1 e a1 f• ,• ; 1 '
' :{♦`AFS':i♦,• • " --
• Y t1
. y • • ••_ ••� i,
%; s . .• • : *%� y�{, . r
r• [r'_ • ` 1'1i•YS,�•�'; •'� �i,1'�/ r;�Il,'lviq.tt �t•CY' ''�f '• t•21:" 'tt1 t'�, •'12'Mr� j h f •t1 '.
5 t i t t �S.
ESTATE _ ,
1 AO 4 4. • • ••••
JJ ,�„tea••a..!r1 tY• N•, II` , 14 ,t • . •••r••, '�... ..
14 a' ^Y"'•V1..,-i;_��s. ~' '\'1. �t fivers ity. 'Armt. • • •BEST: PLAN ,
\•M�v. r PO 'd ,►N'„i 0i TMp• •L/e „ \ ' L _ 7 to _ �i. :
• \ \ f . t-^ 4 GI t "• CITY PLANNER'S RE PLAT
•t _ ��M ' «t•,�••{;; N../1I ,.1' .. .,• r' OF UNIVERSITY OAK •
;• ";;T,^,ti.,•t w , ':,•t. • I SECTION 2 (REVISE
• I •
«-.,,, •,.i, ,`�\r\•.. ,;,�••��_"• "�j. I:•.; REVISED P K
:�1',•/: 11i •.. ..� '� a•_ ''' {.:•TM• •••r1 ? •"' "" SHOWING47.G..Q " I "'°�••e leek _ _ 1AND SEPARATE DRAB AGE
-r»" —.44 `s"�'.J,•• • :'•i„),/
�� �"t* . . EASMENT REVISED 4 LIGN—
" t'M r a Of •:,1• r .• i••• / '- -! •'• lg) •r.. t
, w +J•!'• 'N./1i/J —�- � MENT OF STREET BY .PARK
:1►•1" '•";,,�, • •t(.,i•, 1 .,,'i� TO ALLOW APARTMENT •
'VOW, /r 'ly; " %'-�►l, • •�i = PARENTS TO MORE EASILY
.. t.,.h1p•1.«,..� :� p �, •�_ OAKS I TAKE THEIR SMALL O:?ILI�Ri
f • �� �^ , TO THE ELEMENTARY SCi OCI
r;,;. I VARIANCES REMOVED Y T
IE
•„�•.•, �' ••. ADDITION OF APPROA IATE
.. �� . 11.`, „ ,•• ,,J' -1P.',':' �,.� NEW STREETS, RECHANNLLEI
1 • .,.� » •\ ",. •
^'r?� ..�.,rE a' (:REEK WITHIN 75 F;OOT
17 .4.y- ' 1• ► V ra S n
.. _1- - a . 1 ••• �. MI~, 1 EAOEMENT, ,REQUIRED'
• '▪ '" ' •••1gs1� 1 ' •g• ti ' ' l_t is • i `�` SIDEWALKS DISCONT NU•
t' ▪ 1 ,•• r'r ", _'' " • • _ AT I ON OF MUNSON AS A
7.«L,_ „ 1k • III"'• 1 '�•, 1, a t • 1• w ♦�� i O� /' —PR'INGIF'AL CQLLECTO ; •
3';,� j:• _��I, l „ r6 , , • �i.�+ . �' , SUGGESTED!—ADDITION L
_ , ,•1 1„, , ,• , " ,, • •• i SIDEWALKS: ALONG P
-.•• )xl •••il •
a ? •• •• r t1 w •. 'I /1 �� . AND ROADS'LEADING T Ina,
�- 4(",1if ,„t •1 •. 1 t •�Ina em 11 1 it 7.2
.. r 1 ELEMENTARY,;SCHOOL
�"W� fa...!
' c. * - i•>tf! '• w" T tin I N • • .• : i,'
2 -'''..;( AIN . I
`) 1\% tieSo J -...) ---- 1• .. '
•
/ ; .
:6--- r.,;'----___.,) � .. .... (,, ,, /wi.....1..V. {{: I''• 1 •� i ;lip• ,ri•. ' .r':r•' ' '
14141111
12 .w 1 he• t�,1• • , • •y 1:r• .11 1�•.. Wn wi..- •-■raw 1 • ? •'a•�r`•^•, > •:'n
t, •• ! .1 r t•If __Ai� 3 '•',a -• Ir.., n,- I • • .'/:; - •.`... •/,..t•':.I` ;i.r;,�,' .14 rj
: ,. ti --!{i 1• 1i1 '..=I I - '?', is '.'.1. '. •- '•':
.• • .fi• r;•_'. tt 1 ,40 `fit j 1,: ;yf / • 1 • CULPEPPER PLAZA r' :a;',. ,� •
s •
-nort `j`*C. �t' Ml•'rr•17• q I ,r
--,--1 T-r-I.,...K• -t.i,,is
• S • • •I•;Vk as '(Mt„ . • 1wi , •i , ` •• • , I ,. '' •• -+.Y'��
tr.
-lair wits utak
_41Y1•11.IC� I II` Jr•t/5'• �y. '', AI 1 tl • 'i. I c t ••I -
V s' I-,I( I t• a r«.10
'-,- -I 1•�1.L t ••II 1 — .. • - •' I t .* �� y: - .
1�{1
.�18,4E/SI 14,►1',•t.,'I S.11 tl I1 • i• •' ' 1_ Ire o;, ', + I ,�E bp•(
•
R 1 r'• •• -1_lo2?i t" I'.—..i , .1•- 1 t?S 1w•j� P Orp4
•
• • `I • ••• Ile I ••II• 11(.., 1-I-! '-t' 14, , • * r,J�N.Q 1, .a
.`� !1 ��, �• �• \- •.- w I�,� �i_ t'• -� 1 I IM N._ + "a' arts.11
• •1•.. ._ .. .— ti '
JOS
• & ;rl3
V;` '., '
`s47.; .yjf%?'r.'� �% •r � 1 •" • • �•.1•�•� �1 r : ; a•• 1. -t t l•• 1 ,.� • • 1t ,
411 .....:
w• nor r r4 r..••_aft r u7.l+iu
_ _ �a1, „ r • �1w+ Its ,�-ry/ ..
' 1. '•c, + . _1.II •• ii N 1� 'Fe/iS• • ...•//,1..-w•MI p.----~.L.r 1. 1 ,7,.. ,` _
ADDENDUM TO UANIVEFSITY OAKS SECTION 2
ill
1. Stallings Ave. presently has a 50 ft. row with a 38 ft
face to face paving. 'tot w..s done under the old subdivision
U
ordinance. The net, `4l;dlvision ordinance requires a 60 ft.
row witil a 38 ft face to face paving. Recommend, changing
indicated row on Stol in:7s Ave. from 56 ft as indicated to
60 ft to reflect pros:-:.:, subdivision ordinance rules.
2. Dominik -. r _v,. -_-. _ 'r_
_ . .s a arterial, and properly so.
Pave n-;, wfr.,. . . , e l ; f .., _�en curbs. Sidewalks
are
req;„ oe on both .. ees of tr street. two foot median is
to b,_ installed between ral i is lanes.
3. Whc 111 ac ,. the right-of-nay through the Marvin Byrd
tray.-; ;,o con.. ct she existing Dominik Drive to the proposed
Dor.:1:: Diva through the University Oaks Apart . :t area?
•