HomeMy WebLinkAboutLetter from PC President to PC r
To: Members of the Plan Commission
CC: DOCD
From: Ron Houck
Date: May 18, 1993
RE: Stub streets
After the conversation that I had with the members of the Subdivision Committee
regarding the Bottamiller project and the lack of a stub street to the property to the south,
I must admit that I have concerns about our future direction on this issue. If we are to
continue to promote interconnection of our subdivisions then we cannot make stub streets
an arbitrary issue for the following reasons.
1. It compromises the DOCD's ability to require the developer to put it in his plan if
the Plan Commission will easily allow its omission. As was stated at the May
Subdivision Committee meeting by Jim Nelson,it is an economic issue causing the
elimination of one lot. This is the same consequence to all developers. As a
Plan Commission we must decide what is important in our subdivisions and,m
consistent. The developer is out to maximize the economic return to himself. The
Plan Commission is charged with determining what is important to the community.
2. It is unfair to the developers if some are required to have stub streets and others
are not. One of the employees of a local developer asked me after your vote,
"Why didn't they have to have a stub street?" There doesn't seem to be any
guideline that you are using to determine when you are willing to let the developer
omit them. It is on a project-by-project basis.
In the text requiring the stub street interconnection the phrases "as deemed
necessary" or "as deemed appropriate" are used. You should not place too much
emphasis on the wording "as deemed necessary" or"as deemed appropriate".
Every developer will have reasons why he should not be required to have a stub
street and will use this phrase to try to convince you that he is right. This phrase
was added to allow flexibility where a good reason existed to allow its omission,
but just like all variances, this should not become the escape hatch for every
developer to circumvent the process.
3. What is done in one subdivision dictates what will be done in abutting property in
a future development. This can be seen in the subdivision to the north of the
Bottamiller property where no stub street was provided to the Bottamiller
property. The probable rationale at the time was that the adjacent Bottamiller
property was privately owned with two private residences, and therefore a stub
street would not be practical. The Plan Commission must be aware not only of
what is proposed but also what could happen in the future!
It has long been a stated policy of the Plan Commission since the drafting of our
ordinances that the interconnection of subdivisions was desirable. This is based on sound
planning principles. We do not want to encourage the development of residential
subdivisions all terminating in a series of cul-de-sacs forcing all motorized and pedestrian
traffic onto primary or secondary arterial streets. There are safety and community issues
that this ordinance addresses, and this policy needs to be upheld consistently or changed
for uniformity when new ordinances are drafted.
If it is the desire of the Plan Commission to change or modify this concept of
interconnection, then it needs to be changed in the ordinance or in our subdivision design
standards, but until then you need to adhere to what currently exists. All developers need
to understand and be playing by the same rules as to what is expected in our subdivisions.
Ron Houck