... ~ ~,~.~ Memorandum To: Commissioners' Court From: Franklin Johnston, P.E., Kerr County Engineer Date: March 10, 1997 Subject: Saddlewood Subdivisian, Section One During our discussion of Saddlewood Subdivision, Section One, on February 10, 1947, I recommended approval of the Final Plat, based upon the disclaimer that the roads were private, and not to be maintained by Kerr County unless or until they are brought up to Kerr County standards. Saddlewood Subdivision is different than most, in that the developer designed "Minimum Private Road Specifications" and roads were to be built to these specifications, and County Standards found in Chapter IX of Kerr County Subdivision Regulations. These documents are found in Exhibit "B", along with other relevant documents provided by the developer. "Minimum Private Road Specifications" (Exhibit "B", page 16 through 20) is the document agreered to by Kerr County and Kerrville Planning & Zoning Commission. When asked by a commissioner that if the roads were not "private" but offered as "county maintained road" per Kerr County Subdivision Regulations, would they meet the specifications, my answer was no for the following reasons: 1. Road signs not in place 2. Traffic signs not in place 3. Cul-de-sac 35' radius instead of 37.5' radius (75' diameter) with 2' shoulders on both sides. Some cul-de-sac's have no shoulders and paved areas less than 75' diameter. (Exhibit "B", page 16, para. l .F ) 4. Ditch slope 2:1 max. (Exhibit "B", page 3 & 11) Numerous examples of slopes greater than 2:1 or no ditches at all along road. See Photo # 1, 2, 3, and 4, Exhibit "A" 5. Back slope 3:1 max. (Exhibit "B", page 3 & 11 }Numerous examples of slopes greater than 3:1. See Photo # 1, 2, 3, and 4, Exhibit "A" 6. Verify compaction on Springwood Lane near Lot l5 and Saddlewood Blvd. near Lot 10 See Photo # 3 and 4, Exhibit "A" 7. Clean ROW of debris. Page 2 of 2 8. I have no information on creation of a Homeowner's Assn. (Exhibit "B", page 19, para. S.B ) 9. I have not received the certification letter from registered professional engineer stating the roads are built to the "Minimum Private Road Specifications" (Exhibit "B", page 19, para 8.E ) . These items area "Punch List" derived from driving through the subdivision, not a detailed inspection. Please note that the agreement the developer wrote states that the County may inspect as desired. (Exhibit "B", page 19, para. 8.A ) attachments: Exhibit "A", Photos Exhibit "B", Developer's Road Specifications P a~,z l r~ r~ ,~ _ .~,,;l~,it r~ ~J . ~ T~ ,:~ ~i, , .t ~„:v ` i~ ~ t '~ i4 ~' ~ ~~ti ~ ~ ~ ` , 8 `y ` ' ~ `~, y a ~~ ~ e~ ~,~ V .~ r^ N .~J J r r"~ v/ W I ! y ~~, ''1, , D Exhibit "B" SADDLEWOOD ESTATES, SECTION ONE PRIVATE ROAD CONSTRUCTION PLANS SPECIFICATIONS page I ---- ~n ~g$~$o Y °$~~WCL~~W •p> ~~w:w ~ N*Fa~~= ~we~a'<~ Y ~ ~ ~ ~ = W ~f~~~iYWg.`, +~'~=5~~~ o` ~., u ~ ~ > ~ ~ W ~ ~ Q = r ~ ~ W [~Wr ~Z~~ !i .Y w~ ~~~ ~a ~s $ ~s~ T 9 r~ pqi S vY}~ O --~ ~O 8 Z(~. G ~ W ade_ m._ '' ~ ~~ oS~~~ O ~, .~.~~> ~~s y&~~$~ La~~r.~ ~~~NN 8~~~ x s~ ay r bC ~~ cs8~~ n Y ~~~ ~~ ~~ Exhibit "B", page 2 ~~~~~ ~Q~ R ~ Q ` ~ ~ I ~ ~k~~~~ ~~~£~~~ ~$~~~4 S i ~ ~ w p.8~~~~~ ~~~~~~~g ~e~««~$~ ~~Ii~wC~~ ~~~~~~~~ r,~~~ ~MMM~~~~~ Y cy~ ~~ i.~y £w~~ 3 nn 1S v ~r~~a a~ ~e~a:~~p §~~~~ ~~ W 2LLWN 1p ~t~ W Ni W S try Lr_~ ``Wntr r nmFQ ~? ^ ~.y ^1W N ~ _ ~TZ ooNto u ` /~ F~-t =K N(38Q = uM 1'~~C tll~ P 1'^ ~/rnSOyyO.O:Xr'~ N /~'~ LL '~ ~ ~ a O r ~ 0 0~~ u V ~ e ~~Y` °e l ~ ro Q Y~~W Yip ~ S^ J W ~ < ~ 66~utt ; 999 .~ Onf N~~ y~e7 y~I Q ~oN~~a< a < T~ W s R ~ t =OSOY-Jp~ 'tQ a~0~ W ti Z vi ~~:~~o~ ~1 1 = W 'J1 i.c~i~s .~ :-omr~~= ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ `~ ~1 e~ww~.,o w,;,g~w ww[Tw e*e ~eosaa ar.o ~` ~~s*s«ss~~~!lssa~ ~ ~~rrl~~rr~rrpry~~vl osaoNw r. ff ^t~CftRROA! 44~INw- ~.n TAD f. J.. :.~ I ~$««««a~ci~«««aY«' ~i~:i~iN~«ii$~e ~11I •Q~.~^waww~00ww eeoeeeeeeeeeeoe of 4 gyyp QQ «N » $SESESTSiSESfSf~RSStStAR~I a$ia~~i~ii ~i~Xlw~iw$~n ~'~~.~.ii b iL ~~w L~ r• I•~w~n~rgw i. 7r ai I Y ~M9t~D ~'~~tei~ NMNQOew •T g'w~ Oi~~~Nfri NNI '~~~~~aaaa~~~~~~~~~ ~~4~+~~~S~see~bbl ` ~ f~~f.f tNr w QMAIfMw'l Ni.M$wMA I 1- r ' }~}~w^ArN V jx~~NN~~~~hMNN 1 I~~Ix~OZ00 ~i fQ w~i p I S ~S^ix a ww::xliIlxii~a wg~i+3«n ~ iii~oowirf.$RX'~R~ I ;w~ ~r'~ $ ~Y1Nr~f:gid~td~N~ ~YQ~~~~$ ~ ~ wssaaao~~~~~~~~ IS w• •w p •wwwww• •Aii ,. p w V dN r~ I~3 a-..•w°,+' ~~"!qW rr!dr dv{,{dnd.li~ {{Y N O ~a ~N gO N I~ ~°~ 2 Z~~ 2 O F$ i J ~ Z~~ N N M N g N N M M N Saddlewood Blvd and Gallop Trail, gdng to the northwest, shall have: a 60 foot wide ROW - 28' flexible base - 24' asphaltic surface, two course surface treatment - street slope 1 /4" perfoot - 6" flexible base 959b std. proctor density -compacted subgrade - -etch slope max. 2:1 - back slope max. 3:1. ~ Lot b` Lot 5~I lot 4 V l,ot 3 Minimum 60 foot length concrete road section centered at valley drain location. Riprap embankments ~ Lot 26 lot 2s Lot 24 b -- w ~~ ~ ~s ~' ~-- ~. Bbc 11v0 lot 11 ~ 10 l.ot 9 Lot 12 Lot 13 // Lot 19 Lot IB lot 2D Lot 11 Lot 21 Lot 17 lac 13 ~ z2 Lot 7 Lot 8 ~~ iol 7 1 lot 6 I Lot S ~ Lot B I.ot 10 lot 9 Lac 4 lot 3 12 lot 1 Lot 2 Block '[1va ~ 1 Lot 1 Black e road surface is i ---, -- i ~' i i ~1 I Lot 16 Lot la Minimum 60 foot length split with island conaete road section ' 1 ~ ~ 23 Block One Cot is centered at Valley drain -~..r,.r--= location. Riprap embankments awtnl~sGte I ' ~~ ----------- --------------=-a- Cul-de-sac streets shau have: a 60 foot wide ROW - 24' flebble base - ' asphaltic surface, two course surface treatment -street slope 1/4" per foot - 6" flexible base 95~ std. proctor density - compacted sub -ditch slope max. 2:1- back slope max. 3:1. cul-de-sacs to hav a 35' thus asphaltic surface. ~.. shod ~,(ti~ See. ~I ~~ ` L~Xh. g ~ ~~o llp~ para~ , t. F so foot wide Row 28' or 24' flexible base 24' or 20' asphaltic surface ~ 3 1 ~ ~ ~ ~..`'-'I I TYPICAL STREET SECTION Street design plan for SADDLEWOOD ESTATES, SECTION ONE proposed sewing in valley drain and adjacent ground , Install silt fence for erosion contrd ~ Lot 10 ~ a< 11 a ~ t t.a 9 I \ La 12 \ Concrete riprap to lot 13 be placed to control erosion at road crossing i3 I.at 19 Lot 18 ~ ~, Lot 11 \ Lx 21 tat 13 Lot 17 '~ ~ ~ 26 Install silt fence d ~ 22 for erosion contr w la r' lot 25 ¢ e lot 16 proposed seeding ~ 24 ~ z3 Blockone Lot is in valley drain ~ ~ and adjacent- ~ ground Note: The seeding is to be done at such time when the weather concgtions will enhance the growth of the grass. Install silt fence for erosion contrd T ' 1 Lot 61 Lot 5 .I I,ot~4 ~ ~ tat 3 8 lot 10 Lot 12 lot 5 Lot 6 tot 1 ~ ,% z ; k 'hvo f. i i lAt T ~ 2 lot 1 ~ Block e ~ Lot 8 i Wt 3 , ~--- lot 9 ~ a 1 v ~ -~ i ~ I t7 ~ i i , `~ ~~ ~ I Cdlcrete riprap to i , be plBCed t0 contrd ' ~ w4.1"'~"'~ ' I erosion at road ' crossin A c way i -----..._9 _..__~_.~--------------' -~- SP,!i ~Cj7• Il~~~ ~Gd f8J /~Q/u . 5 ~d~ To comply with Kerr County Subdivision regulations the fdl dng is to be done: 9.03 Roadway Ditches: Ditches intended for paranel drains sha11 ba designed to accorrxrlodate runoff to be expected at two year frequen On grades of more than three (3) percent, in friable sods, erosion control by sodding and/or seeding or by property designed Checks of ctzllcxete, stone a sad blocks shag be induded. Proposed Erosion Control Plan for SADDLEWOOD ESTATES, SECTION ONE Saddlewood Estates, Section One General specifications for the private roads Saddlewood Blvd. and Gallop Trail, going to the northwest, shall have: a 60 foot wide ROW - 28' flexible base - 24' asphaltic surface, two course surface treatment -street slope 114" per foot - 6" flercible base 95% std. proctor density -compacted subgrade - -- ditch slope max. 2:1 -back slope max. 3:1. Special concrete sections at road crossing A and B are indicated on street plan. All other streets shall have: a 60 foot wide ROW - 24' flexible base - 20' asphaltic surface, two course surface treatment -street slope 1/4" per foot - 6" flexible base 95% std. proctor density -compacted subgrade - -- ditch slope max. 2:1 -back slope max. 3: 1. cul-de-sacs to have a 35' radius asphaltic surface. All streets, roads boulevards shall confirm the following specifications: • Kerr County Rules and Regulations as ordered by the Commissioners Court of Kerr County, Texas, on this 19th day of December, 1983. A copy of the Road Specifications are included. The portions striked through do not apply to this subdivision. • As modified by specifications in Larry Vetter Memo the Frank Johnson, dated June 6, 1994. See memo enclosed. ! And as modified by Planning And Zoning at meeting dated June 13, 1996, allowing the flexible base be modified from crushed stone to base courses as stated in the Kerr County Rules and Regulations. See 9.08.A. Finalization to be by letter from Registered Professional Engineer certifying that the roads are built to these specifications. Exhibit "B", page 5 THE STATE OF TEXAS COUNTY OF KERB It is ordered by the Commissioners Court of Ken County, Texas, on this 19th day of December, 1983 that effective January 1, 1984, the following Rules and Regulations be adopted listing requirements precedent to the acceptance of plats of subdivisions for filing for record in Kerr County, Texas. Section IX Road Specifications 9.01 Clearing. 9.02 Grading 9.03 Ditches 9.04 Culverts 9.05 Sideroad or Entrance Culverts 9 .06 Bridges 9.07 Overflow Sections 9.08 Base 9.09 Prime Coat 9.10 Surface Treatment 9.11 Curbed Streets 9.12 Shoulders 9.13 Cattle Guards 9.14 Typical Street Sections Section X Inspections aad Acceptance Exhibit "B", page 6 Section IX ROAD SPECIFICATIONS Vo1:291 PAGE 346 9.01 Clearing and grubbing: The entire area of the ROW shall be selectively cleared and grubbed to a depth of not less than one foot below natural ground in fill areas and one foot below subgrade elevation in excavated areas. Brush and other debris shall be removed from the ROW and disposed of as elected by the developer. 9.02 Grading: The roadway area, (subgrade, ditches and slopes), shall be constructed in accord with the typical sections attached hereto and made a part hereof and with the following requirements: 9.02.A Embankments shall be placed in lifts of not more than eight (8) inches loose depth and each shall be thoroughly compacted by sprinkling and rolling before placement of succeeding lifts. 9.02.B Unstable material encountered in either excavated section or beneath embankments shall be removed to a depth of not less than one foot below natural ground o r finished subgrade and replaced by satisfactory material. Material so removed shall be removed from the ROW. 9.03 Roadway Ditches: Ditches intended for parallel drainage shall be designed to accommodate runoff to be expected at two year frequency. On grades of more than three (3) percent, in friable soils, erosion control by sodding and/or seeding or by properly designed Checks of concrete, stone or sod blocks shall be included. 9.04 Culverts: Cross drainage culverts shall be designed for runoff to be expected at five (5) year frequency; corrugated galvanized metal pipes - ~`~-'~~~' -~'~ `~~°""; and shall be capable of sustaining "H-15-Highway Loading". . No pipe structure shall have waterway area of less than 1.76 square feet (18 inch diameter). 9.05 Sideroad or entrance culverts: No entrance culvert shall be less than twenty (20') feet in length with waterway of not less than 1.76 square feet (18 inch diameter) and shall be designed for runoff of five year frequency. Headwalls, it placed, shall be of reinforced concrete or course laid masonry, and shall be not higher than six (6) inches above the base crown elevation. 9.08 Bridges: " „ „ Exhibit "B", page 7 9.07 Overflow ,Sections: In general the Commissioners' Court will consider allowing the installation of overflow sections (low water crossings). .Such consideration will adjudge the probable frequency and depth of overflow, the traffic potential and the nature of the tributary area. The following conditions are considered suitable for the installation of overflow sections: 9.07.A Drainage courses having no defined channel where channel construction would possibly develop liability for diversion or concentration of runoff. 9.07.B Streams having a defined channel for normal flow and usual runoff with a wide flood plain covered by infrequent storms. 9.07.C Stream crossings where traffic potential does not economically warrant bridge construction. 9.07.D Overflow sections shall be of reinforced concrete, not less than five (S~ inches in thickness and containing 4 1/2 to 5 sacks of Portland cement per cubic yard of finished concrete; shall extend horizontally between high water elevation calculated for five (S7 year frequency; and perimeter footing shall extend downward to stable foundation. 9.07.D.1 Reinforcement shall be not less than No. 4 bars placed fourteen (14") inches on centers, both longitudinally and transversely. Laps, if required, shall be not less than fifteen (15") inches and shall be staggered in position. 9.07.D.2 The crown width of overflow sections shall be not less than two (2) feet wider than the approach pavement or surface. ' 9.08 Base or Base Courses: 9.08.A Material for base courses may be either crushed limestone, caliche, calcareous gravel, Qr other good quality road building material that meets the following physical requirements: liquid Limit of Soil Binder Plasticity Index Linear Shrinkage, percent 40 Maximum 12 Maximum, 4 Minimum 7 1/2 Maximum When sampled from the roadway after processing, the material in place `shall meet the following requirements: 9.08.B Base on all streets within the subdivision shall have a compacted base depth of not less than six (6") inches and shall be constructed in two approximately equal courses. Exhibit "B", page 8 9.08.C The Commissioners Court may permit minor variances from soil constant requirements stated in the above listed specifications when the minimum compacted depth of course is increased from the minimum stated. 9.08.D Prior to delivery of base material to the road or street, the results of physical tests of the material proposed for use shall be submitted to the Commissioners' Court for approval. These test results shall be certified as conforming to the requirements by (1) An approved commercial laboratory, (2) A Registered Professional Engineer, o r (3) A qualified Soils Laboratory Technician. The certification shall define the area and volume represented by the tabulated results. 9.09 Prime coat: After final finishing, curing and correction of any irregularities developed during the curing period have been corrected, the area of the base which is to receive surfacing may be primed with an application of approximately two-tenths (0.2) gallons of MC-30 cutback asphalt, or equivalent, per square yard of surface covered. Generally traffic shall be diverted from the primed area until placement of the surface. Should diversion of traffic not be feasible, the prime coat shall be blanket rolled with a pneumatic roller immediately following application. Prime coat shall be permitted to cure following application and before application of surface courses or pavement. 9.10 Surface treatment: ~F All streets and roads in subdivisions, and providing access thereto, which are provided with a wearing surface shall meet the following standards: 9.10.A A two course asphalt surface treatment composed of asphalt and aggregates of the grades and rates of distribution shown below: asphalt shall be Grade AC-5, or high float emulsion, except that Grade AC-10 may be placed on roads having sharp curves and steep grades during the period .May 1st to June 15th. Aggregates may be crushed limestone, crushed gravel, gravel or limestone rock asphalt, grading as established by the Texas Department of Highways and Public Transportation Standard Specifications, Grading and Rates of Distribution First Course: Asphalt Grade AC-5 or high float emulsion (or AC-10)0.3 to 0.35 gallon per Sq. Yd. Aggregate Not finer than Grade 41 Cu. Yd. per 85 to 95 Sq. Yds. Second Course: asphalt Grade AC-S or high float Exhibit "B", page 9 emulsion (or AC-10)0.25 to 0.35 gallon per Sq. Yd. Aggregate Not finer than Grade 61 Cu. Yd. per 110 to 125 Sq. Yds. Total asphalt, both courses, not less than 0.6 gallon per Square Yard. 9.10.D , ei1--I ~~ ~~~ ttr r~-a~~d - • -~iie~-' 9.10.C 9.10.D 9.10.E 9.11 Curbed Streets: wad: 9.12 Shoulders: Untreated shoulders shall be bladed and dragged for uniformity after placement of the surface and shall be smooth, stable and well compacted for the entire width. The thickness of base shall not vary from the prescribed thickness by more than one half (1/2) inch at any point tested. Exhibit "B'", page 10 T'y r~in~~ ~»r~a~ rtrpot o Antinn > > » cc » ~ s-t~-bg~de Typical street section with ditches 60- row - 3~-flexible base - 24' asphaltic surface, two course surface treatment °- "' `-~• --=-- -street slope 1/4" per foot - 6' flexible base 95°lo std. proctor density -compacted subgrade - -- ditch slope max. 2:1 -back slope max. 3:1 i_ _.'L.'~~__ _____ .L_ t`~:..~.~A ....~~,.~ 1. ~.. ..~..A.. ,mot .L.. ..~~..e~ ..L,...IJ L. ~~f 1~~.~_ Before placing any base material the contractor shall furnish the county with reports of analysis of the proposed material made by an approved laboratory: depth may be less where rock subgrade is encountered. Exhibit "B", page 11 Section X INSPECTIONS AND ACCEPTANCE Vol. 291 PAGE 351 10.01 The designated County Official or an authorized inspector working for the County, may, at the direction of the County, inspect all subdivision site work at any time and any stage. 10.02 Streets and roads will not receive consideration for final approval by the Commissioners'.Court until at least one year after surface treatments are completed. In addition, acceptance will only be considered when there has been sufficient development to assure streets and roads stability. Sufficient development shall be at the discretion of the Commissioners' Court. Exhibit "B", page 12 MEMO TO: Franklin Johnston, County Engineer FROM: Larry Vetter, director of Planning DATE: June 6, 1994 SUBJ: RURAL SUBDIVISION -PRIVATE ROAD STANDARDS The city planning and zoning commission discussed the issue of standards for private roads in rural subdivisions at its June 2 meeting. There were several areas of concern addressed which included the following: 1. Each subdivision needs to have good acxess for emergency vehicle service. This includes EMS, fire fighting, and police & sheriff assistance. The government is responsible to insure thaC residents of the city and county are provided with these services, and access to each home is critical. 2. If private roads do not have any standards to meet, they in many cases Wiil become substandard, cheap options to a public road which could have been built in the f rst place. In many cases, the road should be a public road. 3. The private roadway should not be dedicated by easement t but should be a minimum 60 foot right-of--way owned by a home owner's association. This Will allow the county or city to negotiate with one ownership, if needed, rather than multiple owners. 4. There are some situations that would require paved road sections, and some where a variance could be granted to paving as long as the base and subgrade is built to certain standards acceptable to city aad county engineering. 5. There are a few cases where a complete variance from Subdivision platting (and therefore street standards) Can be granted. 6. The street construction standards accepted by the planning and zoning commission for the Various situations are listed on the attachment. The city staff and planning and zoning commission appreciates the assistance that you and Mr. Odom gave in preparing recommendations to the city planning commission. Exhibit "B", page 13 STAFF REPORTS RURAL SUBDIVISION ISSUES The city planning and zoning commission established a policy relating to "rural" subdivisions in Order to grant variances from city requirement for improvements, e.g., water, sewer, streets. This policy addressed standards that would be expected when subdivisions contained lots that varied from a minimum of two acres to an average of three acre lets. That standard included roadways that were both public and private. Attached is a drawing that indicates the difference between those two street standards. In both cases, pavement was required (although "double penetration" and not "hot mix"). An issue has now been raised about the standards for these roads if the lots are greater than fifty acres each. In this type of situation, there are two questions: 1. Does the selling of lots need to be officially subdivided? 2. Can the streets, if private, be unpaved and built to a lesser standard than shown on the attachment? Several years Ago, the planning and zoning commission gave a variance to the platting requirements (and therefore to the street standards to the sale of a ranch into tracts where the minimum "lot" size was over two hundred acres provided that (1) the lots would remain agricultural andlor homestead in use, and (2) no public improvements were built. However, the county has been requiting subdivision plats in other cases to insure that restrictions are maintained on public record (the plat} that clearly stipulate that the private roads are (1) not maintained by the public, and 12) shall not be dedicated to the public unless brought up to standard roadway specifications, including paving, One example included lots that were 50 acres each. That was outside the city's E.T.3., but the county required a subdivision plat with those notes and restrictions. There are large-tract sales that do occur, and sometimes there may be a "subdivision" of several largo lots. One specific case is where approximately 150() acres is being purchased from the Federal Land Bank and the buyer has contracts to individuals to sell this acreage in seven lots ranging from 87 acres to 440 acres in size. They all be provided access by an existing private gravel roadway that crosses the ranch. That roadway then crosses another 500 acre tract owned by the buyer to reach the Peterson Form Road. Those first seven lots and the proposed private road is the most immediate issue confronting the first buyer. If he is required to upgrade the toad, he has indicated the deal is off. The city staff and county engineering and road & bridge staff have met to develop recommendations that could be made to both the city and the county. Those recommendations are as follows: 1. Platting Variance: Lots 200 acres or greater in size. Exhibit "B", page 14 No Plat is required if (1) all tracts (lots) are a minimum of two-hundred (200) acres each: (2) if each tract is used only for a homestead (3} i£ there are no public improvements and (4) if .he county approves the intersection design and location of any private road where it joins a public road. 2. Road Standard variance. Lots 50 acres to 200 acres in size. If a plat is required, and if a private road is proposed by the developer, and if lots in the subdivision are each fifty (SO} acres or greater in size, than any private road shall meet the following standards: a. Minimum right-of--way -sixty (60) feet. b. Minimum base width =twenty-four (24) feet. c. minimum base depth -six (6} inches. d. Base materials, quality, and design shalt meet standard specifications approved by the city and/or county engineering. e. No pavement or surface treatment is required other than the standard base preparation. In addition, the developer shall provide to city and county engineering for approval, plans and specifications for roadways prior to construction. Certification by a registered engineer that the road has been built in accordance with approved plans shall be provided to city and county engineering prior to final plat approval. 3. Subdivisions with lots less than fifty (50} acres in size. A review of each situation, case-by-case, shall be required prior to any variance from the city subdivision ordinance requirements. The paved roadway sections as shown on the attachment is the standard city variance policy and shall apply unless unusual situations warrant a greater variance than is shown on the attachment. 4. Special notes regarding private roads. a. Because there is a history of private roads being dedicated to the public at some later time with public funds spent to upgrade those roads, it is possible that private roadways may not be allowed in some subdivisions. That will depend primarily on density of development. More and smaller lots or proposed commercial/industrial uses may be required to be public toads. b. A property owner's association shall be created prior to final plat approval. This association shall own any private road rights-of-way and stall be responsible for road maintenance. Street Standards for rural PUBLIC ROAD so' Row -- 28' of 6" crushed stone Base - 24' wide Double Penetration Pavement Surface - Subdivisions PRIVATE ROAD 60' R4W 24' of 6" crushed stone Base - 20' wide Double Penetration Pavement Surface - Exhibit "B", page l5 ROAD.SAD/060496 SADDLEWOOD ESTATES, SECTION ONE MINIMUM PRIVATE ROAD SPECIFICATIONS 1. GENERAL: A. Street right-of-waylCity: 60 feet B. Street Grades/City: Minimum 0.35$; maximum 15$ C. Street Base/City: Minimum width of 24 feet D. Street Pavement/City: Minimum width of 20 feet E. Cul-de-sac right-of-way/County: 100 feet diameter F. Cul-de-sac Pavement/County: 75 feet in diameter with base 2 feet wider. 2. SUBGRADE: A. Subgrade/County: Area to be cleared and grubbed 1 foot below natural ground in fill areas. Area to be cleared and grubbed 1 foot below subgrade in excavated areas. Unstable material removed to depth of 1 foot below natural ground or finished subgrade and replaced with satisfactory material. B. Subgrade/County: Minimum of 6 inches compacted; no material specified. 3. BASE: A. Base Material/County: Flexible base material, which may be crushed limestone, caliche, calcareous gravel or other material meeting the following requirements: ' 1. Liquid limit of soil binder: 40 maximum 2. Plasticity Index: 12 maximum; 4 minimum 3. Linear Shrinkage: 7 1/2 maximum B. Base Material/County: Base material must be tested to meet specifications prior to being put on road. 1. Test results must be certified to meet requirements by: a. Approved commercial lab; or 1 Exhibit "B", page 16 ROAD.SAD/060496 b. Registered professional engineer; or c. Qualified soils lab technician. 2. Certification to define area and volume represented by tabulated results. C. Base Compaction/County: Base to be put down in 2 equal courses. After compaction must have Proctor Density of at least 95$. D. Base DepthlCity: Minimum 6 inches deep after compacting. E. Priming Base/County: Area of base to receive surfacing must be primed with 2/10 of a gallon MC-3Q cutback asphalt or equivalent per square yard. 4. PAVEMENT: A. SurfacelCounty: Two course asphalt surface treatment composed of asphalt and aggregates of grades and distribution rates indicated below (referred to as double penetration on diagram attached to memo from Larry Vetter dated June 6, 1994). Asphalt must be Grade AC-5, CRS-2, or high float emulsion. Aggregates may be crushed lunestone, crushed gravel, gravel or limestone rock asphalt, grading as established by the Texas Department of Highways and Public Transportation Standard Specifications. B. Grading and Rates of Distribution/County: 1. First Course: Asphalt - Grade AC-5, CRS-2, or high float emulsion, 0.30 to 0.40 gallons per square yard. 2. Aggregate: 1 cubic yard per 90 square yards. 3. Second Course: Asphalt - Grade AC-5, CRS-2, or high float emulsion, 0.34 to 0.35 gallons per square yard. 4. Aggregate: 1 cubic yard per 100 square yards. Total asphalt for both courses, not less than 0.65 gallons per square yard. 2 Exhibit "B", page 17 ROAD.SAD/060496 ~" C. Slope/County: The paved surface center of the roadway such that the shall have a 4 inch crown. 5. CULVERTS: shall slope from the center of the roadway A. Culverts/County: Cross drainage culverts to be designed for runoff at 5 year frequency. May be standard or reinforced concrete pipe, corrugated galvanized metal pipes, or reinforced concrete boxes, capable of sustaining "H-15 Highway Loading". No box culvert less than 2 feet in either waterway height or depth. Pipe structures to be minimum of 18 inches diameter. B. Side road or entrance culverts/County: No~entrance culvert less than 20 feet in length and 18 inches diameter. To be designed for runoff at 5 year frequency. 6. OVERFLOW SECTIONS (LOW WATER CROSSINGS): A. Location/County: 1. Areas having no defined channel where, channel construction would possibly develop liability for diversion or concentration of runoff. 2. Streams having defined channel for normal flow and usual runoff with a wide flood plain covered by infrequent storms. 3. Street crossings where traffic potential does not economically warrant bridge construction. B. Construction/County: 1. Reinforced concrete, not less than 5 inches in thickness, containing 4 1/2 to 5 sacks of portland cement per cubic yard. 2. Overflow section shall extend horizontally between high water elevation calculated for 5 year frequency. 3. Perimeter footing shall extend downward to stable foundation. 4. Reinforcement not less than No. 4 bars placed 14 inches on centers, both longitudinally and traversely. Laps, if required, to be not less than 15 inches and staggered in position. 3 Exhibit "B", page 18 ROAD.SAD1060496 5. Crown width of overflow section to be not less than 2 feet wider than approach pavement or surface. 7. SHOULDERS/COUNTY: Untreated shoulders to be bladed and dragged for uniformity after placement of surface. To be smooth, stable, and well compacted. 8. ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS: A. City and County may inspect as desired. B. Creation of Homeowners Association prior to final plat approval. C. All roadway easements must be owned by Homeowners Association and Homeowners Association must be responsible for maintenance. D. Final plat must contain statements: 1. All roads in subdivision are private. 2. Roads cannot be dedicated to public or received by any public entity for maintenance until such time as roads are upgraded to specifications of applicable governmental entity and accepted for maintenance by that entity. E. When roads are finished a certification letter from a registered professional engineer to be delivered to county and city stating that roads are built to specifications. F. Any specifications not found herein will be met in accordance with the road specifications found in the "Kerr County Subdivision Rules and Regulations", dated January 1984, unless a different specification is requested by 'developer and approved by the County Engineer and City of Kerrville. APPROVED: Date: FRANKLIN JOHNSTON, Kerr County Engineer 4 Exhibit "B", page 19 ROAD.SAD/060496 APPROVED: Date: Authorized Agent, City of Kerrville Exhibit "B", page 20 02/21/1997 15:13 210$963031 .-. GARY E. KERSEY, P.C. PAGE 02 GARX E. KERSEY, P. C. A7.TORNEy AT LAW GARY E. 2fHRSEY BOARD CdMM$RCIAJ. REII. ESTATE LAW iLE$5.~1~rrr.r. y4.i. ESTATE LAW TR7KAS HOARD OF L$QA:, BkTbCSA.LT¢ATION February 21, 1997 ass smxsr sacrra, ~Trr~ aa~ (81C) 891~{tg FA~'~aE (EIO) 801.9031 Sent via telefax to: 89b-8481 Mr. Franklin Johnston, P.E. Rerr County Engineer Kerr County Road & Bridge 4010 San Antonia gwy. Kerrville, TX 78028 RE: Saddlewood Estates, Section One Dear Mr. Johnstazi: This letter is written with regard to recent events which occurred at the Gaimnissionere Court meeting an February 10, 199'x_. At that meeting, Cammiasianer Letz and Commis~sianer Baldwin indicated that they had inspected the roadway and drainage improvements with you an Friday, February 7, 1997. They further indicated that during this inspection you determined that the improvements did not meet county specifications. They also indicated that my client had promised the county that improvements would. meet minimum county specifications and based on your drive through inspection with them, it did not. Far this reason, they determined that they would not vote for approval of the final plat. A brief recitation of the facts as T understand them are as follows: 1. Appproximatel~r ,two {2j years ago when we began discus$ing these impravem®nts, you indicated that Kerr County had no specifications for private roadways. Yvu further stated that specifications to be used wau~.d be those required by the City of Kerrville. 2. I asked you about an inspection of the ~tmprovements upon :Final completion. 'the purpose for my queection wag sa that you could inform us as to any areas which you felt did not meet county specifications and they could be corrected. Your response was that because theses were private roadways and the County had na requirements, you would not make any 02/21/1997 15:13 2168963031,,,.,, GARY E. KERSEY, P.G. .. .. PAGE 03 Mt. Franklin Johnston, P.E. Kerr Gounty Engineer February 21, 1997 Page Two inspection of the improvements. Xou further indicated that whatever satisfied the city with would be satisfactory with you since no inspection on your part would be forthcoming, 3. Subsequent to my discussions with you, I had a s®r~.es of discussions and meetings with the city staff and the Planning & Zoning Commission whereby the specifications required by the City of Kerrville were determined. The requirements of the City of Kerrville were finalized as the basic specifications found in the Kerr County Subdivision Regulations with certain modifications found in a memo written by Larry. Vetter. Additionally, the Planning ~ Zoning Commission voted to a11ow us to use on .site base material so long as it met Kerr County subdivision Regulation specifications. 4. My client then proceeded to build the improvements in accordance with those specifications. After completion, a private engineer certified that the improvements met the specifications and same was presented to the City of Kerrville. 5. On or about February 3, 1997 Y sailed you and asked whether or not anything further needed to be done from the county's perspective with regard to the improvements. You informed me that you had not made an inspection and would not do so. You told me that if the city was eatisfi.ed with the improvements, then everything was satisfarstary with you. My purpose in contacting you on February 3rd was to again verify whether there was anything the county wished my client to do with regard to the improvements. 5. Un February 6, 1997 the Planning & Boning Coauaisscion of the City of Kerrville voted unanimously to approve the final plat. 7. As indicated above, on February 10, 1997 we were shocked to find out that you had inspected the 3.~xprovements with two (2) commissioners and determined that the .improvements did not meet oounty specifications. We additionally found out that yotz had not done say measurements or testing, but had determined that county specifications were net met based on a "drive through" inspection. e, Aft~eac that meeting, my client's surveyor requested that you go to the subdi~tigion with him and identify the areas that you felt did not meet oounty specifications so that a final determination could be made. Yau refused to do so. 02/21J1997 15:13 2108963031, GARY E. KERSEY, P.C. PAGE 04 . Mr. T'ranklin Johnston, P.E, Kerr County Engineer Febz~uary 2I, 1997 Page Three 9. My client's surveyor then requested that you pzevi.de us w~.th a punch list of items which you felt did not meet county specifications. You again refused to do so. 1.0. In the February 15, 1997 edition of the Kerrville Daily Times, it was publicly reported that you had determined that the improvements did not meet county specifications. This situation has caused great damage to both mine and my client's csredibility and reputation with the City of Kerrville, current 5addlewood land owners, and prospective Sadd].ewood land owners. Many hours were spent attempting to develop a feeling of confidence: and trust with the city staff and Planning & Zoning Commisaian. The events of February 10th and February 15th accomplished nothing other than to severe~.y damage our credibility and reputation with the City of Kerrville. I was dismayed to find out that after you had adamantly informed me that you would not, inspect the roadways, you had, suddenly changed your mind ax-d done sa. I was even mare dismayed to find oust that after the inspection, na one contacted myself, our surveyor, or my client prior to the Coannissionere COUrt meeting to iiYfozm us that there were questioned areas regarding, the improvements. It would seem thmt with the change of policy on February 7, 1997 you would at least have contacted us and let us know the areas you questioned and given us the opportun~.ty to respond. My client our feels the improvements meet yr exceed the requirements of the Kerr County Subdivision Regulations. Se has, however, been refused the opportunity tQ identify alleged def3~ciencies and resolve them. It is my client's intent to do what he said he would da. He must first, however, be made aware of the alleged deficiencies. Because of the impact the ev®nts of February 10th and February 15th have had on our relationship with the City of Kerrville, I must demand that you identify in writing the alleged deficiencies so that we will. have the opportunity to deal wrfth them. Ve truly yours, Y E K$RSEY cc: The Honoraiale Robert A. Denson Kerr County Judge 700 Main St. Kerrville, TX 78028 N2i21~19ti7 15:13 210896~N~1 .._ GARY E. KERSEY, PAC. PAGE 05 Mx. Franklin Johnston, P.E. Rerr County Engineer February 21, 199'7 Page Faur Mr. Jarlathan Letz Kerr County Commissioner 7 00 Main St . Kerrville, TX 78028 Mr. Buster Baldwin Kerr County Cammissioner 700 Main St. Renville, TX 78028 Mr. David M. Cummings, J'r. via telefax to: 257-798 dEK/lsj r