12/11/2002 P&Z Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

Planning & Zoning Board December 11, 2002 Page 4 APPROVED MINUTES • In review of the grading and drainage pla n, there appears to be substantial topography upon Lot 12, Block 2 which may limit its buildab ility. As a result, it is recommended that the applicant demonstrate its buildabil ity via the submission of a custom plan. • Considering that Carl Street/Century Trail is expected to be a high volume roadway, it is believed the impact of such ro adway upon Lots 3 and 4, Block 2 (at the intersection of Sunset Road and Century Trail) could be lessened by providing interior access to such lots from the nor theast via the “L” shaped cul-de-sac. In conjunction with such modification, screen ing could be provided in the rear yard areas at the Sunset/Century Trail inte rsection (see attached development plan alternative). • The home and driveway upon Lot 20, Block 2 s hould be re-oriented toward the cul-de sac. • One final concern relates to Lots 6 and 7, Block 6 (as depicted on the preliminary site plan) where it appears the side lot line be tween the two lots was inadvertently not shown. In regard to Lot 7, Block 6 specifi cally, it is recommended that the driveway of such lot be oriented to the west ra ther than the south (to eliminate driveway maneuvering at what is expected to be a busy intersection and no t to isolate the home from neighboring dwellings). With respect to the Airpark lots, staff stated, as shown on the submitted development plans, the subject site bord ers the Lino Airpark and includes 15 “airpark” lots. To accommodate such lots, the processing of a PDO is necessary. Considering that the Comprehensive Plan identifies the airpark as a long-term use within the City and that non-inhabitable structures over the gas line are preferred, th e inclusion of such lots is considered generally acceptable. In regard to such lots however, some concerns do exist as summarized below: • The locations of Lots 4 and 9, Block 4. Of primary concern is the location of an airpark lot (Lot 4. Block 4) between two “t raditional” single family lots and the adjacency of Lots 5-8, Block 4 to the airpark taxiway and hanger building. To address this concern, it is suggested that Lot 4 be converted from an “airpark” to “traditional” single family lot and that Lot 9 be eliminated combined with the lots to the north to create a buffer yard. • The impact of runway safety zone extens ions upon area lots. As a condition of PUD approval, the applicant should provide docum entation to the City that all applicable runway safety zone requirement s have or will be satisfied. • Anticipated market demand for the airpark lo ts. The applicant has indicated that if demand for the airpark lots does not exis t, they would likely be converted to “traditional” single-family lots. Such ch ange would require the processing of a PDO amendment.