01/08/2003 P&Z Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

Planning & Zoning Board January 8, 2003 Page 17 APPROVED MINUTES part of the overall subdivision design by expanding the lot areas of Lots 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 and providing a protected buffer yard between the Airpark and these traditional single family lots. 3. Based on testimony provided to the Pla nning and Zoning Board, the Lino Airpark supports these additional Airpark lots. However, in past testimony by the applicant to both staff and Planning a nd Zoning Board, it is questionable as to how marketable this number of Airpark lo ts will be. Under these circumstances, staff believes that it is more importa nt to create a homogeneous neighborhood design within the same block and avoid compatibility issues between the Airpark lots and the traditional single family lots, with the bonus of protecting the significant oak stand. Condition 23. Grading, drainage, and utility rela ted modifications and comments are set forth in the City Engineer’s memo and must be incorporated into the plan. Applicant’s Response: The engineering report has not to date been produced. The applicant has, however, indicated that engineering related conditions will be satisfied. Staff’s Response: In addition to the comments rela ted to grading, drainage, and utilities, the engineering report should provide comment on the acceptability of the private streets within the townhome component (street widths, snow storage, etc.). It should be noted that the private streets, as illustrated on the plan, range from 16 to 18 feet in width. This design from staff perspective is unacceptable in relationship to the number of units that are proposed to use these private streets and the traffic movement that is required within these areas. Staff explained that a standard fire lane width requires 20 feet to allow for emergency vehicle access, however, this is barely wide enough to allow for cars to pass each other. Staff is concerned that in its present design the private street widths are not adequate. Staff’s recommendation would be a minimum width of 24 feet w ith perhaps a 26-foot width being recommended to insure that th ere is adequate room to accommodate two- way traffic, emergency vehicles, and adequate width after snow storage. This condition is critical to the overall design of the tow nhome area in that it will affect building placement, required setbacks, street width, and block configurations. As such, it must be addressed immediately to insure that a complete PUD review can be conducted. Staff concluded by indicating it feels strongl y that the aforementioned four conditions should be fulfilled as per staff recommendation, rather than compromised in the overall site design. Other conditions that were addressed in the December 11, 2002 planning report can be addressed and will be worked out with the developer. However, staff believes that the Planning and Zoning Board should give a strong recommendation that outlines their position on the aforementioned conditions. Chair Schaps invited the applicant to make comment.