02/12/2003 P&Z Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

Planning & Zoning Board February 12, 2003 APPROVED MINUTES Page 10 previous discussion of this issue, the Pl anning and Zoning Board did not share staff’s concern. • Concern exists in regard to the drivew ay location of Lot 7, Block 6 (as depicted on the preliminary site plan). To minimi ze vehicular conflicts with the adjacent intersection, it is suggested th at the driveway be shifted eastward to the extent possible. Airpark Lots. As shown on the submitted development plans, the subject site borders the Lino Airpark and includes 15 “airpark” lots. To accommodate such lots, the processing of a PDO is necessary. Consider ing that the Comprehensive Plan identifies the airpark as a long-term use within the City and that non-i nhabitable structures over the gas line are preferred, the inclusion of such lo ts is considered gene rally acceptable. In regard to such lots however, some c oncerns 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 airp ark taxiway and hanger building. To address this concern, it was previous ly suggested by staff that Lot 4 be converted from an “airpark” to “traditional” singl e family lot and that Lot 9 be eliminated combined with the lots to the north to create a buffer yar d. In consideration of the matter, it was the feeling of the Planning and Zoning Board that such lots did not present a major compatibility problem and is acceptable. To improve area compatibility however, it was suggested by the Board that Lots 1-3, Block 2 be converted from “traditional” single family lots to “airpark” lots. This ch ange has not been made on the revised plan submission but is illustrated on the attached alternative airpark layout provided by the applicant. • The impact of runway safety zone ex tensions upon area lots. As a condition of PUD approval, the applicant should provide doc umentation to the City that all applicable runway safety zone requirement s have or will be satisfied. • Anticipated market demand for the airpark lots. The applicant has indicated that if demand for the airpark lo ts does not exist, they w ould likely be converted to “traditional” single family lots. Such ch ange would require the processing of a PDO amendment. • The size of the hangers appears equal to th e size of the homes they are to serve. As a result the visual appearance of the hange rs is considered a significant issue. The applicant has been working with the ai rpark homeowners association to develop architectural standards for th e hangers. While the applicant has indicated a willingness to provide such standards to the City for revi ew, such standards have not, to date been submitted. As a condition of PDO approval, example hanger designs should be submitted subject to City approval.