10/09/2002 P&Z Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

• Planning & Zoning Board September 11, 2002 Page 11 Staff indicated it would seem that the best way to incorporate new air park lots would be to design them to be part of the existing air park. If this is to occur, they should be connected to the existing air park lots along Carl St. If Carl St. does not connect, the new air park lots will be separated from the rest, which would seem to violate the concept of an air park "neighborhood ". Staff indicated therefore, if new air park lots are to be created with the Behm's plat, Carl St. should connect to the new plat. Staff stated existing air park lots on Carl St. are 373' deep, with widths ranging from 123' to 178' (1.1 acre to 1.5 acre). The hangers can be up to 3200 sf. The size of any new air park lots should accommodate the houses, hangers, • d taxiways. Staff noted one of the options presented by the road along the powerline easement to provid between 4th Ave. and Sunset Rd. At the Au likelihood of future opposition to this connecti neighborhood —the neighborhood that will be d Staff believes that the opposition that will oc road from being constructed. e �; pant is the future creation of a and a connection g, di" cf; eluded the sidents of w Behm's e plat under consideration. will " �� : 'y prevent the connecting Staff indicated there are physical desi easement is 90 feet wide. If a roa powerline easement will cover th houses will have to be setback driveways. The front yards wi not seem to be a v close as possibly` leas powerline e as well. The powerline ern edge of the easement, the t 90 ` ots fronting on the road. The 90 feet ut of the easement, with 90' gh voltage powerlines crossing them. This does d design. Even if the paved road is offset as feet of front yards will be under the Staff stated s developed, we h Lacking this, it is im road connecting the Be ch this hypothetical road is located is not being hows a road and plat layout that could be workable. ow the feasibility of developing the property with a elopment with 4th Ave. Staff noted the property on which this hypothetical road would be built is guided as a Stage 2 (post 2010) area. Because of this, it will not be allowed to develop for some time, if ever. In addition, the comprehensive plan clearly requires decreasing the amount of annual growth. There is no way to know when this property will be developed and the road will be built. Mr. Lyden stated his first point of concern was whether a road was 44 feet wide or 36 feet wide and noted that were would be a lot of pedestrians using the road. He stated he believed they would need to have a trail in this area also. Mr. Smyser replied they were proposing a 36 -foot wide road with a trail on the side, separated from the road. He pointed out if they were just doing it as a local road, they would need to go back and look at the design.