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

Home Search

• • • 1. The introduction of the hangars and airport traffic on Lots 4 and 9, Block 4 will introduce incompatible land use relationship with Lots 5, 6, and 7 in the same block. It does not appear, based on the site plan, that there is adequate space between the traditional lots and the airport lots to properly screen or buffer the introduction of airplane hangars, taxiways, and airplane traffic onto this area. Staff believes that this relationship is not a compatible land use relationship and should not be encouraged. 2. Review of the preliminary plat indicates that Lot 9 and portions of Lot 6 and 7 contains a stand of oak trees that have been identified by the Environmental Board to be saved. This significant oak stand will be disturbed with the construction of the cul -de -sac to serve Lot 9 as well as the house placement, hangar placement, and any driveway construction. Consistent with the Environmental Board recommendation, staff agrees that this significant oak stand should be saved as 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 Planning and Zoning Board, the Lino Airpark supports these additional Airpark lots. However, in past testimony by the applicant to both staff and Planning and Zoning Board, it is questionable as to how marketable this number of Airpark lots will be. Under these circumstances, we believe that it is more important 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 related 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 related 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. 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. We are concerned that in its present design the private street widths are not adequate. Staff's recommendation would be a minimum width of 24 feet with perhaps a 26 foot width being recommended to insure that there 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 townhome 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. 3