Planning Commission Agenda and Packet 2012 01 12

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Staff Report January 12, 2012 DECEMBER 12, 2011 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING At the December 8, 2011 Planning Commission meeting, Planning Commission requested a continuation of the Steel Ranch South Preliminary Plat and PUD for the following reasons: 1.Roadway Design Options-The on-street bike lanes were believed to be unsafe and not consistent with City other off street bike trails which run throughout the City. They requested the applicant provide alternative designs to show how an off street bike trail could be designed while maintaining the same right of waywidth. 2.Public Land Dedication-The Planning Commission wanted more solidification whether the Parks and Recreation Department was to accept Tract O (from Takoda Subdivision) as part of the Public Land Dedication. 3.Christopher Village Apartments-The Planning Commission was concerned about eastbound traffic making left turns into the Christopher Village Apartments so as to access the southern-most egress into Steel Ranch South. They requested more information form staff as to the function of this egress. Staff acknowledges the concerns of Planning Commission and has held subsequent meetings with the applicant. The following has been determined through these meetings: 1.Roadway Design Options–staff has attached a copy of four (4) alternative roadway designoptions which the applicant has created in response to the Planning Commission concerns. In reviewing the options staff has the following comments: a.Option #1–The flow line has adequate width however the travel lanes are too wide. The inclusion of the trail on the west side requires the inclusion of a retaining wall which is to be placed within the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) right of way. Staff anticipates there will be push back from BNSF for the placement of a retaining wall in the BNSF right of way. Plus, because of the future development of Fastracks, it is unknown what the final grade of the eastern side of the rail line will actually be. A 6.5 foot tree lawn is not adequate for the placement of trees. b.Option #2–The 32 foot flow line is similar to the Grove Subdivision, with the exception of on street parking. The City anticipates using the 5 foot attached bike lanes for snow removal in winter. The 17 foot tree lawn to the west is more than adequate width for the placement of screening and sound buffering landscapingfrom the BNSF, such as trees and shrubs. c.Option #3–The 26 foot flow line appears too narrow for Fire District to safely access and does not provide any additional right of way for snow storage. Staff acknowledges the option includes a detached trail on the west, however the proposed lawn on the east side is too narrow for sound buffering landscaping. The 9.9 foot tree lawn on the west side does provide adequate area for trees and shrubbery. 2