Laserfiche WebLink
#05-3097 <br />April 18,2005 <br />Pag«6of6 <br />luact for DiKOMioa <br />1. The Rural Oasis study the City is currently undergoing would require that this <br />property Master Plan as it exceeds the 5 acre threshold. Should the applicant be <br />required to Master Plan in accordance with the standards the City's consultant <br />outlined even though the formal Comprehensive Plan Amendment hasn't been <br />adopted? <br />2. Should the stormwater potentially created by all 21 dry acres be required to be <br />treated, rather than the current plan that only treats 8 acres? <br />3. Should the **ditch wetlands" noted in lot 5 be deducted for the lot area based on <br />the wetland ordinance currently awaiting adoption? What if that eliminates this <br />lot? <br />4. Should setback variances be granted in order to retain the existing guest house? <br />Should the existing access from Fox Street to the guest house be eliminated upon <br />final plat approval? <br />5. Should the existing access at the western corner of the site crossing lot 1 be <br />eliminated up to the proposed outlet even if lot I isn't developed? Prior to filing <br />of die plat? <br />6. Is die Planning Commission comfortable reviewing lot 6 as a back'lot requiring <br />150% of die RR- IB setback standards? <br />7. Is the Planning Commission concerned about the retaining wall heights necessary <br />for the proposed road? Should these walls be located within the right-of-way, on <br />the property line, or within lots 1 and 4? <br />8. Should a 10* trail easement be dedicated? <br />9. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? <br />Snnunniy <br />Table to allow for a full engineering and septic review as well as Planning Conunission <br />recommendations regarding the questions noted above in the Issues for Consideration <br />section of this report. This item will also be forwarded to the Park Conunission for <br />comment <br />I4v" V .. <br />. . A