Laserfiche WebLink
r <br />V?,'-.: <br />• ^ <br />w <br />MS-3097 <br />April 18.2005 <br />PsKeOofO <br />T <br />Issues for DbciutkHi <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 tl'ough the formal Comprehensive Plan Amendment hasn ’t been <br />adcqited? <br />2. Shmild 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 S be deducted for the lot area based on <br />die wetland ordinance currently awaiting adoption? What if that r'.iminates 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 outlot even if lot 1 isn’t developed? Prior to filing <br />of the plat? <br />6. Is die Planning Commission comfortable reviewing lot 6 as a back-lot requiring <br />150% of the RR - IB setback standards? <br />7. Is the Planning Commission concerned about the retaining wall heights necessary <br />fix the proposed road? Should these walls be located within the right-of-way, on <br />the property line, or widiin 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 />Samauuy <br />Table to allow for a full engineering and septic review as well as Planning Commission <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 Commission for <br />comment