Laserfiche WebLink
n <br />#0S-31S2 <br />November 16,200S <br />Pege2 <br />Council Conceptual Review 10/24/D5 <br />Please review the attached Council minutes of October 24. This item was forwarded to Council <br />for consideration of the clustering concept with substandard lot sizes via the PRD process, and <br />applicability of Conservation Design, llie three Councilmembers present indicated a general <br />support for the concept, but cautioned themselves to be very thorough in tlie review process. <br />They advised the applicant to meet with DSU regarding conservation design and how the Rural <br />Oasis Study addresses this site. No formal action was taken. <br />On October 26 staff met with the City ’s wetland consultant, John Smyth, to review the potential <br />wetland impacts of the proposed stormwater pond design that incorporates pail of the wetland, as <br />well as to consider the pro’s and con’s of a linear pond that would potentially reduce the amount <br />of tree removal uphill from the wetland. Smyth’s comments are expected to be available for the <br />November 21 meeting. <br />Meeting with Adam Arvidson of DSU 11/7/05 <br />An>licant and staff met with Adam Arvidson, landscape architect with DSU, on November 7 to <br />review the Rural Oasis study and its applicability to this site. Arvidson indicated that the current <br />layout has addressed the major concerns for preservation of the long views and wooded <br />bMkdrop, and he suggested tliat applicant engage an ecologist to suggest a preservation and <br />augmentation plan for the site. Applicant has since contacted Applied Ecological Services <br />(AES) and is expecting to have their comments available for the November 21 meeting. <br />Revised Septic Sites <br />The most recent plan revisions, attached as Exhibit A, reflect relocated septic mound sites. As of <br />this writing, applicant has not submitted septic reports for staff review; the acceptability of those <br />sites remains to be reviewed by City staff. <br />Stormwater Pond <br />Applicant is currently attempting to gain confirmation of MCWD acceptance of stormwater <br />ponding located partially within the wetland. He is also exploring the idea of a linear pond, <br />paralleling the creek bed, which could potentially reduce the degree of tree removals needed. <br />Qaesttoos Rcauiining Unanswered <br />1.What are the recommendations of AES and Smyth with regards to ponding options? Will <br />MCWD accept ponding options that encroach into the wetland? <br />2.Are the proposed lot sizes and vridths acceptable in terms of a PRD proposal? If septic <br />system sites are confirmed to be viable, is Planning Commission comfortable with the <br />site layout? Does PC have any recommendation regarding development limitations to be <br />addreued in covenants? <br />• V.;