Laserfiche WebLink
• < <br />MS-3131 <br />October 13,3005 <br />Pigc3 <br />General Comments <br />Many of the comments noted in the September PC memo are still applicable. <br />Remaining Issues To Be Resolved or For Consideration <br />1 . Plans should be revised to show a 10* trail easement along the west boundary of the property. <br />2.Applicant should provide suitable landscape plans, tree preservation plans and elevation <br />views showing how development of the site can meet the City’s Conservation Design goals. <br />Staff is advised these plans are underway as of this writing... Does Planning Commission <br />want to consider recommending preliminary plat approval prior to review of landscape <br />plans? <br />3.Should a 10 ’ variance be granted to the new wetland ordinance 20' buffer setback <br />requirement for Lots 7 and 8? Should the application be tabled until the City’s wetland <br />consultant has had a chance to review and comment on the vaiiance reque:.:? <br />4.[>oes Planning Commission accept Outlot B as meeting the RPUD “ 10% private recreation <br />area ” requirement? If not, what additional options should rqiplicant consider for meeting that <br />requirement? <br />5. <br />6. <br />Have all requirements of the RPUD ordinance been satisfied? <br />Other concerns? <br />Staff Recommendation <br />Discussion of the above issues should provide applicant and staff with direction as to whether or how <br />the proposed plat should be further revised. Any remaining topics left unaddressed to date should be <br />brought up for discussion. Options for action include: <br />- Table for further revisions and considotUion (provide applicant direction). <br />- Recommend approval or conditional approval for the preliminary plat and rezoning to RPUD. <br />> Recommend denial, stating reasons. <br />- Other <br />Any recommendation for iqjproval should address the issues noted above and be subject the <br />forthcoming comments of dm City Engineer. <br />4