Laserfiche WebLink
#04.3016 <br />May 14,2004 <br />Pages <br />Given the extent of grading, the developer should be required to provide boulevard trees along the <br />private road as required by code. <br />13. Archaeological Site Proximity Study <br />Applicant's consultants have completed a cultural resource review of the site and has suggested that <br />a Phase 1 archaeological survey be completed for the property. <br />Issues for Consideration <br />1.Does Planning Commission agree with the use of the PRD subdivision method for this <br />property? <br />2.Should the areas to be preserved via conservation easements, be in an Outlot, or merely as <br />an easement within each individual property? <br />3. <br />4. <br />What type of Luce Line access should be allowed (in terms of pathways, etc.)? <br />Docs Planning Commission accept the proposed lot sizes, configurations and setbacks? <br />5.Does Planning Commission feel that slopes of greater than 18% should be protected from <br />land alteration for this development? If so, a very different layout might result... <br />6.Is Planning Commission comfortable with moving ahead with this re\ iew given that the issue <br />of access to Brown Road is still unresolved? <br />7. Any other issues or concerns? <br />Staff Recommendation <br />Planning Commission should address the various issues noted above, providing direction to staff and <br />applicant. Any recommendation for approval should address the issues noted above, and include the <br />following: <br />1.Approval is subject to the standard Park Dedication Fee, unless Park Commission makes <br />other recommendations. <br />2. Approval is subject to the standard Storm Water Drainage and Trunk Fee. <br />3. Approval is subjctc to provision of the standard Road, Drainage and Utility Easements to be <br />granted over the new road outlot as well as over the 40' easement access to Brown Road.