03-09-1998 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

File #2341 February 12, 1998 Page 6 n 5. 6. 8. Does Planning Commission accept the proposed method of access to Lot 7? How does Planning Commission view the road radius issue, especially if making sr conform to the City standard will have an impact on septic sites? Should the trail element be granted at this time? Can it be relocated around the potentially impacted septic sites on Lots 2 and 7? If so, will this have an impact on the area calculation for those lots? Is there any reason applicant should not be required to provide stormwater ponding for this development? Is there any reason why the grading of the building pad on Lot 6 should be allowed to encroach the bluff impact zone? The bluff impact zone should be correctly depicted for Lot 5, although this will show to an even greater extent how limited the building envelope is for this Lot. h ! Does Planning Commission have any specific guidelines to propose for a tree preservati easement to be developed for the lakeshore lots? ion Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval subject to the applicant addressing issues noted by the City Engineer prior to presenting this proposal to Council for preliminary plat approval. If changes to the road layout, grading plan or stormwater pond development will significantly change the lot layout, stafi' would want to first bring this back to Planning Commission for further review. 2. Any recommendation for approval should include or address the following: 1. Approval of lot width variances for Lots 2 & 3. Acceptance of access method for Lot 7, including a requirement that all existing accesst^s to the county road be eliminated. Road radius issue. Trail easement and location. Stormwater ponding. Bluff impact variances or adherence to standards for Lots 5 and 6. Tree preservation easement. Adherence to normal development requirements, including perimeter drainage and utility easements, private road easements and covenants, dev'elopers aereement, park