Laserfiche WebLink
FILE #LA24-000059 <br />18 February 2025 <br />Page 4 of 4 <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />Staff Recommendation <br />Based on the staff review comments, staff cannot support the revised application. Staff suggests the <br />Commission review the issues for discussion outlined in this memo and the engineer's comments and provide <br />appropriate feedback to the Developer. The month delay resulting from the canceled January meeting allowed <br />the Developer to revise their plan to respond to some of the review feedback and provided written responses to <br />the city’s comments attached as Exhibit H. <br /> <br />Planning Commission has the following options: <br />1. Make a motion to approve the plat conditioned upon revised plans addressing all of the comments from <br />MCWD, planning, and engineering staff before placement on a City Council agenda for consideration; or <br /> <br />2. Make a motion to table, providing the Developer with specific feedback to address the comments. The <br />Developer should be directed to provide revised plans addressing all of the comments from the city and <br />the MCWD for consideration at the March Planning Commission meeting. <br /> <br />138