Laserfiche WebLink
� ` �s-ano <br /> August 12,2015 <br /> Paye 5 of 5 <br /> - Shaced driveway layout should be revised to avoid confliot with wetland bnffer for Wetland E <br /> - Due to length of driveways,Fire Chief ta review and provide direction on driveway configurations <br /> -Various MCWD permits likely to be required <br /> Preliminary Plat: <br /> • Need to reconsider Outlot A size/locatian—make it useful for septic <br /> - Should reconsider driveway layout in Outlot H <br /> - For wetland that require 30' buffer(MCWD),must show City setback at 40' {buffer plus 10') <br /> -Add buffers and setbacks around wetlands C and D <br /> -Will have to provide fencing around septic sites <br /> While a number of the Ellgirieer's comments will be easily resolved, many relate to basic site <br /> layout concerns that should be further investigated. <br /> Summary of Issues for Discu�sion <br /> 1. Does Planning Commission have any concern.s about granting a lot w�idth variance for <br /> proposed Lot 1? <br /> 2. The driveway serving Lot 1 will likely have wetland and floodplain impacts that need to <br /> be addressed. There would appeaz to be no alternatives to this driveway location in order <br /> to access the building site on Lot 1. <br /> 3. The creation of Outlot A as potential additional on-site sewage treatment azea for the <br /> house at 480 Orchard Park is strongXy encouraged and supported by staff. However,the <br /> viabiiity of this location next to the wetland suggests a reconfiguration of Outlot A should <br /> be considered in order to make this area functional for septic system use. <br /> 4. Applicants should consider whether Outlot B can be revised ta be narrower in width than <br /> the 90' proposed. <br /> 5. Are the applicants willing to build the shared driveway as part of the subdivision process <br /> rather th�n waiting until homes are constructed? <br /> 6. MCWD approval for the delineated wetland boundaries should be received prior to Council <br /> review of the preliminary plat.. <br /> 7. A Conservation Design Report has yet to be submitted—does Planning Commission wish <br /> to review this report before making a recommendation to Council? <br /> 8. Are there any other concerns that need to be addressed? <br /> Staff Recommendation <br /> Applicant should be advised to address the items detailed in the City Engineer's comments, and <br /> address the issues for discussion noted above. Planning Comumission should hold the Public <br /> Hearing and receive comments from the public. <br /> Staff would recomtnend that the applica.tion be tabled to a11ow the applicant to address the issues <br /> and allow Planning Commission the opportunity to review the Conservation Design�report once it <br /> is submitted. <br /> Options for action include: <br /> -Recommend approval or conditional approval for the preliminary pla� <br /> -Table for revisions or further information (provide applicant direction). <br /> -Recommend denial, stating reasons. <br /> - Other <br />