Laserfiche WebLink
� � <br /> r � <br /> Date Application Received: 7/22l15 ��O <br /> Date Application Coneidsred aa Complete: 7�2/15 <br /> 12aDay Review Period Ezpires: IUi9/15 <br /> To: Chair Leskinen and Planning Commission Members ��� a���'� <br /> From: Mike Gaffron, Senuor Planner '�sHo <br /> Date: September i 7, 2015 <br /> Subject: #15-3774, Michael Steadman o/b/a Irwin Jacobs, 17QU Shoreline Drive <br /> -Preliuminary Plat—Second Review <br /> - Continued Pub�ic Heazing <br /> Application Summary: The proposal is to split off 3 new 2-acre building sites from the <br /> northerly portion of the 31-acre property,to be accessed via an extension of Heritage Lane. <br /> Planni�cg Commission Action �/17/�'S: At its Augus�meeting Planning Commission tabled the <br /> application on a vote of 6-0, and provided the applicant's representative with a number of <br /> recommendations for actions and information to p�rovide prior to the conti.nuation of the review <br /> an 5eptember 21. <br /> Sta�('f' Reconrmendation: Planning Commission shauld review the z�ewly submitted <br /> documeritation. Ho1d the public hearing and accept public comments. Recommend approval <br /> with conditions or table for further information and/or revisions. <br /> List of Eahibits <br /> ,�xhibit A. New Applicant Submittals <br /> 1 —Memo dated September 16, 201 S <br /> 2—Statement of TeFnnporary Access iumpacts <br /> 3 —Letter from Doboszenski & Sons re: Suitability of Temporary Access <br /> Exhibit B. Revi�sed Plans Received 9/15/15 <br /> 1 —Preliminaiy Plat <br /> 2—North Detail <br /> 3 —South Detail <br /> 4—Proposed Road Plan&Profile <br /> F,xhibit C. Updated Conse7vation Design k.eport <br /> Exhibit D. Notice of Planning Commissian Action S/27/15 <br /> ExhibitE. Draft Planning Commission Minutes 8/17/i5 <br /> Exhibit F. Planning Commission Memo & Selected Exhibits 8J13/15 <br /> Exhibat G. Public Comments Received After$/17 Packet D�s#ribution <br /> At its August meeting Planning Commission reviewed the pmposed subdivisian and heard <br /> comments from the public regarding the potential impacts of the development on the Foxhill <br /> neighborhood. The primary issue appeared to be the impacts of the construction process—initially <br /> the impacts of road and utility construction, later the�snpacts of constructing three new homes. <br />