Laserfiche WebLink
#05-3131 <br /> October 13,2005 <br /> Page 3 <br /> General Comments <br /> Many of the comments noted in the September PC memo are still applicable. <br /> Remaining Issues To Be Resolved or For Consideration <br /> 1. Plans should be revised to show a 10' trail easement along the west boundary ofthe property. <br /> 2. Applicant should provide suitable landscape plans, tree preservation plans and elevation <br /> views showing how development of the site can meet the City's Conservation Design goals. <br /> Staff is advised these plans are underway as of this writing... Does Planning Commission <br /> want to consider recommending preliminary plat approval prior to review of landscape <br /> plans? <br /> 3. Should a 10' variance be granted to the new wetland ordinance 20' buffer setback <br /> requirement for Lots 7 and 8? Should the application be tabled until the City's wetland <br /> consultant has had a chance to review and comment on the variance request? <br /> 4. Does Plaruzing Commission accept Outlot B as meeting the RPUD"10%private recreation <br /> area"requirement? If not,what additional options should applicant consider for meeting that <br /> requirement? <br /> 5. Have all requireinents of the RPUD ordinance been satisfied? <br /> 6. Other concerns? <br /> Staff Recommendation <br /> Discussion of the above issues should provide applicant and staff with direction as to whether or how <br /> the proposed plat should be further revised. Any remaining topics left unaddressed to date sliould be <br /> brought up for discussion. Options for action include: <br /> - Table for further revisions and consideration (provide applicant direction). <br /> -Recommend approval or conditional approval for the preliminary plat and rezoning to RPUD. <br /> - Recommend denial, stating reasons. <br /> - Other <br /> Any recommendation for approval should address the issues noted above and be subject the <br /> forthcoming comments of the City Engineer. <br />