Laserfiche WebLink
#os-3i31 <br /> o�ton��•1s,Zoos <br /> , Page 3 <br /> General Comments <br /> Many of the conu7lents noted in the September PC memo a1•e still applicable. <br /> Remaining Issues To Be Resolved or For Considei•ation <br /> 1. Plans should be revised to sllow a 10'trail easement along the west boundary ofthe properiy. <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 Coiiservation Design goals. <br /> Staff is advised these plans are tulderway as of this writing... Does Plaiuung Conuiiissioii <br /> want to coilsider recouunending preliminary plat approval prior to review of landscape <br /> plans? <br /> 3. Should a 10' varia.nce be granted to tl�e new wetland ordinance 20' buffer setback <br /> requirement for Lots 7 azid 8? Should the application be tabled until the City's wetland <br /> consultai�t has had a chance to review and conunent on the variance request? <br /> 4. Does Planning Con-uzussion accept Outlot B as nieeting the RPUD "10%private recreation <br /> area"requirement? If not,wliat additional options should applica.iit 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 sliould be further revised. Any remaining topics left ttnaddressed to date sliould be <br /> brought up for discussion. Options for action inchtde: <br /> - Table for further revisions and consideration(provide applicant direction). <br /> - Reconunend a�proval or conditional approval for the preliminary plat and rezoning to RPUD. <br /> - Recommend denial, stating reasons. <br /> - Other <br /> Any reconunendation for approval sliould address ihe issues noted above azid be suUject the <br /> forthconiing conuiients of the City Engineer. <br />