Laserfiche WebLink
�� Ii�INNQJT'ES OF'I'� � <br /> - • �� OItONO PLAI�II�NG CONINdI3SION IE�ET`�[10TG <br /> 1VIonday,October 17, 2005 <br /> 6:00 o'ciock p.m. <br /> 3. #05-3152�O�I,A1o1D DE�LOP1�Im1T 01�1�E��'�F JAI��S D.IVIACKIN1�1�101,E'I' <br /> AI,., "3500",6:50 I'.1��.—7:17 P.1VI. <br /> Marlc GronUerg, Surveyor,was present. <br /> Gaffion stated the Planning Cornmission llas reviewed this application previously. Gaffron noted that <br /> Staff has not received final septic testing and design reports on this application so it does not qualify as a <br /> complete preliminary�lat application. �raffron indicated the Planning Comnussion at the last meeting <br /> had directed the applicant to explore clustering or eliminate the necessity of building a house down in the <br /> southeast corner of the property. � <br /> Gaffron stated the applicant is still proposing six lots Uut instead has created a large outlot near <br /> Watertown Road,with all lots accessing a private road. Gaffron noted the lots have been reduced below <br /> the 2.0 acre area/200 feet width standards of the RR-1B District. However,the overall dry buildable area <br /> of 14.3 acres would calculate to a proposed density of 2.38 acres per unit. Gaffron stated one positive <br /> revision is the possibility of tucking the house on Lot 3, Block 2, into the northwest corner,which reduces <br /> the need to do a substantial amount of grading. <br /> The applicant is also proposing to locate the stormwater poud partially within the existing delineated <br /> wetland and will require special City and MCWD approvals to allow this location. Staff has preliminarily <br /> indicated support for this concept,based on the limitations of the site for other efficient ponding locations, <br /> Wetland mitigation might be feasible at the southeast portion of Outlot B to make this plan more <br /> acceptable. Gaffron noted there is an existing drainageway through the site that may need to be relocated. <br /> Gaffron recommended the following issues be considered: <br /> 1. Is the PRD concept a.cceptable for this site? <br /> 2. Are the proposed lot sizes and widths acceptable in ternls of a PRD proposal? <br /> 3. Does the layout address the City's Conservation Design goals? <br /> 4. Are there aspects of the plan that need further refineinent? <br /> Gaffron stated this application was published for a public hearing as the developer intended to move <br /> forward;however,because the application remains incomplete,the Planning Commission should review <br /> the proposed PRD plat, identify for the developer what issues are most critical to focus oil, and receive <br /> public coinments regarding the revised subdivision pro�osal. <br /> Staff would reconunend that if Planning Conunission is comfortable with the proposed concept,the <br /> current proposal be forwarded to Council for review of whether Council will support the PRD concept at <br /> this site. If so,then the applicant would be back before the PlaiuZing Commission in November for <br /> complete review of preliminaiy plat documents. <br /> Rahn stated in his opinion the revised plan is a major improvement over the last plan. <br /> PAGE 8 <br />