Laserfiche WebLink
16-3822 <br /> April 14,2016 <br /> Page 12 of 13 <br /> Preliminary Plat Review <br /> 1. Does Planning Commission agree that the road should be private? <br /> 2. The general design and orientation of dwelling units proposed and the minimal lot <br /> sizes and setbacks as compared to the RPUD standards requires a significant level of <br /> development flexibility. Does Planning Commission have any concerns about the <br /> lot widths, setbacks or other RPUD standards for which flexibility is required in this <br /> proposal? <br /> 3. A small number of lots will have relatively short "back yards" where the home will <br /> be no more than 10-15 feet from a wetland buffer. Are these acceptable? The lots in <br /> these situations are typically smaller because the wetland buffer will be part of the <br /> commons area. <br /> 4. The proposed front setbacks to the street area result of the `zig-zag' lot configuration <br /> which allows for off-street parking. Is this configuration acceptable? <br /> 5. Do the private park and trail system satisfy the 10% private recreation area <br /> requirements of the RPUD District? <br /> 6. The grade changes and removal of existing trees along Wayzata Boulevard will <br /> significantly change the visual character of that section of Wayzata Boulevard, while <br /> also placing homes nearer the elevation of the highway at a distance of 50-60 feet <br /> from the traveled road. Does this present any specific concerns? The perimeter <br /> vegetation plan should be reviewed — is there a need for buffering the homes from <br /> the road? <br /> 7. Does Planning Commission agree that the Conservation Design Master Plan <br /> (CDMP) should be revised to include more complete recommendations and direction <br /> to address the topics of Invasive Species, Protection of Significant Tree Stands, and <br /> Protection of Wetlands? Are there any other concerns regarding environmental <br /> protection of this property as it develops? <br /> 8. Are the requests for flexibility in terms of FAR, hardcover and building height <br /> acceptable? <br /> 9. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? <br /> Staff Recommendation <br /> Discussion of the above topics and any conclusions reached by the Planning Commission should <br /> provide applicant and staff with direction as to whether or how the proposed plat should be <br /> further revised. Any remaining topics left unaddressed to date should be brought up for <br /> discussion. <br /> Staff recommends approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, with the caveat that the <br /> City should identify alternate sites for higher density development. <br /> Staff recommends approval of the rezoning to RPUD, to be formally approved at the time of <br /> final plat approval. <br /> If Planning Commission concludes that the proposal as presented is acceptable and can be moved <br /> on to the City Council for review of preliminary plat approval, staff would suggest the <br /> recommendation as a minimum address the following: <br />