Laserfiche WebLink
� � . <br /> 103460 <br /> 11 May 2010 <br /> Page 7 of 7 <br /> applicant should address any engineering issues which are insurmountable or may have an <br /> impact on the overall developability of the site. <br /> Staff Recommendation <br /> Due to the timing of the applicant's grant cycle, an action at this meeting is requested by the <br /> applicant to move the application forward to meet deadlines. The Commission should review <br /> and discuss the development standards (page 2 of this report), the RPUD goals (page 5) and <br /> the RPUD discussion points (beginning on page 5) as they relate to this proposal. Does the <br /> Commission feel the proposal achieves the goals and purpose as defined within the RPUD <br /> standards? If there are any areas of concern they should be addressed with the applicant. <br /> If the Commission is satisfied with the proposal, the application should be forwarded to the City <br /> Council with a recommendation for approval. <br /> If the Commission is not satisfied with the proposal and the applicant is amenable to changes to <br /> make it satisfactory, the Commission should make a recommendation for approval which <br /> includes the desired changes. <br /> If the Commission is not satisfied with the proposal and the applicant is not amenable to <br /> changes to make it satisfactory, the Commission should make a recommendation for denial <br /> listing the specific reasons for denial. The applicant could then choose to have Council consider <br /> the proposal with the concerns of the Commission as a recommendation. <br /> Action Requested <br /> Planning Commission should make a motion to recommend approval or denial of the <br /> � application. <br />