Laserfiche WebLink
CONCLUSION <br />The City needs to decide, if approval is given, whether it is <br />willing to absorb the additional investment in the property as part <br />of potential future acquisition for a larger conforming project. <br />If not, the project should be denied for reasons relating to non- <br />compliance with the intent of the Planned Unit Development <br />District, the City's Development District Plan, and the goals and <br />objectives of the City's Comprehensive Plan. The City must also be <br />careful not to unduly restrict the potential reuse of the property <br />by another party. <br />If the City decides that the redevelopment of the property, as <br />proposed, is acceptable, we would recommend the following: <br />1. A revised site plan be drawn showing the proper sized parking <br />stalls and a pattern that addresses the maneuvering concerns <br />noted in this report. <br />2. If signage is proposed, a signage plan be prepared and <br />submitted to the City for review. <br />3. The City Engineer review the plans for drainage concerns. <br />4. A CUP be applied for the opaque privacy fence to extend into <br />a front yard. <br />pc: Kathy Glanzer <br />John Palacio <br />Precision Tree <br />Leo Richert <br />Irene Frattlone <br />4 <br />PAGE 12 <br />