Laserfiche WebLink
JUL -13 -1999 13 :48 NAC <br />612 595 9837 P.03'03 <br />4. The site plan appears to show some sort of pond -side accessory building (gazebo ?) <br />with a walkway from the parking lot. However, the revised grading plan illustrates <br />a four to five foot high retaining wall which would interrupt access to the gazebo. <br />This will require additional clarification on revised plans. <br />5. The City Engineer is concerned that we do not have adequate information to verify <br />that the proposed sewer line would be deep enough to serve the adjacent cabinet <br />shop. This information will need to be provided as a part of the revised submission. <br />6. If the sewer needs to be made deeper to accommodate the adjacent property, there <br />may be an issue over the width of the sewer easement along the north side of the <br />project. Again, this issue would affect the layout, and should be determined prior <br />to Development Stage PUD and Preliminary Plat. Additionally, there is concern <br />over access to a manhole in this area due to the location of a retaining wall. <br />7. Beyonq these items, there continuo to be iesuot related to the localivn of the trash <br />handling equipment, including enclosure design, entrance /exit drive detailing, <br />landscaping plans, and signage. <br />Given the number of unresolved issues which could affect the layout, and potentially the <br />entire design concept, of this project, staff does not believe that the project is ready for <br />Development Stage PUD or Preliminary Plat approval. There has not been adequate time <br />to review the plans to ensure that the project which gets approved at this stage would be <br />the project which gets built. Moreover, there are some details, such as building elevations, <br />which have not been adequately explained to be considered for PUD approval. Since the <br />City Council's vision for this PUD District was an office project which would be able to take <br />advantage of the site's unique characteristics, it recommended that the Development <br />Stage PUD and Preliminary Plat be tabled until a subsequent meeting, or returned to the <br />Planning Commission for additional review. <br />pc: Joel Hanson <br />Kathy Glanzer <br />Terry Maurer <br />Greg Schroeder <br />Greg Schmidt <br />David Ficek <br />Chuck Plows <br />2 <br />PAGE 2 <br />TOTAL P.03 <br />