Laserfiche WebLink
provided for the property which identifies the specific location, <br />type and size of all proposed landscape materials. <br />Drainage. The applicant has generally indicated the surface flow <br />of water on the submitted site plan considering the proposed <br />parking lot improvements. More specific drainage information <br />should be provided. This drainage plan should be subject to review <br />and approval by the City Engineer. <br />Utilities. The applicants have expressed interest in City sanitary <br />sewer service to the area. This request must be addressed to the <br />City as an improvement petition, however, the capacity of the <br />site's private septic system may have an impact on the expansion <br />possibilities. Any such improvement request should be made in <br />conjunction with the PUD amendment. <br />CONCLUSION <br />We believe that the R & S expansion presents possible benefits as <br />a PUD. The expansion is an opportunity to further encourage <br />general enhancement to site conditions in the area. However, the <br />applicant has not provided a detailed site plan which is typically <br />required for development stage and final stage approval. The City <br />must make a policy determination as to whether or not the submitted <br />site plan is acceptable for approval. If the City determines that <br />it is acceptable, we believe a number of issues must be discussed <br />as outlined in the Executive Summary of this report to provide <br />specific direction to the applicant for site improvements. <br />pc: Kathy Glanzer <br />John Palacio <br />Dave Harris <br />Mike Lynch <br />Lewis Rustad <br />4 <br />Page 26 <br />