Laserfiche WebLink
Pl anni ng & Zo ni n g B o ar d <br />Mar c h 10 , 20 04 <br />Page 7 <br />APPROVED MINUTES <br />8. Prior to consideration by the City Coun cil, the applicant must demonstrate the <br />adequacy of the driveway to the group residence duplex in regard to emergency <br />vehicle access, visibility, and ot her safety and practical issues. <br /> <br />9. Information on the grading plan is unclear in the area of the south end of the property. <br />This must be clarified prior to City Council consideration of the application. <br /> <br />10. The adequacy of the water service must be determined prior to City Council <br />consideration of the application. <br /> <br />11. Issues discussed in the C ity Engineer review memo of February 26, 2004 must be <br />addressed to his satisfaction. <br /> <br />12. Lots shall be adjusted to ensure they have suffici ent area without the wetland <br />easement. <br /> <br />13. The preliminary plat shall be revised to pr ovide for a future street connection to the <br />west. <br /> <br />14. A revised preliminary plat showing the required changes shall be submitted for <br />review prior to City Council consideration of the application. <br /> <br />15. The City seeding mix must be used for ponds and wetland areas. This must be noted <br />on the plans. <br /> <br />16. The property owner must obtain approval from the City Council to vacate the existing <br />ponding and flowage easements. <br /> <br />17. The applicant must submit a tree preser vation plan showing the grading plan <br />superimposed on the tree inventory prior to a City Council co nsideration of the <br />application. <br /> <br />18. Site plan information for a group residen ce duplex shall be provided prior to issuance <br />of a building permit. This shall includ e architectural elev ations, floor plan, <br />landscaping, and site lighting. <br /> <br />19. There must be a shared driveway easement to allow the new lot to use the existing <br />driveway on Ash St. This easement must be submitted for review and be in order <br />prior to final plat revi ew by the City Council. <br /> <br />Chair Schaps inquired about the parking sta lls. Mr. Smyser replied he had not spoken <br />with the applicant about this , but they were in attendance tonight for the Board’s <br />questions. <br /> <br />Mr. Root stated traffic flow through nei ghborhood was very important and a 1000’ cul- <br />de-sac in a heavily populated area was not appropriate. He stat ed he would like to see an <br />extension to the west, but he wanted to see how this would look. He indicated he would <br />not approve this with a 1000’ cul-de-sac. He expressed concern about the number of