Laserfiche WebLink
-3- <br />Conclusion <br />The owner/developer is in agreement with the City's Land Use <br />designation of his property. Further, that the ring access <br />idea with minimal curb cuts is also agreeablr_, The owner/ <br />developer has also studied the drainage impact and is confident <br />that he can meet the City's Resolution %983 requirements. <br />Last and most important, the owner/developer would like to <br />coordinate his mixed P.U.D. development with the City's park <br />development. <br />Finall <br />Also attached is a concept sketch of which Staff has been <br />diacussing with the owner/developer. The vacant land, <br />including the park property the City now owns, is approzimately <br />100 acres. <br />The 12 acre parcel and the 9.9 acre parcel are denoted commer- <br />cial and some high density residential (posaible hi9h rise <br />for senior citizens) along Highway 10 and Co. Rd. I. <br />The 14.7 acre parcel below the proposed loop road and above <br />the lake is denoted medium to low density residential. <br />The southweet corner of 17.2 acres ia denoted Low density (old <br />park eite). <br />5.3 acree are vaed for minimal road service. <br />The zemainder of the tract of land ie denoted 30.6 acres <br />park and 20.6 acrea lake and walkway corridor. <br />This aite plan attempts to adhere to the one directive nf the <br />Council via Resolution t996 (Park Land Acquisition`, and the <br />directive of the current Comprehensive Pl.an. <br />Two other ideas have been expreeeed by the owner/developer's <br />agent with regard to the developing of the parce3.. They vrould <br />like the City to conaider zero-lot-line development in some areae <br />and would r�etition the City to make the public improvementa <br />and assea� the eoats back to the benefit.inq properties. Both <br />of theee requeats are not uncommon and have been approvad by <br />this City and other citiea. <br />