Laserfiche WebLink
,P.C. Minutes - January 25, 1989 <br />the plat, that would in turn, reduce the price of a home to first time <br />home buyers in the $65,000 to 70,000 price range. Because of the <br />uniqueness of this development proposal, staff review has been somewhat <br />difficult. On the surface, the concept seems to make a lot of sense and <br />is consistent with the city's comprehensive plan with regard to providing <br />for the diversified housing needs of the community. The staff does not <br />feel that it has adequate information at this stage to make a <br />recommendation to the commission, although, the developers would like some <br />sort of indication from the planning commission with regard to your <br />receptiveness to this proposal. <br />The staff feels that there are some additional needs and concerns that <br />should be addressed before planning commission approval. <br />1. If the intent of the developers is to improve this area in phases. <br />Said phasing should be indicated on the plan. <br />2. Block 11 of the plat have been earmarked for a stormwater collection <br />pond to save the development. The developers are also requesting that <br />this area be platted into 4 lots. We are concerned that this area <br />might not be conducive to residential development and by approving the <br />subdivision of this block we might be implying that it is an <br />acceptable residential area. <br />3. A number of the lots within the development are substandard in size. <br />Although this is not a critical concern it does deviate from our <br />subdivision ordinance and previous development practices. The reduced <br />lot size would be an acceptable approach from the staff's viewpoint if <br />it were tied to a program that would provide more affordable housing <br />to first time home buyers and younger couples. <br />4. The outlots on site should be more clearly identified as to there <br />purpose and how they will be improved and maintained. <br />5. We should make it clear that outlots C and D cannot be resubdivided <br />unless served by streets and utilities as per city policy. <br />6. The stormwater drainage plan needs to be more clearly identified. We <br />would question the desirability of locating the detention ponds within <br />the development north of Oneka Lake Blvd. (who maintains the ponds, <br />how do we control the activities that take place in the detention pond <br />areas). <br />7. With the exception of Lot 8, block 10, none of the lots in this <br />subdivision development should have direct driveway access to Oneka <br />Lake Blvd. <br />Because of the phasing of this development, preliminary plat approval <br />should be regarded as a general concept approval only. If this <br />preliminary plat is found to be acceptable by the planning commission, we <br />would recommend that it be subject to the typical plat conditions with <br />additional conditions added that reflect the staff and consulting <br />engineers concerns. <br />Mr. Dennis Johnston, project manager with Heritage Development informed <br />the planning commission that HUD won't be involved because of the flood <br />plain elevations in the development. After much consideration Heritage <br />Development has decided to withdraw their application for this project, <br />