pf_01576 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

CASE NUMBER: 1576-85 APPLICANT: Metropolitan Recoverty Systems Page 3 4. A ten (10) foot wide utility easement should be provided along the east property line of the subdivision to accommodate future drainage facilities. 5. It is desirable to provide a looped water system for this development. This could be accomplished by a cooperative effort between the developers and the Old Dutch property to the south which currently owns a dead end water system. Both parties would benefit from connecting these two private systems, and we encourage them to do so. These concerns appear to be valid, and should be considered for inclusion as conditions to the approval of the Preliminary Plat. 5„ Though the application is for three separate action, each is dependent upon the appropriateness of the others. If the Special Use Permit is not considered appropriate for approval, the property should not be rezoned. The rezoning action should precede the Special Use Permit but should not be approved by itself unless the Special Use Permit approval is to follow. Once the land is rezoned, the City's ability to deny the Special Use Permit is limited. In other words, the appropriateness of the issuance of the Special Use Permit should be the demonstration of proof as to the reasonableness of the rezoning. Approval of the Preliminary Plat should be considered following the rezoning and the Special Use Permit approval, as an effectuating action. 6. The staff has met with the applicants and their representatives and reviewed the development proposal, the site plans, and the proposed structure in some detail. Subject to the engineer's comments regarding specifics relating to the driveway, we suggest that the site plan is workable as proposed. The applicants have informed us, however, that they are considering a revision to the site plan which might move the truck access area to the north side of the structure, a greater distance from the Old Dutch plant to the south. This reorientation of the functions on the site will be presented at the Planning Commission hearing as an option. Such a reorientation should only be considered for approval by the Planning Commission and Council if it has obvious advantages over the site plan and building configuration as submitted. It is in the interest of the City and the developers to achieve the best plan, and the alternatives should be considered in that light. The applicants have indicated their intent to complete the alternate site plan in time for the 'staff to be able to review it prior to the Planning Commission hearing on 6 March.