Laserfiche WebLink
l <br /> f=' <br /> I <br /> and was very thorough in its review. He stated that they did expect comments and revisions that <br /> would be needed, as preliminary plat never hits all the marks from the beginning. <br /> r <br /> g <br /> Commissioner VanScoy stated that perhaps wSB providing a review added to the number of } <br /> conuilents. He asked if this is pretty much a standard preliminary plat in the eyes of staff. <br /> Deputy City Administrator/Community Development Director Hagen replied <br /> ed that staff does view �. <br /> this as complete or would have deemed it as incomplete before bringing it to the Commission. He <br /> stated that it does appear that the application will meet the standards. <br /> Commissioner walker echoed the comments of Commissione <br /> r Anderson. He stated that he is not <br /> comfortable with this group purchasing the property with the intention of selling pail of the <br /> property at a later date for the commercial portion. He stated that with the Highway 1 o project <br /> g Y p <br /> and inflation, he worries that the Citywill end u with three acres of no ` <br /> p thing. He stated that he <br /> would prefer to see a complete plan for the entire site and therefore will not support the request. <br /> Commissioner Anderson stated that he was unable to find the staff com <br /> ments within the case. He F <br /> stated that too many questions were raised that he could not do the research on and believed the <br /> case to be incomplete at this time. He suggested tabling this to the next meeting which would <br /> is <br /> provide more time for review to provide an honest recommendation to the City Council. <br /> Deputy City Administrator/Community Development Director Hagen replied that the staff i <br /> comments were included in the attachment to the case titled plans with review comments. He <br /> stated that the Commission would have the ability to table if desired. <br /> Commissioner VanScoy stated that he shared some of the concerns about what he rea <br /> d and how ;. <br /> he interpreted it. He stated that the staff recommendation is that this is ready e to b approved as <br /> preliminary ppiminary plat and move forward. <br /> ri <br /> Deputy City Administrator/CommunityDevelopment Director Hagen confirmed ' <br /> p g med that is correct. <br /> He noted very similar that the R-2 and R-3 standards are `y and therefore the majority of what will <br /> change will be those standards but believed that those standards are met in the request as the bulk <br /> } <br /> standards are very similar for those districts. He agreed that many of these items are housekeeping <br /> p g <br /> in nature, such as showing the setbacks on the plan. He stated that the applicant could make some <br /> of the changes and updated documents could be provided to the City Council for its review, or the <br /> conditions could remain for that review and the project could be approved contingent upon those ` <br /> . pp g p =: <br /> conditions. <br /> 1, <br /> l <br /> Senior Planner Anderson stated that this goes through the full development review with ever City <br /> dedepartment r Y Y <br /> p reviewing the plans. He noted that if one of those departments identified a significant <br /> issue, it would not be before the Commission for consideration. He stated that it is not the volume <br /> x.; <br /> of comments but how impactful those comments would be to a layout. He stated that while there <br /> are a handful of comments, none of them raised to that level where staff believed it should not <br /> move forward. He stated that the recommendation is contingent upon compliance <br /> g p with all of those <br /> comments. <br /> } <br /> Planning Commission/March 24, 2022 <br /> Page 11 of 18 <br />