HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Reviewn
STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS
No. 1 ~
Project: CROWLEY TRACT (MASTER DEV)-MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN
(0-122)
PLANNING
1. Identify the specific thoroughfare changes proposed and justification for ; .~,;?~-~~-` ~,
;.~ ,
2. Ex la nnthe rat otna elabehind th~e~~~~ro o`,~_~~~~~_,~'S ~~ ~~~_ ~~~~ ~~~ ~~~~~~~~~ ~~~
p p p sed land use changes on the
master plan.
3. Show the Recreation and Open Space Reserves on the master plan.
4. Show the specific phasing on the master plan. It is unclear how the `~~ -~1`'`J ~
phasing addresses street and parkland infrastructure requirements. _,~~ ~~~
Rezoning -Concept Plan `% ~~
.~ . ,~
,~~~r> 5. A PDD is typically presented with a concept plan. It may go so far as to
~~ , ~~tiY~ include a preliminary plat. In this case there is insufficient detail for this
\~,~~,, to be a preliminary plat. Either add detail to meet the preliminary plat
requirements (refer to the preliminary plat checklist) or change this title
block to a PDD Concept Plan.
6. It is unclear how the 50' access easement works to accomplish a
secondary access without the phase lines being shown clearly. Is this
intended for emergency access only? What happens to the ROSR in this
location?
7. Land mgmt. staff is working with developer on street name problems.
8. Identify the parks as City Parks.
9. In regards to the proposed modified development standards:
a. The cul-de-sac pavement width needs to remain at 24 feet, which staff
previously agreed to support.
b. It needs to be perfectly clear that there is to be no parking in the bulb
of cul-de-sacs all the way to a point 20 feet from where the bulb meets
the main portion of the street, to allow for emergency vehicle turn
around.
c. In previous discussions staff agreed to support a cul-de-sac length
restricted by 24 lots.
d. Clarify all building setback lines for ALL sections. Do you want the
other setbacks to match existing R-1 standards?
e. Pathway connectors show inadequate sidewalk width if intended for
pedestrians and bikes. Should be 10' wide for both.
_,
Reviewed by: JESSICA JIMMERSON Date: 07/06/00
Staff Review Comments Page 1 of 1
STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS
No. 1
Project: CROWLEY TRACT (MASTER DEV)-MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN
(0-122)
PLANNING
1. Identify the specific thoroughfare changes proposed and justification for
same on the master plan.
2. Explain the rationale behind the proposed land use changes on the
master plan.
3. Show the Recreation and Open Space Reserves on the master plan.
4. Show the specific phasing on the master plan. It is unclear how the
phasing addresses street and parkland infrastructure requirements.
5. It is unclear how the 50 access easement works to accomplish a
~en~~~'c ~ secondary access without the phase lines being shown clearly. Is this
n.~,A ~~'~' intended for emergency access only? What happens to the ROSR in this
~~-~~ location?
6. Land mgmt. staff is working with developer on street name problems.
~ 7. A PDD is typically presented with a concept plan. It may go so far as to
include a preliminary plat. In this case there is insufficient detail for this
to be a preliminary plat. Either add detail to meet the preliminary plat
requirements (refer to the preliminary plat checklist) or change this title
block to a PDD Concept Plan.
8. Clarify building setback lines for ALL sections.
9. Pathway connectors show inadequate sidewalk width if intended for
pedestrians and bikes. Should be 10' wide for both.
,.
a, ~
Reviewed by: JESSICA JIMMERSON Date: 07/05/00
,.
~~ ~E GINEERING t`
~ , ~,~:~
'1Q,~ .,
Reviewed by: U~ Date: 07/05/00
~ ~~ ~~ 3~
~~ ~ ~ ~~.
~-
.~~ J
,~`
~~
Staff Review Comments Page 1 of 1