Laserfiche WebLink
CASE NUMBER: 1, 5 04-84 <br />1A PP' LICANT: Richard, Robb3"Lns Page 2 <br />4 Al The applicant had a,pplie�d fair, approval of the PUD over a year ago but did <br />not chose ti o, dedicitie the required 1,0 feet, requested at that time The <br />applicant a t t empi t le, d . to get relief from this requirement from the County, <br />but dropped that proposal after some initial investigation,, Iu the <br />meantime, the foundation for, the garage was begun without a PSD in effect, <br />the City, notified the Robbins that the foundation would have to be <br />removed." . somehow during the ourse of thy. process, the Robbins <br />got the impression that the City and the County were attempt' <br />ing to single <br />them out for harsh treatment. This is most assuredly not the case. <br />It would appear that the City can, approve the Planned Unit Development <br />which will allow for the *issuance of a building permit for the garage. <br />The routine condition . would be the dedication of the 10 foot of <br />rIghtf-ft'Of—way 'in accordance with City policy. <br />The only othier action, might, be that of the driveways being constructed <br />0 in <br />asphalt as required by City Code. Mr. David Drawn, Assistant City <br />Engineer can- comment further on that requirement at the Planning <br />Commission heiarl" <br />L,ng,,, Attached is a copy of the commenis from the <br />V this Engineering Department regarding E I his d,evelopme�nt proposal, <br />io <br />