Laserfiche WebLink
<br />e <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />CASE NUMBER: <br />APPLICANT: <br /> <br />1511-84 <br />Patrick Goff <br /> <br />Page 3 <br /> <br />7. It would appear that tbe generation of traffic may be tbe principal <br />concern. The que.tion is whether this is a significant enougb concern to <br />merit not building the rroject. The Planning Commis.ion and Council would <br />have tbe right to turD the project dowr, inasmuch as development of . PUD <br />utiliz1ng underlying zoning den.ity i. an option) not a given. We would <br />doubt, however, that the land would ever be developed for duplexe. due to <br />the configuration and the mobile home court envirol~ent. If the land i. <br />left, it would be possible to propose a 24 unit apartment building on the <br />site within the R-2 density requirement.. It may be that the vac.tion of <br />Rose Place, completion of the cul-d~-s.c) and the development of the land <br />with townhouse unit. repreleDtI the most .esthetically desirable <br />.olution. <br /> <br />8. If the project is approved, the PI.nning Commission and Council m.y vi.h <br />to consider the following conditions: <br /> <br />.. Re.ervation of utility easements for Rose Place right-of-way. <br /> <br />b. Dedication of ponding easement aa determined by tbe Engineering .taff. <br /> <br />c. Construction of the cul-de-sac at the ownerf. expen.e by public <br />improvement or privately. <br /> <br />d. Subject to final review of engineering details, by Engineering .taff <br /> <br />e. Subject to final review of landscaping plan and modification. to end <br />elevations of the structure. by the staff. <br />