Laserfiche WebLink
<br />CASE lWK!!R: <br />APPLICANT: <br /> <br />e <br />1504-84 <br />Richard Robbin. <br /> <br />Page 2 <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />4. The applicant had applied for approval of the PUD over. year ago but did <br />not cho.e to dedicate the required 10 feet reque.ted at that time. The <br />applicant attempted to get relief from thi. requirement from the County. <br />but dropped that proposal after .ome initial inveatigation. In the <br />meantime. the foundation for the gar.ge w.. begun without a POD in effect. <br />the City notified the Robbin. th.t the found.tion would have to be <br />removed. .omehow during the cour.e of thi. extended proc.... the Robbin. <br />got the impre..ion that the City and the County were attempt ins to .iDlle <br />them out for b.r.h tre.tment. Thi. i. moat a..uredly not the c..e. <br /> <br />5. It would appear that the City can approve the Planned Unit Developtllent <br />wbicb will allow for the i..uance of . building permit for the .araae. <br />The routine condition would be the dedication of the 10 foot of <br />right-of-w.y in accordance with City policy. <br /> <br />The only other action might be that of the driveway. beins con.tructed in <br />a.phalt .. required by City Code. Mr. David Drown. "..iseant City <br />Engineer. can ~nmment further on that requirement .t the Plannina <br />COIIlIIi..ion hearing. Attached it a copy of the cOllllHnt. from the <br />Engineering Dep.rtment reg.rding thi. development propo.al. <br /> <br />; <br />~ <br />~ <br />" <br />, <br />~ <br />, <br />~ <br />! <br />