Laserfiche WebLink
I <br />Page 2 <br />Barry J. O'Meara, Case No. 1908 <br />42 feet from the south lot <br />approximately feet, with the <br />two-story homes are aPP would be 24 <br />existing structure feet. If this were the <br />line. The proposed one-story within 14 <br />of additional porch being garage <br />` ilit in u to the rear lot line <br />gout , <br />possibility feet, and a feet <br />backyard of the residences <br />ebeb built backing <br />30 maximum of 30 <br />house The house could be a <br />a two -be within 5 feet. o f 15 feet high• <br />could be maximum <br />high and the garage could be a <br />side of the land cont us roadway <br />e is on o the <br />the otherro ect had a privateThe current <br />5. The other The ngpreviously approved P o f Rose Place. <br />street. right -of public street as a public <br />contiguous to the public rig on the p The <br />build the roadway the properties. <br />proposal is to benefit of <br />ment to be assessed to the the assessment and they <br />improvepaying public improvement <br />owner of the land (the bank) <br />ithebe Osts for this pThe <br />bli public street <br />own half <br />are agreeable t0 paying <br />g the private road approach. new solution involves <br />versus continuingproposedThe new <br />reater north -south dime fso°n • the south <br />solution is essential in this case since the <br />so feet <br />a larger structure requiring feet to 30.3 the City <br />will be from 29 Tax <br />structures With .-�spect to this assess ofn 'using <br />Of Rose Place. session the possibility This <br />right-of-way work portions thereof. <br />Council discussed at a or p <br />a for the assessments, ractice would <br />Increment funds to pay therefore, the standard P cul-de-sac <br />approach was not encouraged and, <br />nefitted properties on either side is an eissue which <br />suggest that the be for the costs. a part of the public <br />(Rose Place) would be have <br />assessed deal with as <br />Council would have <br />the process, <br />improvement decision p of the easterly <br />sed concern about the neahisssdriveway will be <br />Staff expressed T <br />6. Engineering ton Avenue. <br />most driveway to the Rose Place cul- a-s curb of Lexington that this <br />m feet from the existing here is so minor <br />approximately 60 involved with the <br />Of traffic applicants in consultation <br />Perhaps the amoucr critical. The <br />is not he rade of this proposed street <br />Avenuet <br />distancehoWever, adjust t g just west of Lexington <br />engineers did, flat spot for stopping significant problem. <br />there will be and its grade should not be a g <br />This driveway ment will work well <br />that the pr°posed develop <br />11 it would appearcompleted project with which they <br />7. overall partially is processed as a <br />given the constraints of the P ment proposed <br />are dealing. <br />The Planned which <br />Cd texas can be attached if appropriate. <br />Special Use Permit to <br />Such conditions may include: <br />a) Staff review of eng <br />ineering details and final landscape plans* <br />subject to legal review <br />The preliminary plat should be su d operation of the <br />8. the formation and P of the <br />relating to on the handling <br />Association, <br />with emphasis up le arcel. <br />wh <br />ere all four of the units occupy a sing <br />3 f the documents <br />Home Owners <br />existing structure <br />