LP-138 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

) Under the original application the applicant requested approval of 24 units. The property, under PRD, would accommodate a maximum of 24.6 units or about 5.3 units/acre. (Previous staff report #83-22, January 20, 1983). With the acquisition of property to permit the modification of 12th Avenue NW and the proposed vacation of a portion of 12th Avenue, would, when combined with the original land area, provide for a potential total of 25.4 units, or also about 5.3 units/acre. I feel the modification to 12th Avenue and revised landscape plan are both improvements to an already outstanding development. The addition of 1 unit, in my opinion has little impact on the project either in terms of aesthetics, bulk, traffic or function. I also feel that the request is worthy of consideration. I think two issues that arise are: 1) Process - should this modification require Planning Commission action and/or public hearing; and 2) Is the proposed amendment, or prepared amended final plan in "substantial compliance" with the approved preliminary plan? '" In reverse order my opinion is that the plan i ss till in "substantial compliance" with the approved preliminary plan. The open space is still substantial, has n9t decreased and is exactly as previously noted. All conditions of preliminary approval are still complied ,with. The number of units would increase by 1 unit however the ~density (units/acre) is virtually unchanged, still being about 5.3 units/acre. The additional unit is made possible by additional property and a street modification requested by the Council and Planning Commission. Regarding process the City Attorney has indicated that as the project as a whole has undergone 2 public hearings and additional public meetings, is a result of in part complying with Council action and because the change is perhaps minor that the Council could re-consider their final action to approve and approve the revised final plans. I concur. :.....