Laserfiche WebLink
P/C <br />Page 13 <br />2/23/83 <br />would render them worthless and the improvements required wouldn't even serve <br />those lots. Mr. Dunkley then addressed Condition No. 51 regarding the <br />requirement of 6" vertical curbs. He stated he would like to have rolled <br />curbs and where it is found to not work because of drainage, etc. they would <br />put in vertical curbs. He said to do anything else would be insensitive to the <br />area. Commissioner Jamieson then asked Mr. Dunkley about the setbacks. <br />Mr. Dunkley stated that it makes sense to have the homes within 150' feet of <br />street improvements or access points. <br />Mr. Warnick stated that the staff would concur to change Condition No. 1 as <br />requested by the applicant but a full fledged dedication is needed on Crellin <br />Road. Chairperson Lindsey felt the question was 'should Crellin Road be extended?' <br />He said if Crellin Road was extended it would really increase the traffic flow <br />through the area. Mr. Warnick stated that this is not necessarily the case. <br />He stated it also would allow people out of the development. Mr. Harris felt <br />that it is not yet certain whether Arbor Drive or Crellin Drive would be the <br />best connection but would not like to foreclose on the future. Mr. Warnick <br />added that it is easier to abandon a plan than to try and take care of a traffic <br />situation after the fact. <br />Commissioner Jamieson felt that once a dedication is made (.Crellin Road), it is <br />generally set in concrete. Mr. Harris pointed out that Tanager was removed from <br />a plan earlier in the evening when it wasn't suitable to extend it. Mr. Warnick <br />urged that the Commission keep this matter flexible. <br />Commissioner Arrigoni asked if the location of the easement would be shared or <br />borne by one parcel. Mr. Harris explained it would be shared by Lots #lU and <br />11. <br />A motion was made by Commissioner Getty, seconded by Commissioner Jamieson that <br />the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for case PUD-82-16 be recommended <br />for approval inasmuch as any potential adverse significant effect on the environment <br />would be reduced to an insignificant level by inclusion of conditions on project <br />approval. <br />ROLL CALL'.VOTE <br />AYES: Commissioners Doherty, Getty, Jamieson, Arrigoni <br />and Chairperson Lindsey <br />NOES: None <br />ABSENT: Commissioner Wilson <br />ABSTAIN: None <br />Resolution No. 2275 was entered and adopted recommending approval of the Mitigated <br />Negative Declaration prepared for case PUD-82-10 as motioned. <br />-13- <br />