Laserfiche WebLink
-z- <br />a decision process to evaluate the quantity needs of each use <br />as it is to be developc�. <br />It should be further noted that a P.U.D. application allows <br />the City and the applicant to determine densities other than <br />the district requirement within certain parameters. An example <br />would be reduced setbacks, area or greater density. These <br />"bonuses", if they can be called that, can occur in a compre- <br />hensive development while still maintaining the minimal health, <br />safety, welfare requirements the Code protects. <br />Street System and Traffic <br />Due to the size of this undeveloped tract and its bordering <br />streets, an overall street plan is necessary. The plan should <br />minimize the impacts by reducing the number of curb cuts to <br />the major and minor arterials and collector streets, and pro- <br />viding an interior looping system. Private curb cuts for <br />individual users are undesirable. Spacing of curb cuts/inter- <br />eectiona should be spaced properly from existing curb cuts/in- <br />tersections, meeting current atandard reguirements. If <br />cul-de-sacs are used, their lenyth should not exceed 300 feet. <br />Storm Water Draina9c <br />A significant portion of thi.s property torms a natural drainage <br />wetland. The City also presently has rights to a drainage <br />corridor through the property. The report £rom B.S.E.H. of <br />1976 denoted this tract of land to accommodate a basin holding <br />93 acre feet of which approximately 36.7 acres were necessary <br />to house the storage. This basin size requirement included <br />diversion of existin9 drainage facilities (natural or man made) <br />Yo thia basfn. The report also required the new installation of <br />an outlet for the basin lower than the existing one �n an effort <br />tc lo�er Lhe water table. To date, the owner/developer has � <br />studied hia property pertinent to drainage and has an engineerinq <br />study which providea for the vse of the existing outlet and an <br />improved natural basin accommodating development of his property � <br />and apparently meeting the requirementa of Resolution �983. To <br />date, S.E,H. has not officially revicwed their proposal for <br />the:r recomme_�dation to the City. It should be noted for <br />clarificatior chat the owner/developer's drainage.report is <br />intended to be concluaive of his property as it is now affected <br />and devaloped in the future and not respective of the remainder <br />of the drafnage district ae outlined in B.S.�.fl, <br />