Appeal Materials - Laserfiche WebLink

That issue will only become more likely as the trips increase on Oakleigh Lane. The Hearings Official also failed to understand the off-site impacts require the proposed PUD to be viewed in context - a development that creates 164 new vehicle trips per day may have minimal impact when access is off of a collector street or arterial, but when the development dumps that traffic onto a low volume residential street, doubling the number of trips, the impacts of that development are not "minimal." Further, the proposed "screening" is inadequate and does not ensure the development is compatible and harmonious with nearby used. The discussion under the Seventh Assignment of Error is included here by reference. Further, the proposal pushes building, garages, barns and other structures to the edge of the property, requiring modifications to the setbacks on three of its sides. The proposal uses a concrete wall as its main face to the neighborhood to the west. The proposal pushes its buildings into the setbacks to the north and to the south. The Hearings Official relies on size of buildings, density calculations, height limits and other factors; however, those limitations are already imposed by code, so they provide no basis to find this criterion is met. Moreover, the Hearings Official calculation of size is erroneous and does not understand the context of the neighborhood, which includes smaller homes. This proposal is not harmonious and reasonably compatible with the neighborhood. It will stick out like a sore thumb. SEVENTH ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR The Decision erred by finding the application met the following approval criterion: EC 9.8320(3) The PUD will provide adequate screening from surrounding properties including, but not limited to, anticipated building locations, bulk, and height. The Hearings Official erred in finding that the proposed PUD would comply with EC 9.8320(3) requiring "adequate screening" from surrounding properties. The Hearings Official appears to have only considered height, but the criterion requires consideration of "building location [and] bulk" as well. In addition, the Hearings Official found the screening to the north adequate based, in part, on cedar trees that are on adjacent property. This is inadequate as that "screening" can be removed by the adjoining property owner. The screening on the northern boundary was also found adequate based on landscaping and planters, but those will be located in the dedicated right-of-way. Moreover, the screening requirement is not met when the Appeal Statement PDT 13-1 15 November 22, 2013