Ms: Becky Taylor <br />Arguments in Opposition of.PDT 13-1,. Post New Evidence Deadline <br />is no further information presented from the applicant about how they will meet the standards for <br />screening on any of the-4:property.liines. Moving the garages will certainly provide more space.for <br />screening;. but there was nothing presented about how they will screen the garages. <br />Building 1 was only moved 1 foot south (site plan presented. at Hearing). This does not allow for the full <br />45.foot ROV+/.which is. presented in the NOR as part of the Street Connectivity issue. A 40 ftROW <br />would not be up to City. standards for Oa.kleigh Lane if the TL 200 were to be developed at its maximum <br />extent possible. As stated in the NOR, TL 200 will take a financial hit if only 3 or4 flag lots were placed <br />on. the. parcel, the limited ROW width would hotallow for more. intense development of TL 200 and the <br />applicant has not shown evidence to prove otherwise. The applicant's street connectivity exception <br />request remains un-addressed in follow-up testimony. TL 200 should not be compromised in <br />development potential as a result of this. development. Also, one foot between the ROW and the north <br />wall of Building 1 is not enough room for adequate screening; which was presented in,the.NOR. <br />The Site plan does not show where the EWEB water line easement will go,: nor has there been any <br />further evidence of where. it will go.. Therefore as stated in the N.OR net density cannot be properly <br />calculated.. The net density`wiltstill Likely be. less than 29`units if the EWER. water line easement crosses <br />the property. There:is.not enough evidence to show how the application will meet the net density,- until <br />the EWER water line easement, as well'as the location. and acreage of other ROW' adjustments aril <br /> <br />public facilities have been presented.in:d.etail. <br />SSW Engineering Letter, October,l5`h,.2013 - <br />The stormwafer letter does riot get-at the issue addressed in the NOR about mimicking. site conditions <br />and presentingwhatthe site's current conditions can handle for stormwate.r loads. There. is no <br />information about what the-undeveloped. drainage volume is that flows. onto parkland;. Thus a <br />storm.water load calculation per the Stormwate.r Manual. is all good., but,it doesn't get at what.the <br />existing loads are and:thus.we.don't know if the proposed.stormwater system will. be adequate enough <br />to. handle the proposed loads. <br />Please forward this letter to the Hearings Official <br />Sincerely, <br />Bryn Thoms. <br />135 Oakleigh: Lane <br />459 <br />