My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
7-28-15 Trautman Public Comment (07)
>
OnTrack
>
PDT
>
2013
>
PDT 13-1
>
7-28-15 Trautman Public Comment (07)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/27/2017 4:32:34 PM
Creation date
7/28/2015 2:50:52 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
PDD_Planning_Development
File Type
PDT
File Year
13
File Sequence Number
1
Application Name
OAKLEIGH COHOUSING
Document Type
Public Comments
Document_Date
7/28/2015
External View
Yes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
199
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Download electronic document
View images
View plain text
6 <br />1 <br />2 <br />3 <br />4 <br />5 <br />6 <br />7 <br />8 <br />9 <br />10 <br />11 <br />12 <br />13 <br />14 <br />15 <br />16 <br />17 <br />18 <br />19 <br />20 <br />21 <br />22 <br />In fact, the City rejected the opponent's assumption that the modest <br />increase in traffic2 associated with the PUD would make Oakleigh Lane unsafe. <br />The City's findings state: <br />"Although the Hearings Official understands the neighbors' concerns <br />about increased numbers of vehicles using Oakleigh Lane, the strong <br />assertion that an increase in ADT will result in traffic accidents or <br />actual danger to pedestrians and bicyclists is not supported by <br />evidence in the record. Assertion is not evidence and neither is an <br />explanation of inductive reasoning. Therefore, the Hearings Official <br />cannot substitute the neighbors' very strongly held opinions that more <br />cars will necessarily decrease traffic safety for actual evidence." Rec. <br />374. ER 40. <br />The intervenor ignores these findings. <br />Instead, he focuses on public works findings that a dedication of <br />additional right-of-way is in the "public interest." Rec. 1256. However, public <br />works staff actually recommended the condition that he is complaining about. <br />Public works staff determined that it was appropriate to require OMC to <br />dedicate "one-half of the 45 foot right-of-way which is necessary to construct <br />Oakleigh Lane to the City's minimum street design standards" and that a <br />second 13-foot dedication was warranted to provide for a "future bikepath <br />connection... and sidewalk in the direction of the West Bank Bike Path." Rec. <br />1256-57. Accordingly, the City imposed a condition requiring the applicant to <br />2 OMC's traffic engineer determined that the proposed PUD would generate <br />approximately "0.52 trips per unit or 15 peak hour trips" based on the <br />"residential condominium/townhouse development" portion of ITE Trip <br />Generation Manual. Rec. 1116. The City relied on a more conservative <br />calculation for "single-family detached housing" to identify 29 trips in the peak <br />hour. Id. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.