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
ER-31 <br />1 PUD provides a "safe and adequate transportation system" beyond determining <br />2 compliance with (a), (b), and (c). The planning commission also rejected <br />3 Conte's interpretation of EC 9.8320(5)(a) as. requiring. the entirety of Oakleigh <br />4 Lane to meet existing right-of-way standards and be improved to city <br />5 standards: <br />6 "[N]either EC 9.8320(5)(a) nor EC 9.6800 through 9.6875 require <br />7 that an existing street must meet certain standards in order to <br />8 serve a proposed development. EC 9.6870 only provides the <br />9 required paving widths for certain types of streets when and if <br />10 those streets are fully improved to City standards." Record 8. <br />11 Respondents respond that the planning commission's interpretation of <br />12 EC 9.8320(5) is correct, and that nothing in 'the EC requires the entirety of <br />13 Oakleigh Lane to meet the standards* in EC 9.8320(5) in order for the PUD to <br />14 be approved. We. agree with respondents. The plain language of EC 9.8320(5) <br />15 requires the city to determine that "the PUD" meets the standards in (a). It does <br />16 not require "all streets serving the PUD" to meet the standards if those streets <br />17 are not located within the PUD. In addition, the EC 9.6870 requirements for <br />18 right of way widths apply to "dedicated" streets. It does not require Meadows <br />19 to dedicate right of way on land that it does not own or to improve land it does <br />20 not own. <br />21 In another portion of his first assignment of error, we understand Conte <br />22 to argue that the city improperly construed EC 9.8320(5)(b) in failing to require <br />23 Meadows to demonstrate that the entirety of Oakleigh Lane provides safe and <br />24 adequate "pedestrian, bicycle and transit circulation." Conte Petition for <br />25 Review 22. According to Conte, there is evidence in the record that without <br />26 widening Oakleigh Lane, pedestrian and bicycle traffic will not be safe. <br />27 Conte Petition for Review 24. <br />Page 31 <br />000080 <br />4 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.