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-35 <br />1 emergency access easement on the temporary emergency turnaround on the <br />2 property until the permanent hammerhead is developed. Record 375-76. <br />3 We agree with Meadows that the city properly understood the inquiry <br />4 under EC 9.8320(6) to be limited to a determination of whether the PUD is an <br />5 impediment to emergency response, and there is no basis in the express <br />"6 language of the provision to support Conte's argument that the city was <br />7 required to consider whether "the configuration of Oakleigh Lane" off-site will <br />8 be an impediment. We also agree with Meadows that the city's findings are <br />9 adequate to explain why the city concluded that "the PUD is not a significant <br />10 risk to public health and safety . * * * or an impediment to emergency response" <br />11 based on the portion of Oakleigh Lane that is located on the subject property. <br />12 2. Oakleigh Lane on the Subject Property <br />13 a. Right of Way Dedication <br />14 The existing right of way of Oakleigh Lane is located entirely on the <br />15 adjacent parcel to the north of the subject property, and is 20 feet. Conte <br />16 argues that the city misconstrued EC 9.8320(5)(a) and EC 9.6870 by only <br />17 requiring a dedication of 22.5 feet of the portion of Oakleigh Lane located on <br />18 the subject property, because Oakleigh Lane's right of way, considering the 20 <br />19 foot right of way on the property to the north and the 22.5 feet on the subject <br />20 property, will be. only 42.5 feet, and not 45 feet and thus will not. meet the <br />21 minimum right of way for, a low volume residential street under EC 9.6870. <br />22 Conte Petition' for Review 15-16. Respondents respond that constitutional <br />23 limitations placed on the city by the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution <br />24 allow the city to require dedication at most one-half of Oakleigh Lane. We <br />25 agree with respondents that Conte has not demonstrated that EC 9.6870 or any- <br />Page 35 <br />000084 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.