BERG-JOHANSEN Erik <br />From: Ross Williamson <ross@speerhoyt.com> <br />Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2015 4:41 PM <br />To: BERG-JOHANSEN Erik <br />Subject: ARA-15-013 <br />Follow Up Flag: Follow up <br />Flag Status: Completed <br />Hi, Erik. <br />I noticed an adjustment application related to the Chamotee Trails PUD (PDT 15-001). <br />Although I am sure you have it handled, I thought I would offer my two cents. <br />It appears to me that the applicants do not understand the difference between the pavement width standards under EC <br />9.6505(3)(b) and the connectivity standards under EC 9.6815(2)(b). They are seeking an adjustment to the paving <br />requirement, which could allow an applicant to pave a street to a different width (or adjust curb/cutter <br />requirements). But the actual request appears to be an adjustment to the connectivity standard that requires the <br />development to connect to Vivian Drive. In other words, they want to do away with the requirement that they connect <br />their development to an adjacent street, Vivian Drive. As you know, the connectively standards are not subject to <br />adjustment - it is also a standard that the original PUD application clearly fails to address or meet. <br />It seems the applicant is trying to do away with the connectivity standard through an adjustment to the paving standard. <br />My quick thoughts anyway. Happy to discuss if you care to. <br />Thanks for your consideration. <br />Ross Williamson <br />875 Foxboro Ln. <br />