PDF Page 79 <br />b. Buildings or other existing development on adjacent lands, including <br />previously subdivided but vacant lots or parcels, physically preclude a <br />connection now or in the future, considering the potential for <br />redevelopment. <br />The Staff Report says, at page 28: <br />In addition to the proposed connections to Brackenfern Road and to Rockrose <br />Lane, the applicant proposes to extend A Street in a southerly direction to the <br />southerly boundary of the proposed development, B Street in an easterly <br />direction from the B Street cul-de-sac to the easterly boundary of the proposed <br />development, and Frontage Road in an easterly direction towards adjacent Tax <br />Lot 6900 (Betz/Evans property). As noted in the applicant's written statement, <br />in lieu of dedicating street right-of-way, presumably because of the lack of <br />certainty that the streets will ever be extended beyond the UGB, the applicant <br />proposes deed restrictions in lieu of outright dedication in both cases. While the <br />proposal for extension of the streets is acceptable, staff notes that a deed <br />restriction would not guarantee the dedication of right-of-way at a future date <br />when the right-of-way would be needed for extension of the street and notes <br />that the proposed street connections must be accomplished by right-of-way <br />dedication, or by a reserve strip that can be converted to right-of-way when the <br />right-of-way is needed in the future. <br />It should be noted that the applicant originally proposed right-of-way dedication (See July 2012 <br />PUD submittal) but staff indicated they didn't want that. If it never ends up being needed, they <br />didn't want to deal with dedicated, but undeveloped, right-of-way out there. Staff then stated <br />that Deed restrictions would be an appropriate tool to facilitate connectivity. The applicant <br />complied. Now however, the Staff Report makes clear that this is no longer the case. <br />As such a condition of approval is suggested: <br />Prior to Final PUD approval the applicant will indicate dedicated right-of-way and/or <br />reserve strips where "A" Street and "B" Street extend to neighboring and undeveloped <br />properties. <br />The Staff Report says, at page 28: <br />The applicant requests an exception to street connection requirements per EC <br />9.6815(g)(2)(a) which allows for exceptions to subsections (b) nearby streets (c) <br />adjacent properties and (d) the provision of secondary access, based on "physical <br />conditions (which) preclude development of the connecting streets". In order to <br />satisfy the street connectivity standards at subsections (2)(b) and (c), the <br />proposed development would also need to demonstrate justification for an <br />exception under (2)(g) for the lack of any street connection to the existing <br />LaurelRidge Applicant Final Argument - Page 45 <br />128 <br />Laurel Ridge Record (Z 15-5) Page 883 <br />