My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Public Comment - received during open record period (closed 11-12-15)
>
OnTrack
>
PDT
>
2015
>
PDT 15-1
>
Public Comment - received during open record period (closed 11-12-15)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/13/2015 4:08:08 PM
Creation date
11/12/2015 4:11:52 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
PDD_Planning_Development
File Type
PDT
File Year
15
File Sequence Number
1
Application Name
CHAMOTEE TRAILS
Document Type
Public Comments
Document_Date
11/12/2015
External View
Yes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
139
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).
View images
View plain text
Hearings Official Ken Helm <br />November 10, 2015 <br />Page 5 <br />Drive is a hiking trail that is cut off by a drainage ravine. As a result, for purposes of this <br />criterion, the applicant cannot count on West Amazon Drive as providing more than one <br />ingress/egress point for the proposed development. <br />By filing its needed housing application, the applicant is not assured of approval. If the <br />application does not meet the applicable objective criteria, the proper result is denial of the <br />application. Staff's interpretation of the cases on this point are correct. The application here <br />cannot meet this standard and the application should be denied. <br />Adjustment <br />Applicant filed for an adjustment of the paving width standards found in EC 9.6505. Adjusting <br />the paving width is acceptable under the adjustment review procedures. However, the <br />applicant appears to seek to adjust the pavement width to zero and not provide connectivity to <br />Vivian Way through the adjustment process. Getting around the connectivity requirements, <br />which are not subject to adjustment, by adjusting the paving to zero is an improper means to <br />address the connectivity requirement. <br />The adjustment request should be denied because the applicant does not address why the <br />paving width should be less than required under EC 9.6870. Although the proposed <br />development shows no access to Vivian Way, that is not a justification for reducing the paving <br />width. Reducing the paving width to zero is not an option for adjustment. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.