My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Public Comment (8)
>
OnTrack
>
PDT
>
2015
>
PDT 15-1
>
Public Comment (8)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/7/2015 4:07:00 PM
Creation date
12/4/2015 1:52:36 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
PDD_Planning_Development
File Type
PDT
File Year
15
File Sequence Number
1
Application Name
CHAMOTEE
Document Type
Public Comments
Document_Date
11/3/2015
External View
Yes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
142
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
The SEN disagree with the HO findings of compliance, stating that "a fenvj <br />negate that perimeter buffer and cause that property to become included in the <br />PUD property." The PC does not agree that a fence would negate the required <br />buffer or cause property to become part of the PUD that is not already, but finds <br />that a fence is not expressly allowed under the provisions of EC 9.6210(7), and <br />therefore is not allowed as proposed. <br />PC Decision: The PC finds that the HO erred in allowing the applicant's proposed fence in <br />violation EC 9.8325(3), but this is not a sufficient basis for denial. To ensure <br />compliance, the following condition is imposed: <br />The final PUD plans shall be revised to note that fencing is not allowed on the <br />perimeter of the PUD or within the required 30' landscape buffer under the <br />provisions of EC 9.8325(3) and EC 9.6210(7). " <br />The PC therefore modifies the HO's decision to find that the applicant's proposed <br />fence does not comply with EC 9.8325(3), and adds the condition of approval noted <br />above to ensure compliance. (The condition is added as #19 at the end of this Final <br />Order). <br />SEN Appeal Issue #11; 19-Lot Rule <br />"Because both the 75-lot and 47-lot Applications propose to use West Amazon Drive as the only <br />public road, the Hearings Official erred in his interpretation of the Lode requirement." <br />PC Findings: The code requirement in question is under approval criterion EC 9.8325(6), "The <br />PUD provides safe and adequate transportation systems through compliance with all <br />of the following..." Subsection (c) of this criterion is known as the "19-lot rule," <br />which requires the following: <br />The street layout of the proposed PUD shall disperse motor vehicle traffic onto <br />more than one public local street when the PUD exceeds 19 lots or when the <br />sum of proposed PUD lots and existing lots utilizing a local street as the single <br />means of ingress and egress exceeds 19. <br />HO found compliance with this standard based on the interconnectivity of West <br />Amazon Drive, as follows: <br />The street layout disperses motor vehicle traffic onto more than one public <br />local street, as all streets proposed within the development connect with <br />West Amazon Drive, which extends beyond the development site to the <br />north (connecting with Martin Street) and south (connecting with Fox Hollow <br />Road). The applicant proposes to improve West Amazon Drive to provide this <br />traffic dispersal; the PUD proposes no phasing of the development, which <br />means that the street improvements will be in place prior to development of <br />the lots, rather than on an incremental basis that would bring the 19-lot rule <br />above into question. <br />Final Order - Deerbrook PUD (PDT 12-1) December 17, 2012 Page 31 <br />34 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.