Appeal Staff Report - Laserfiche WebLink

lots. The HO relied on these facts in his findings for denial. The appellant disagrees with the HO's interpretation of the 19-Lot Rule. The appellant argues that the word "disperse" is not clear and objective because it is not defined in the land use code. In effect, the appellant asserts this standard cannot be applied as part of the Needed Housing Criteria. The appellant also raises issue with EC 9.8325(3), which requires a 30-foot wide landscape buffer. The Hearings Official did not use this criterion as a basis for denial; regardless, the appellant suggests that this criterion should not be applied to any PUD proposal under the Needed Housing Criteria. In summary, the appellant believes that if this criterion was applied literally, it would preclude access to any potential development site. In the past, staff has applied this criterion in a manner that allows driveways or streets to penetrate the landscape buffer. 1. First Assignment of Error: The 19 Lot Rule meaning in the Code: The Commission should find that the Hearings Official selected the wrong definition of "disperse." Neither the code language nor the context for the code language requires that traffic be dispersed to any particular point or distance from the project. Summary: The appellant believes the land use code fails to specify how the word "disperse" should be applied in the context of the 19-Lot Rule, and that the HO otherwise selected the wrong definition of the word (see below). As a result, the appellant asserts that this criterion is ambiguous and therefore cannot be applied as a clear and objective standard under the Needed Housing statutes. HO Decision: The HO stated "Here, where the 'layout' of the PUD relies on only one public street to disperse motor vehicle traffic, that traffic at minimum must be able to go somewhere in two different directions that do not terminate in a dead end" (HO Decision, page 15). The HO further states: "Taking this part [1b] of the definition of 'disperse' into account contradicts the argument that it is enough that traffic can move in both directions along West Amazon from the proposed PUD. Mr. Kloos concedes that such traffic could only travel 1000 feet to the barrier on West Amazon - but he urges that even such a short distance is enough to meet the standard. By this logic the standard could be met if traffic could travel even one block to an existing cul-de-sac. This interpretation is contrary to the both the '1al and 1b" definition of "disperse" as used in EC 9.8325(6)(c)" (HO Decision, page 15). Staff Comments: The HO concluded that the 19-Lot Rule is clear and objective, and that staff correctly applied it. The PC is tasked with determining whether or not the HO erred in applying this standard to the subject Webster's Third New International Dictionary, definition 1a of "disperse": To cause to break up and go in different ways: send or drive into different places Webster's Third New International Dictionary, definition 1b of "disperse": To cause to become spread widely Page 3 PC Agenda - Page 3