Appeal Staff Report - Laserfiche WebLink

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 "1a and 1b" definition of 'disperse' as used in EC 9.8325(6)(c)" (HO Decision, page 15). Staff Comments: The HO found the word "disperse" is not ambiguous, even if it is not explicitly defined in the land use code. The HO also referenced the full definition of the word according to Webster's Dictionary, but found that regardless of how the definition is read, the 19-Lot Rule cannot be rendered inapplicable. Further, the clear intent of the 19-Lot Rule is to preclude extensive development in areas with only one way in, and one way out. In the case of the subject site, West Amazon Drive is the only means of vehicular access to the rest of the City's street system. As mentioned earlier, this section of West Amazon Drive already provides ingress and egress to 36 lots, and the applicant did not present any evidence to suggest otherwise. The staff report also references the PC's previous findings for the Deerbrook PUD, as relevant to the present case. That PUD was proposed on land to the northeast of the subject property (along West Amazon Drive and south of Martin Street). The PC stated the following in regards to the 19-Lot Rule, which they found was met in that case because the applicant proposed to improve West Amazon Drive and make the street connection to Martin Street: "This standard is really about dead-end streets, where there is only one way in or out. With the applicant's improvement of West Amazon Drive, the site can be accessed from the north via Martin Street or from the south via Fox Hollow Road. The issue here would have been if West Amazon Drive did not connect to Fox Hollow Road" (Page 32; PC Final Order adopted 12-17-2012). The "issue" they describe is the current situation, where an additional connection is not proposed and there is only one way in or out. 3. Third Assignment of Error. The 30' Landscape Buffer under State Law: The Hearings Official erred in applying this standard at all. He interpreted the standard to include an exception as to where the buffer applies when the plain language does not allow any interpretation. His rationale is unexplained. He should have declined to apply the standard in its entirety because, if applied according to its plain terms, it would not allow any development, contrary to the Needed Housing Statute. Summary: The appellant believes EC 9.8325(3) should not be applied this project, because if applied literally, it would prevent site development (a buffer around the entirety of the site's perimeter would block site access). HO Decision: The HO stated "As noted above in the Summary of Decision, the plain wording of the text seeks a buffer from surrounding properties. The Hearings Official reads this standard to be achievable even where a road may need to pierce a section of the buffer to provide access to interior lots. Page 5 PC Agenda - Page 5