My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Appeal Materials
>
OnTrack
>
CU
>
2002
>
CU 02-4
>
Appeal Materials
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/6/2017 2:41:35 PM
Creation date
8/12/2016 9:57:08 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
PDD_Planning_Development
File Type
CU
File Year
2
File Sequence Number
4
Application Name
Cathedral Park
Document Type
Appeal Materials
Document_Date
8/11/2016
External View
Yes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
96
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
screening reducing impacts on adjacent property is required or assumed by the <br />criterion." <br />Although the proposed CIR housing development is adjacent to the residences adjoining <br />the property to the west, the applicant has done the best it can under the circumstances. Given that <br />Cathedral Way connects to West 40`h Avenue, the proposed development needs to be closer to <br />those residences. Proposed conditions of approval require a sight obscuring fence, wall, or <br />vegetation along the western property line to provide screening. While total privacy of adjacent <br />outdoor living areas would not be achieved, the application ensures such privacy as much as is <br />possible or practical under the circumstances. EC 9.724(2)(b)(2) is satisfied. <br />EC 9.724(2)(B)(3) requires that the proposed project is designed to "[p]rovide sale and <br />usable parking, circulation, and outdoor living areas as well as ingress and egress." Opponents <br />argue that the application does not meet this approval criterion, in particular ingress and egress <br />from the property. The staff report explains how the application. satisfies the safety requirements <br />for these features. The staff report focuses on the safety of such features on the subject property <br />and ingress and egress from the property. Opponents' arguments include concerns about dangerous <br />conditions on the roads adjoining the property. I agree with the staff report that the application <br />satisfies the safety requirements on the subject property. The staff report notes that Cathedral Way <br />may be too steep in certain places, but that such problems can be resolved through conditions of <br />approval. Proposed conditions of approval require road design to comply with the 1999 road <br />standards that were in effect at the time the application was submitted. With conditions of approval, <br />EC 9.724(2)(b)(3) is satisfied. <br />EC 9.724(2)(c) provides: <br />"The increase in density shall not be permitted in areas that are unavailable for <br />controlled income and rent (CIR) housing with increased density. Areas that are <br />unavailable for increased density are shown on Figure 33 as shaded areas. Those <br />areas not shaded on Figure 33 are available for CIR housing with increased <br />density." <br />As the staff report explains, the subject property is not within any of the shaded areas in <br />Figure 33. Therefore, 9.724(2)(c) is satisfied. The applicant has satisfied all the applicable approval <br />criteria for a conditional use permit. <br />A number of opponents' arguments misconstrue the nature of the application. Many of <br />opponents' arguments are based on the theory that the proposed application violates the provisions <br />Hearings Official Decision (CU 02-4) 10 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.