Ms.. BeckyTaylor <br />• Arguments in Opposition of.PDT 1-3-1,, Post New Evidence Deadline <br />is no further information presented from the applicant about how they will meet the standards for <br />scre.eriing :on a:ny of the 4.:property:.l'ines.. Moving the garages will certainly provide. more space-for <br />screening;. but there was nothing presented about how they will screen the garages. <br />Building l-was only moved`1.foot south (sii e.plan presented: at Hearing). This does not allow for the: full <br />45.f6ot. ROW.wh ch is presented in the NOR at pait of the Street Connectivitylssue. A 40 ft. ROW <br />.would not.be up to City` standards. for. Oa.kleigh Lane if:the TL_200 were to be developed at its maximum <br />extent possible. As stated in.,the NOR; TL 200 will take a financial hit if only.3 6r4 flag lots were placed <br />on.tfie.parce1, the limited ROW width wo:uId.not aIIbw`for. more: intense developme:nt.ofTL 200 and the <br />applica.nt:has not shown evidence to prove: otherwise. The applicant'"s street connectivityexcepti:on <br />request remains un-a:ddressed in follow-up testimony. TL 200:s.houl:d not be cornprom.1sed In <br />develdpment potential as a result of this.developrrient. Also; one foot betwe.enthe ROW and then 0*;*r*th* <br />wall of Building 1 is not enough room for adequate screening; which:. was presented n, ..NOR. <br />The Site plan does notshow-where the. EWER water line: easement will go;,nor has there been-any <br />further:evidence of where it will go... Therefore.as. stated in the N.QR. net.deti . ty cannot be properly <br />calculated. The net density wiffstill likely be.le- than 29 units if the EWEB water line easement crosses <br />the property: There: is. not enough evidence to-show how the application will meet. the net density,, until <br />the EWES `water line easement, as well:as the.l.ocation and acreage of other- ROW' adjustments a.hd <br />public facilities have been presented in.:detail. <br />SSW Engineering Letter; Oct6ber:15th,;:2013 - <br />Th.e stormtivafer letter does not geratt.heNtbo addressed in the NOR aboutmimicking site conditions: <br />a:nd p -eseriting wh6tthe `site's current. conditions can handle for storrd ate:r loads. There..is no <br />informationabout. what. the:undeveloped `drainage.-volume is that flows. onto parkland Thus a <br />storm.water load calculatio:n:per.the'Sto mwa.tex Manual is all good,.but it`doesn't get at whatthe_ <br />existing loads. are and. thus. we.don':t know if the proposed.stormwater.system will be adequate enough <br />-to: handle the proposed loads.. <br />Ple.aseforward:th:is Ietterto the Hearingsofficial. <br />Sincerely, <br />RNn Thoms: <br />135 Oakl:eigh: Lane <br />E <br />459 <br />