LivingStrong Appeal <br />October 12,2020 <br />Page2 <br />Most notably, this condition requires an analysis that traffic at Coburg Road ingress/egress will <br />“be satisfactorily reduced” by the future connection on Crescent Avenue. This meansreduced <br />from whatever level the 1988 SR shopping center (Shopko)was projected to generatebefore <br />Crescent was extended and a new driveway connection was made. There is no evidence in the <br />Director’sdecision that traffic impacts on Coburg Road have been “satisfactorily reduced”since <br />the private driveway connection was constructed on Crescent Avenue. <br />Following approval of the 1988 Site Review for Shopko, the city granted arequest to remove the <br />Phase II properties from theoriginal sitereviewand allow development to occur subject to <br />separate,individual site review agreements. The Director’s decisiondid not address the impacts <br />of these related site review decisions on the original SR conditionabove. <br />Original Condition (c):All driveways need to extend at least 150 feet into the <br />site before intersecting cross aisles. Final site review plans addressing this <br />issue need to be submitted prior to issuance of the site review agreement. <br />Thecross connection with the driveway on the CML property adjacent to the east is plainly not <br />consistent with this condition. The Director is approving a 7-foot intersecting cross-aisle setback <br />when the condition requires 150 feet. The Director’s rationale seems to be that this <br />inconsistency is OK because itwas anticipated at thetime of the original Site Review approval. <br />Thereis no basis for this assumption. It reads into the language of thecondition anexception or <br />a“but for”the intersectionwith the CML driveway–an exception that is not apparent and <br />conflicts with the plain language. See discussionin our June 26 letter at page 2. <br />Original Condition (d):Alandscape planshowing sidewalk locations, allplant <br />and tree locations (including street trees), species, sizes, spacing, and irrigation <br />methods will be required to be submittedand approved prior to occupancy of <br />any building in Phase I. Allbuffering and screening requirements of the City <br />Code willneed to be adhered to. <br />TheDirector failed to address thecompliance issue raised at page 3 of our June 26 letter. <br />Condition (d) is explicit that no finding of compliance was made with landscaping <br />standards in theoriginal decision. Compliance was deferred. Absent such a finding, this <br />modificationmust comply now withthe current landscaping standards in the code. More <br />importantly, the applicant’s written statement asserts that, “This conditionwas satisfied <br />during completion of the original development, prior to occupancy of the Property’s <br />1 <br />building, and is inapplicablehere.”We disagree. <br />Our June 26 explains at length that the application needs to comply withboth: (1) code <br />standards in effect at the timeof theoriginal Site Review for which the decision <br />contained no explicit findings of compliance; and (2) all new or amended standards in the <br />code since the time of the original Site Review. See June 26 letter at pages 3-7.The new <br />1 <br />WinCo’swritten statementdated April 17, 2020, page 6. <br /> <br />