<br />Hearings Official Decision (PDT 24-1; ST 24-3) 18 <br />to water-related resources and wildlife corridors” as described in EC 9.6815(1)(g). However, <br />while EC 9.6815(1) speaks to the City’s intent for the street connectivity standards, the purpose <br />and intent statements are not, in themselves, approval criteria through which a PUD application <br />is evaluated. Instead, the purpose and intent statements are intended to be implemented through <br />the specific standards articulated in EC 9.6815(2). <br /> <br />Because they do not constitute approval criteria, compliance with the challenged provisions of <br />EC 9.6815(1) is not subject to evaluation in this review. <br /> <br /> EC 9.6815(2) Street Connectivity Standards <br /> <br />Finding: The proposed development abuts Randy Lane to the south and Hawkins Lane to the <br />west. Public streets abutting the subject site include Randy Lane and Hawkins Lane. Other public <br />streets located within ¼ mile of the development include Suncrest Avenue and East 29th Avenue <br />to the northeast, Blacktail Drive to the south and east; and the eastern portion of Randy Lane, <br />which terminates at the property’s eastern boundary. <br /> <br />No access is proposed from Hawkins Lane. The applicant proposes to extend Randy Lane as a <br />private street east from its existing terminus as a public street at its intersection with Blacktail <br />Lane southeast to the western boundary of proposed Lot 37; and to create two new private street, <br />one running northerly from the intersection of Randy Lane and Blacktail Drive (Stonehedge <br />Way), and a second , a cul-de-sac (Stonehedge Court) extending westerly from Stonehedge <br />Court. Although Hawkins Lane provides access to the westernmost portion of the property <br />boundary to the west, and provides access to Randy Lane, no access to the lots within the <br />development itself are proposed from Hawkins Lane. The intersection of Randy Lane and <br />Blacktail Drive provides the sole access to all properties proposed to be accessed from either of <br />the two new private streets (or shared driveways off those private streets.)19 <br /> <br />In the initial staff report, referral comments from Public Works determined that the applicant had <br />demonstrated a basis under the street connectivity exceptions in EC 9.8325 from complying with <br />any of the EC 9.8325(8) connectivity standards. On that basis, the City also stated that a public <br />street could not be required for the proposed extension of Randy Lane. As described in the initial <br />staff report, the City staff recommended: <br /> <br />“A street extension in the direction of Randy Lane to the east would typically be required <br />in order to satisfy street connectivity standards. However, EC 9.8325(8) states, “No <br />development shall occur on land above an elevation of 901 feet except that either middle <br />housing or one single-unit dwelling may be built on any lot in existence as of August 1, <br />2001.” This prohibits any street connection between the two existing portions of Randy <br />Lane, since Lot 39 exceeds 901 feet in elevation. Accordingly, a public street extension <br />in the direction of Randy Lane cannot be required. A street extension in the direction of <br />Suncrest Avenue is also unnecessary as the existing residential development to the north <br />prohibits any future street extension. The applicant is also requesting an exception due to <br /> <br />19 While it is not clear from the site plans, it appears that up to five lots are proposed to be accessed from Randy <br />Lane. The remaining lots would all rely on the two internal private streets, or shared driveways from those streets, <br />for access. <br />Planning Commission Agenda Page 50 of 159