<br /> <br />ARA 21-14 MAJ Eugene Polk Street Page 1 of 3 <br /> Public Works Referral Response <br />Adjustment Review Appeal <br /> <br /> <br />Date: February 16th, 2022 <br />To: Mike McKerrow, Planning Division <br />From: Michele Wilcox, Public Works Engineering <br />Subject: ARA 21-14 MAJ Eugene Polk Street - Appeal <br /> <br />Disclaimer: The following referral comments from Public Works staff reflect a preliminary <br />evaluation of compliance with applicable approval standards and criteria. These referral comments <br />include draft findings and recommended conditions of approval, as well as related informational <br />items, relevant to surveying, engineering, transportation, and maintenance issues identified by <br />Public Works staff in the context of the applicable standards and criteria. These referral comments <br />are intended for review by Planning staff, for incorporation into the City’s written decision on the <br />subject application, however, they do not represent a final determination of compliance with the <br />applicable approval standards and criteria. It is acknowledged that these referral comments are <br />subject to revision upon further coordination with other affected City departments and utility <br />providers. <br /> <br />In response to the Appeal Statement regarding the proposed access connection to West 7 th <br />Avenue: <br />The appellant argues that the Planning Director (PD) did not base his decision on “…any <br />quantitative measures” associated with the approval of the requested adjustment(s) for the <br />proposed access connection onto West 7 th Avenue. <br /> <br />However, the adjustment criteria in EC 9.8030(28) allows an applicant to adjust the <br />standard in EC 9.6735(2) providing they demonstrate any of the four criteria. Approval <br />criterion (a) only requires an applicant to demonstrate that there are physical conditions <br />that preclude compliance with EC 7.420. The fact that compliance is not possible due to <br />existing physical constraints is not contested by any of the parties. The appellants <br />themselves state “…we can see that the separation standards… cannot both be satisfied at <br />the same time”. Yet the appellants want the City to require more analytical justification <br />from the site developer than the code allows. Public Works staff feels that this is beyond <br />the constraints of their authority. <br /> <br />Nevertheless, Public Works staff does feel that the applicant’s proposed access connection <br />location balances the competing needs of the street system (a preserved intersection <br />influence area, and the distance between adjacent access connections) with the business <br />needs of the site developer. <br /> <br />The appellants remark that “(c)ompliance (with EC 7.420) is possible by not having an <br />access on W. 7th Ave.” This is a misnomer as the lack of an access connection is not