| 2 |
|
12/13/2022 |
Jamie Donaldson |
Info Requested |
Good morning,
Ive attached a markup of the initial incomplete letter which indicates items that are still outstanding. In detail, they are as follows:
" There does not appear to be a new site layout uploaded for review of changes and conformance with the code, specifically for areas that were adjusted for trees, or parking areas where the minimum turnaround requirement was not being met. This may not hold up completeness, but an updated plan will be required for noticing and drafting of findings for the decision.
" There are still trees that appear to be designated for removal where parking is being provided. Because of your request for an increase to the maximum allowed parking, we cannot support the removal of these trees, or the adjustment, as both would essentially cancel out the approval criteria for the other.
[image]
" In addition, please address the claims in the attached letter that there are trees reported incorrectly or not at all in the tree inventory. An inspection may be required by the Urban Forester to verify accuracy.
" It appears there are three adjustments being requested:
1. Adjustment to the 150 ft building length maximum please include specifics how the intent of the standard will be equally or bet met
2. Adjustment to the 600 ft street spacing maximum not required
3. Adjustment to the maximum parking not supported
The adjustment requests were not included with the initial application and still require payment. However, only the first adjustment appears to be acceptable at the moment; Adjustment #2 is not required and Adjustment #3 requires further information. In addition, there were no adjustments submitted for setbacks to RA/RS zoned property for buildings 26 & 27, nor the buildable width for Buildings 23 & 25 which is mention in the Design Review narrative. Staff recommends a meeting with the applicants team to further discuss the trees and Alternative Street Spacing request, as outlined below. The number of adjustments will be confirmed during the meeting for appropriate fees to be billed.
" Adequate findings for the Alternative Street Standard item from Public Works were not provided. The criteria that needs to be addressed is under SRC 803.065(a) and adjustments to block length per SRC 803.030(b); the written statement submitted addresses adjustment criteria. In addition, staff is not generally supportive of the alternative street standard request, and have identified a preferred location where a street stub may be provided (red dotted line below). A street stub in this location would not only help to alleviate potential traffic from Landaggard property owners, but also provide street frontage for the land-locked parcel instead of the easement currently proposed.
[image]
Your application, which is incomplete, will be deemed complete upon receipt of one of the following:
(1) All of the missing information.
(2) Some of the missing information and written notice from you (the applicant) that no other information will be provided.
(3) Written notice from you (the applicant) that none of the missing information will be provided.
You have 180 days from the date the application was first submitted to respond in one of the three ways listed above, or the application will be deemed void.
I have sent over some dates and times for us all to meet and discuss. Please let me know the best time and I can set up a Teams meeting with Staff. Please also feel free to contact me with any questions.
Thank you, |