2.ϵ͘ϴϯϮϱ;ϱͿ Proposed grading on portions of site exceeding 20% slope: The application <br /> <br />states that computer modeling was completed to calculate slope on the subject property, <br />but does not include any evidence other than the site plan to show how slopes were <br />calculated and located on the site plans in compliance with this standard. Please provide <br />additional information or evidence to support this statement regarding the computer <br />program used and the methodology used for slope calculations. <br /> <br />Please also revise the site plans to show 5-foot elevation contours as indicated on the <br />application form. The site plans show 10-foot countors, but the box on the application <br />form is checked indicating that 5-foot contours are provided. This is an informational <br />requirement for a complete application and would be consistent with the Planning <br />Commission and Land Use Board of Appeals decisions regarding slope calculations for the <br />Deerbrook PUD (PDT 12-01). For your convenience, I have included these relevant decision <br />documents as attachments to this letter. <br /> <br />Staff also notes that the site plan provided for the neighborhood/applicant meeting shows <br />more detailed conour intervals which are inconsistent with the most recent version (not <br />only intervals but locations); please confirm and correct any inaccuracies. Please also <br />explain more specifically how the edge of the 20% sloped area was determined; for <br />example, why the edge appears to show sharp angles in some locations and does not <br />appear to correlate with the existing contours. It would also be helpful to have the <br />licensed project engineer explicitly confirm the methodology used and certify the accuracy <br />of the areas shown to exceed 20% slope. <br /> <br />3.ϵ͘ϴϯϮϱ;ϲͿ;ĐͿ Traffic Dispersal (t-): The application is incomplete <br /> <br />without more information and analsyis to show the number of existing and proposed lots <br />that use the existing, dead-end portion of West Amazon Drive as their only means of <br />vehicular ingress and egress, and/or to propose a street layout in the PUD that would <br />disperse traffic onto more than one public local street, if there are more than 19 lots. <br /> <br />The brief statement provided in response to this standard presents a confusing <br />interpretation based solely in EC 9.0500; it does not appear to <br />address the plain language of the standard. The mere existence of unimproved right-of- <br />way for West Amazon Drive that eventually connects to Martin Street to the north does <br />not appear to satify what is actually required. <br /> <br />In this applicationƐƚƌĞĞƚůĂLJŽƵƚŽĨƚŚĞƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚWh <br />driveway for access ĚŝƐƉĞƌƐĞŵŽƚŽƌǀĞŚŝĐůĞƚƌĂĨĨŝĐŽŶƚŽŵŽƌĞƚŚĂŶŽŶĞƉƵďůŝĐ <br />ůŽĐĂůƐƚƌĞĞƚAll of the proposed lots will take access onto West Amazon Drive as the only <br />means of ingress and egress. Since the existing street dead-ends to the north and provides <br />only one way out onto Fox Hollow Road, and if the sum of existing and proposed lots using <br />ĂƐƚŚĞƐŝŶŐůĞŵĞĂŶƐŽĨŝŶŐƌĞƐƐĂŶĚĞŐƌĞƐƐĞdžĐĞĞĚƐϭϵ͕ <br />appear that this standard is met. <br /> <br /> <br />2 <br /> <br />