Ms. Becky Taylor <br />Arguments in Opposition of PDT 13-1, Post New evidence Deadline <br />Access Engineering Letter, dated October 15'h; 2013- <br />New evidence was presented in this letter,. specifically ROW widths and page. 393 of. Vol. 2 of the ITE <br />Ninth Manual. This should not be allowed into. the argument portion of the hearings process. Also irr <br />the lette:r,.the author once again explains the peak hour trips and bow they determine that the increase <br />from the development will not be above the threshold requiring::a TIA. As presented :above this is only a <br />portion of the code requirement for the PUD regarding traffic.. As stated in the NOR, the increased <br />traffcwill decrease safety and:it will be.more than a minimal impact on the'.surrounding.neighborhood. <br />The. applicant has not provided anynew evidence beyond the peak hourtrip generation calculation.and <br />the TIA requirement. The evidence provided in the NOR shows why this development will cause more <br />than a minimal impact on the neighborhood and why it will not be safe. according to City standards. <br />Will Dixon's Letter dated October 9►h. Submitted on October 16'h. 2013 also <br />This. letter do not address how the fill will be contained within the site. Specifically, it does not inform. <br />the decision.aboutwhethe"r.`retaining walls areneeded, which would open up an unevaluated condition <br />about flit placement on the sewer easement or public land or the bulk, co;mpatibility;.views„and <br />screening. <br />Mr..Dikon expla.insthat.the fill will not be placed'on publicland yet.there.is no new evidence. presenting <br />how this will be done. Also, on the .revised Site plan dated Oct 9!". Building.2 was moved about:2 feet <br />west,,providing about 2 feet of distance from the east .side of the. building to the west edge of the sewer <br />easement, and about. 12. feet. fromthe.east property line. As`stated.in the NOR, fill will have to be <br />placed in the floocipl"ain atthe eastern prope:rty.boundaryand in order to support a IaFge townhouse: <br />building_it.will have to be sloped or retained.. This still remains true and.there is no. new evidence <br />presented: as to how the fill Will b;e retained. 0r sloped. 'Therefore we do not know if it is geotechriically <br />feasible to place feet of fill Within 12 lateral feet of the east property line, without further information <br />such as retaining walls, rip rap, standa.r_d:so.] sloping.. As pointed. out 'in the NOR, the fill would certainly <br />be on the City's sewer easement unless there was. a retaining wall or tall concrete footing, neither of <br />which has.bee.n presented in the record. That is still true. <br />A concrete wall,_retaining.wall, or rip rap would' not .only be un-scenic in the Gre.enway'. but it would also <br />make .the-existing building. appear much taller than just the proposed 28 ft height{)mhich is presented in <br />the NOR). Since there has been no new evidence of. screening on the east property: line, the limited <br />information provided: by the applicant on fill in the floodplain still calls into question the issues aboutfill <br />on the sewer easement or on public land and also the lack of screening on the east side of the property. <br />Site plan-Submitted on Oct 9 - <br />The revised site plan from Oct 9 .presents the garage buildings moved.off the property line with the <br />appropriate 5 ft.setback. This .meets on: of the conditions. in the. City, staff report and it appears to not <br />have been as devastating as was claimed by the applicant in the irdtiai'application, page. 42 of 46. There <br />458 <br />