PDF Page 99 <br />reaches a level of service that is identical to the projected level of service in the same <br />horizon year whether this project is developed or not. <br />This study was completed by a licensed Transportation Engineer and the data contained <br />within is sufficient to assure the criterion to approve the TIA has been met. If for any <br />reason anyone at the city wants to take issue with that they need to have a study that is <br />based on the same rules utilized in the Applicant's study that refutes these findings. <br />Barring that, there is noting in the submitted TIA that indicates that the criterion is not <br />m et. <br />To summarize the criteria, the development cannot create an impact that reduces a facility <br />below the performance standard, nor can it cause a facility to be further degraded when it is <br />already operating below the performance standard. LaurelRidge complies with these criteria as <br />clearly demonstrated in the TIA. <br />If the engineer preparing the analysis notices an operational issue, occasionally that issue will <br />be identified and potentially recommended for mitigation as was done for the westbound <br />approach at the 30th/Hilyard intersection in the LaurelRidge TIA. Note that the improvements <br />were recommended with or without the development. <br />These mitigation measures amounted to the following: <br />• Construct an additional west bound left turn lane which can be constructed within the <br />existing right of way. <br />Considering these improvements are minor and would need to happen regardless of the <br />development, and the TIA proves all intersections are with the required mobility standard Moth <br />or without the projected traffic, this TIA is approved. <br />EC 9.8680(2): Public improvements shall be designed and constructed to the <br />standards specified in EC 9.6505 Improvements - Specifications. The requirement of <br />improvements based on a traffic impact analysis does not negate the ability of the city <br />traffic engineer to require improvements.by other means specified in this code or <br />rules or regulations adopted thereunder. <br />The Staff Report recommends denial of the Traffic Impact Analysis application because there <br />are several other key areas of non-compliance under the PUD. In this sense, the recommended <br />denial of TIA is derivative of the recommended denial of the Tentative PUD. The Staff Report <br />says, at 44: <br />While the applicant has demonstrated compliance with a variety of street and public <br />improvement standards for the proposed layout and design, as addressed in the <br />application materials and further detailed in referral comments from Public Works staff, <br />there are several other key areas of non-compliance under the PUD approval criteria <br />that would appear to necessitate fairly drastic changes in the proposed layout. As such, <br />LaurelRidge Applicant Final Argument - Page 65 <br />148 <br />Laurel Ridge Record (Z 15-5) Page 903 <br />