PDF Page 100 <br />staff cannot evaluate those possible changes for compliance with EC 9.6505 without first <br />addressing these fundamental design issues. <br />In reading EC9.8680(1) one can see'that this criterion refers back to the purposes of this section <br />found in EC 9.8650. In summary the purpose of this section is to provide the facilities necessary <br />to accommodate traffic impacts of the proposed development. It goes on to say that in addition <br />to the facilities necessary that the materials and structure of these facilities accommodate <br />associated vehicle traffic. <br />The Staff Report relies on a general reference for non-compliance with PUD standards. Staff is <br />saying that, in their opinion, because the PUD application falls short on such things as Metro <br />Plan Diagram, SHS, tree preservation, etc, that the TIA Cannot be evaluated. This is incorrect.. <br />This section does not ask that question. The project Transportation Engineer (Branch <br />Engineering) states that: <br />As demonstrated on the Site Plan and in the TIA, standard streets and sidewalks and <br />traffic control devices are proposed to be constructed with the development. No other <br />traffic control devices and public or private improvements were considered necessary to <br />achieve the purposes in this section except a lane addition at one intersection. <br />Transportation analysis and the resultant effects of added trips on existing facilities are <br />dependent on the use of the property and unit count. In this case the study was based on.533 <br />multi-family units and 75 single family lots- <br />Issues discussed in the denial of the Tentative PUD revolve around tree preservation, resource <br />preservation, cut and fill street connectivity, etc. Even if the applicant desired or were required <br />to make "drastic changes" to the la out of the project this would not significantly affect, if at <br />all, the use (residential multi-family and single family)*and the trips generated by that count. <br />It has already been concluded both through application and observation that the site has all the <br />challenges associates with development in the hillsides. For discussion sake one could suppose <br />that the project could change the use to all multifamily (608 units). In this case the pm peak <br />hour trip count would be reduced as multi-family generates fewer trips than a single family lot. <br />Or the property could be designed with all single family lots that generate the most trips. <br />Looking back on the first plan, Sheet L1.0,Hearing Submittal August 28, 2013, Exhibit 10; this <br />site plan had 239 single family lots and 348 multi-family units, If the multi-family use were to be <br />converted to all single family lots one could imagine perhaps an additional 100 or so single <br />family lots, The total unit count would then be 339 single family lots. The resultant trips <br />generated in the pm peak would be 339 x .75 or 254, less than the trip generation of 406 based <br />on the current plan. if one were to double the single family lots (one look at the site plan shows <br />this scenario to be impossible) the total would be 478 x .75 or 359 pm peak hour trips. Still less <br />than those generate by the current site plan. <br />LaurelRidge Applicant Final Argument - Page 66 <br />149 <br />Laurel Ridge Record (Z 15-5) Page 904 <br />