Hearings Official Ken Helm <br />November 10, 2015 <br />Page 4 <br />natural resource areas such as wetlands, ponds, streams, channels, rivers, lakes <br />or upland wildlife habitat area, or a resource on the National Wetland Inventory <br />or under protection by state or federal law." <br />It is apparent that the applicant is seeking to make use of the "topography" element of the <br />exception. However, there is no evidence in the record upon which to base a finding for the <br />exception. The lack of evidence brings more questions than answers. Vivian Way may have a <br />portion that is too steep to justify development, but does that mean the entire length of Vivian <br />Way cannot be developed? What is the extent of the physical condition that prevents <br />completion of Vivian Way? Why is the topography such that a Vivian Way cannot be at least <br />partially paved to provide access to the development? <br />The connectivity standard is clear and directs that development of adjacent rights of way. <br />Indeed, directing traffic off West Amazon and onto Vivian Way would seem to reduce crowding <br />on an already undersized road. <br />Vivian Way is adjacent to the development, but there is no evidence in the record as to why it <br />cannot be paved (or at least partial paved) as required by the connectivity standards. The <br />record before the Hearings Official does not support an exception to the connectivity <br />standards. At the very least, it does not support a total exception - surely a portion of Vivian <br />Way could be constructed to provide access to the development. <br />EC 9.8325(6)(c) <br />"The PUD provides safe and adequate transportation systems through compliance with all of <br />the following: <br />(c) The street layout of the proposed PUD shall disperse motor vehicle traffic onto more than <br />one public local street when the PUD exceeds 19 lots or when the sum of proposed PUD lots <br />and the existing lots utilizing a local street as the single means of ingress and egress exceeds <br />19." <br />As the criterion itself states, this criterion exists to ensure "safe and adequate transportation <br />systems." As evidenced by the August, 2014 fire on Owl Road, the current transportation <br />system on West Amazon Drive is neither safe nor adequate. Adding more homes to the mix <br />just makes it more unsafe and more inadequate. <br />While the definition of "street" in the code includes "unimproved" public ways, it only does so <br />to the extent the unimproved public way would allow "ingress or egress for vehicular traffic." <br />EC. 9.0500. The evidence in this record is uncontroverted that West Amazon Drive contains <br />only one ingress/egress point for vehicular traffic. The unimproved section of West Amazon <br />