Mr. Matthews' map shows areas of the proposed PUD affected by this 20 percent restriction <br />that, curiously, the applicant did not discuss in its rebuttal evidence. Instead, the applicant <br />focused solely upon the methodology. Thus, the applicant had the opportunity, but did not <br />take advantage of that opportunity, to explain how the PUD could be approved in its current <br />form or modified to still be approvable in response to Mr. Matthews' map. There are several <br />particular problem spots. First, the Senger Lane/West Amazon Drive intersection would need <br />to be moved north or south to avoid the mapped area. Moving Senger Lane does not appear to <br />conflict with the development potential of any lot, but the original staff report noted that the <br />applicant placed Senger Lane within the Public utility easement, so moving Senger Lane might <br />affect the buildability of lots taking access from Senger Lane. Additionally, West Morning Drive <br />must not be offset from Senger Lane (this is one of the conditions of approval that staff <br />recommended in its original staff report); correspondingly moving West Morning Drive to the <br />south might make lots 32 and 33 undevelopable, and moving West Morning Drive to the north <br />might make lots 26 and 27 undevelopable. Second, the entirety of the driveway to lots 14 and <br />15 is mapped as having a slope of 20% or greater. This driveway cannot reasonably be moved <br />south because of slope. It would need to be moved north, but doing so might makes lots 15 <br />and 16 undevelopable. Third, lots 17 and 18 have much more area mapped as 20 percent or <br />greater slope, and may not be developable. Finally, the St. Clair Lane/West Amazon Drive <br />intersection would need to be moved. <br />Given all of these moving parts and how one seemingly minor change could resulting in several <br />downstream changes to the site plan, the hearings official is uncomfortable concluding that this <br />application could comply with this criterion with a condition of approval requiring the applicant <br />to make necessary modifications. There are too many design decisions that the applicant must <br />make for the hearings official to envision what the PUD would look like. For example the <br />hearings official cannot determine the implications of moving Senger Lane out of the existing <br />public utility easement, and what the lot configuration would be at the west end of Daylight <br />Drive and at the east end of West Morning Drive. <br />Considering all of the evidence in the record, the applicant's original 75-lot proposal does not <br />comply with this criterion. The hearings official adopts the findings and conclusions in the staff <br />report as the findings and conclusions to support this conclusion. <br />Considering all of the evidence in the record, the applicant's alternative 47-lot proposal also <br />does not comply with this criterion. The apparent problem areas are small areas, but because <br />the applicant did not respond to Mr. Matthews evidence, the hearings official has no evidence <br />to evaluate whether these problem areas are be fatal to the overall PUD. The site plan may <br />very well be able to comply with this criterion with some minor changes; the current record just <br />does not support that conclusion. <br />There is not evidence in the record demonstrating that the application complies with this <br />criterion. <br />Hearing Official Decision (PDT 10-2, CU 11-1) 14 <br />