Ms. Becky Taylor <br />Arguments inOpposition of PDT'13-1, Post New Evidence Deadline <br />Access Engineering: Letter, dated October 15th, 2013 <br />New ev"idence. was presented in this letteir,..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 ins <br />the letter, the'aothor once again explairis_the peak hourteips and:howthey:determ.me.tfiatthe:increase <br />from the development will not be above the threshold iequiring;:a TIA. As presented :abov..e th.is.:.is only a <br />portion ofthe.code requirementfor the RIJ.D regarding traffic.: As stated in the m R,, the increased <br />traffic will decrease safety and>it wiil. be more thana minithal impact on the surro.undmg neighb:orfiood. <br />The_applicant has not provided any: new evidence beyond :the peak hourtrip generation:calculation.and <br />the Tlq requirement The, evidence provided i.n the NOR shows why this development will cause more . <br />than a minimal impact on the neighborhood; and: why itwill not be safe. accordingto: Citystandards.. <br />W;iII Dixon'sIetter dated. 0: ctcber.9.th;.:Submitted: o.n October 16.`h; 2013 also <br />This. fetter do not address how: the fill will.. be.contaii ed within the site:. Specifically, it does not inform. <br />the d.eciston about wlether:retaining walls ace needed, which would open up an unevaluated: condition <br />about fill, dacement.on.the sewer easemenf:or public land;or the bulk; co.mpatibilh views,:and <br />screening.. <br />Mr.:Dikon explains that. the fill-will.n:ot be. placed;,on public. land ye there. s. no. new evidence'presenting. <br />.tft <br />how.this twill be done.. Also,. on the-revised Site plan dated Oct 9. 9.0ildi6g2 was, rhbved. about.2 fee r <br />west providing about.2 feet.of diistance.from the. east sideof the building to the w:est.edge of the sewer <br />easement, and: about:;12 feet:from the_east propertyline: ,As stated :in the NOR, fill will have to be <br />placed in tfae:floodplain at the easternproperty boundary.and in.o:rder to:support a largelownho.use: <br />building it will have to.:be sloped or retafned;..This still remainstrue. and there is no. new evide ee; <br />presented as.to: how:the fiil will be rotaihed.dtsloped Therefore we do not know'.if it:is.geotechnica.lly <br />feasible to place 3: feet of fill`.within i2 (ateralfeet of the.east: property line; without further information: <br />such as:retaining walls, ri rap; standard soil;sloping,: As pointed.o.Ut in iheNOR, the fill. would'.certa'iniy <br />be on th`e City's sewer easement unless there.: was. a retaining wall. or tall.concrete footing,. hbither :of <br />which has:bee.n presented- In the record. That is stiff true: <br />A concrete: wall;. retaining wall; or rip.ra0 woti:l&not.onlybe un-scenic in the G.ree:nway: bath would also <br />make.the existing building:appear. muchtallerthaniustthe proposed 28 ft. he ght (wh>cFiispresented in <br />the NOR). Since there hasb.een no'hdW-Evidence :of screening on the east property line, the limited <br />information provided bythe applicant on fill in the.floctdplain.still callsibio question the issues.abou -fill <br />on the sewer easement oron public land and'alsoah:e lack`of;sc~ee:ning;on the:eastside of the property:. <br />Site plan.-Submitted:o:n'.Oct 9:767 <br />The revised site plan frorn._Oct 9`presents the garage buildings moved off the property. line with the <br />appropriate S ft setback This meets on:ofthe conditions in the..City staff.report: and it appears to not <br />have been as devastating as wasclafrned:bythe applicant .inthe initial app.licatioh, page 42 of 4.6. There <br />• <br />458 <br />