2017 Planning Commission Final Order on Remand (PDT 13-1 Re-Affirmed)

following criterion: The provisions of the Traffic Impact Analysis Review of EC 9.8650 through 9.6880 where applicable. The HO completed a detailed analysis of this issue on page 24 of his decision. The PC finds that the HO was correct in his application of EC 9.8320(5), as being limited in scope to compliance with the following: a) that EC 9.6800 through 9.6875 can be met, b) that pedestrian, bicycle and transit circulation can be achieved, and c) that if necessary a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) has been done and mitigation provided. To the extent the HO's decision concludes that EC 9.8320(5)(a) relates only to the dedication of land, the PC disagrees. EC 9.6800 through 9.6875 establish standards for dedication, design and location of pubilic ways, generally. That said, the PC agrees that neither EC 9.8320(5)(a) nor EC 9.6800 through 9.6875 ;require that an existing street must meet certain standards in order to serve a proposed development. EC 9.6870 only provides the required paving widths for certain types of streets when and if those streets are ever fully improved to City standards. However, EC 9.8320(6) does provide a means of addressing the safety of Oakleigh Lane for purposes of emergency response vehicles. See discussion under the Third Assignment of Error below. With regard to EC 9.6800 through 9.6875, the PC finds that the HO was correct in granting exceptions to the street connectivity standards and cul-de-sac length standards. The PC concludes that the street connectivity exception at EC 9.6815(2)(g)(1) is met by the applicant's alternative street connection study, along with their narrative that addresses the intent statements at EC 9.6815(1). The PC finds that the alternative street' connection study is not required to evaluate full build-out potential of the entire area. The PC, also finds that no right-of-way is being exacted from Tax Lot 200. The PC concludes that the HO did not err by granting an exception to the 400-foot maximum cul-de-sac length. The PC finds that there is existing development to the south and natural resources to the east that warrant an exception ito the cul-de-sac length, pursuant to EC 9.6820(5). The PC affirms that the cul-de-sac standards at EC19.6820(1) and EC 9.6820(4) are met because the HO conditioned approval upon right-of-way dedication for a future hammerhead turnaround and an access way beyond the turnaround. To the extent'I~that there is any conflict between the street connectivity exception and the standards for maximum cul-de-sac length, the PC resolves this conflict in favor of granting the exception. The PC finds that the constitutional findings in the September 17, 2013 Public Works referral comments are limited to justification for a proportional right-of-way exaction along the frontage of the subject property that would accommodate future public street improvements. The constitutional findings address a future need for street improvements abutting the property, rather than any immediate need, based on, safety issues or otherwise, associated with the proposed PUD. During the 2017 remand proceedings, the PC had substantial deliberations regarding the portion of this assignment of error addressing EC 9.8320(5)(b) ("The PUD provides safe and adequate transportation systems through compliance with [p]edestrian [and] bicycle... circulation as needed to nearby residential areas, transit strops, neighborhood activity centers, office parks, and industrial parks." The PC finds that the existing paved width and use of Oakleigh Lane (with cars sometimes parked on both sides) will not ensure that the PUD provides safe and adequate pedestrian and bicyclist access to River Road to the west (a "nearby" area). For example, the PC notes that bicyclists, wheelchairs or strollers 2017 Final Order: Oakleigh Meadows Co-Housing PUD (PDT 13-1) Page 5