the peak hour trips shall be based on the likely development that will occur on <br />all lots resulting from the land divisionadded.) <br /> The Planning Director only considered the development proposed in the site review <br />application the 106 apartment units <br />100 or more peak hour vehicle trips. Furthermore, as explained by the staff report, the development <br />at issue in the site review application does not involve a land division. Therefore, according to the <br />Planning Director, the second sentence of EC 9.8670(1) is not applicable. <br /> The appellant and other opponents argue that the development that has occurred and will <br />occur in the future on land originally part of the parent parcel that included the subject property <br />must be considered in determining whether 100 or more peak hour vehicle trips will be generated. <br />The subject property was annexed into the City in 2013 as part of a larger 17.52-acre parcel. In <br />2014, the parcel that was annexed into the City was subdivided into 42 lots. Those 42 lots consisted <br />of a 40-lot subdivision named Pennington Acres and two additional lots (including the subject <br />property) consisting of approximately 10 acres. In 2015, one of the remaining lots was subdivided <br />7 <br />into 5 lots named Pennington Acres Phase 2. The current application is to develop what remains <br />of the land that was annexed into the City in 2013 as the Alder Apartments. Again, the current <br />application does not involve any additional land divisions. <br /> The appellant and other opponents argue, for slightly different reasons, that the <br />development that has already occurred in Pennington Acres and that will occur in the future in <br />Pennington Acres Phase 2 must be included in determining whether 100 or more peak hour trips <br />would be generated and therefore trigger the requirement for a TIA. The appellant argues that <br />under the first sentence of EC 9.8670(1) that <br />100 or more vehicle trips <br />Phase 2. Another opponent, Jon Belcher (Belcher) argues that under the second sentence in EC <br />parent parcel that was originally annexed into the City. Under either interpretation, the <br />development in Pennington Acres and Pennington Acres Phase 2 would have to be included in <br />determining whether 100 or more vehicle trips would be generated by the current application. <br /> argument <br />EC 9.8670(1) includes all of Pennington Acres and Pennington Acres Phase 2 as well as the <br /> <br />7 <br /> <br />Phase 2 of Pennington Acres has not been built out yet. <br /> <br />Hearings Official Decision (SR 17-2) 7 <br /> <br />