The applicant also demonstrated consistency with the Laurel Hill Plan and its policies, such as: <br />approximately 2.5 to 2.8 dwelling units per acre which is well below the recommended density <br />of 5 dwelling units per acre; location of the Cupola Drive along an existing graded vehicular <br />accessway; clustering of lots in a non-grid type fashion around the road system, a large <br />preservation area located in the steepest portion of the site with the heaviest vegetation; <br />minimizing alterations to land contours to retain as much of the forested atmosphere as <br />possible; no new roadways proposed within the Laurel Hill Plan boundary; and on-street <br />parking to accommodate a reasonable number of visitors. <br />Public Works staff has reviewed the traffic safety and street connectivity study submitted by <br />the applicant, and concludes there is no evidence to suggest the existing roadways that provide <br />access to the development site are unsafe or incapable of serving the site and no offsite <br />mitigation is required. A memorandum from Scott Gillespie P. E., Public Works Development <br />Review Manager is discussed in detail at EC 9.8320(7) (Staff Report, pages 35 and 36). The <br />memorandum indicates that Spring Boulevard and Capital Drive, which provides access to the <br />site, are adequate to serve the proposed development and concludes there is no evidence to <br />suggest the existing roadways are unsafe or incapable of serving the development site. <br />Therefore, no off-site mitigation by the applicant is required. <br />Public Works Staff confirms that the proposed detention system demonstrates conceptual <br />compliance with the applicable standards at EC 9.6791 through 9.6795 and that stormwater <br />discharge will occur at locations that mimic existing conditions and at rates that are less than or <br />equal to existing rates, therefore minimizing off-site impacts and environmental quality (Staff <br />Report, pages 48 to 51). <br />Regarding noise, the development is proposed with 34 residential lots and no uses other than <br />residential are proposed. Anticipated noises generated from the development will be consistent <br />with the noises and sounds generated by the neighboring residential areas and will have <br />minimal impact to the surrounding area. <br />Of note, the Planning Commission rejected the word "permanent" in the first sentence under <br />the heading "Environmental quality" in Appeal Issue 28, determining that an assertion of <br />permanent damage constituted new evidence not presented to the hearings official. <br />Based on these findings staff concluded that the proposed PUD would have minimal off-site <br />impacts. The Hearings Official correctly evaluated and weighed the available evidence on these <br />Final Order: Capital Hill PUD (PDT 17-1) Page 36 <br />