nearby land uses. <br />EC 9.8320(14) If the tentative PUD application proposes a land division, nothing in the approval of <br />the tentative application exempts future land divisions from compliance with state or <br />local surveying requirements. <br />The applicant is proposing to divide the subject property into 17 residential lots and this decision <br />approves the division of the site to include 15 residential lots. Nothing in the approval of this tentative <br />PUD application exempts a future land division application from compliance with state or local <br />surveying requirements. Furthermore, as required by the tentative subdivision approval criteria at <br />EC 9.8515(12), subsequent land division applications must be consistent with an approved PUD. <br />EC 9.8320(15) If the proposed PUD is located within a special area zone, the applicant shall <br />demonstrate that the proposal is consistent with the purpose(s) of the special area <br />zone. <br />The PUD property is not located within a special area zone; therefore, this criterion is met. <br />Standards Review Evaluation (SDR 08-2) <br />The applicant proposes several features that are subject to standards review. They include: <br />(1) Berm removal along the eastern edge of lots 5 and 6 <br />(2) New underground utilities for sewer, water, power, and other utilities to serve development <br />on lots 5 and 6. <br />(3) Stormwater discharge from Sterling Woods Drive to an existing outfall on the east bank of <br />the /WR riparian channel <br />(4) Private access road/driveway to serve proposed lots 5 and 6. <br />1 ~ <br />Most of the features at issue in the Standards Review application are predicated on the approval of lots <br />5 and 6. As noted above, the tentative PUD plan satisfies the applicable standards if lots 5 and 6 are <br />removed from the plan. Therefore, it is premature to consider the Standards Review application for <br />those elements. To the extent that the applicant argues that berm removal is permitted under <br />EC 9.4930(3)(a), the hearings official disagrees that removal of this berm constitutes a "realignment or <br />reconfiguration of channels" as that term is used in EC 9.4930(3)(a). There is no evidence that <br />removal of the sediment comprising the benn here will result in a realignment or reconfiguration of the <br />channel of the riparian corridor itself. The meander of the corridor will remain the same, as will the <br />channel capacity. Rather, removal of the berm will remove a portion of the bank edge. If the applicant <br />is seeking to restore or enhance the corridor, consistent with EC 9.430(3)(f), the applicant will need to <br />show how berm removal can "restore" or "enhance" the wetland and riparian corridor in this case. <br />Merely stating that removal will in some way "restore" or "enhance" is not sufficient to demonstrate <br />that the standard is satisfied. <br />With respect to the proposed stormwater outfall, staff and the applicant agree that the proposed <br />discharge to the existing stormwater system does not trigger standards review approval, pursuant to a <br />planning director interpretation of that standard in a prior decision (Glory Bee). The hearings official <br />agrees. <br />Alder Woods PUD (PDT 07-5 & SDR 08-2) Page 35 ' <br />Laurel Ridge Record (Z 15-5) Page 1163 <br />