Hearings Official Decision - Laserfiche WebLink

address Mr. Kloos's other arguments with regard to this criterion. EC 9.8325(4): For areas not included on the city's acknowledged Goal 5 inventory, the PUD preserves existing natural resources by compliance with all of the following: (a) The provisions of EC 9.6880 to EC 9.6885 Tree Preservation and Removal Standards, (not subject to modifications set forth in subsection (11) below). (b) Natural resource areas designated on the Metro Plan diagram as "Natural Resource" are protected. The subject site is located on the City's adopted Goal 5 inventory, which includes Figure H-2 of the 1978 Scenic Sites Working Paper according to Ordinance No. 20351. That figure shows the area of the subject property as a "Natural Site of Visual Prominence." As such, this criterion is not applicable. The staff decision is not disputed. The criterion is met. EC 9.8325(5): There shall be no proposed grading on portions of the development site that meet or exceed 20% slope. Staff decision: The applicant's site plan (Sheet 1), prepared by professional/licensed surveyor Renee Clough, shows areas on the subject site with slopes exceeding 20%. According to the application narrative, the slopes were calculated using computer software based on Triangulated Irregular Network (TIN) surface models. No development is proposed in areas with calculated slope exceeding 20%, and based on the applicant's evidence it appears this criterion is met. If the Hearings Official ultimately approves the application, and to ensure compliance with this criterion, the following condition of approval is recommended: The final PUD site plan shall note that no grading is allowed on any portions of the development site that meet or exceed 20% slope. The applicant's final PUD plans shall clearly indicate those areas consistent with what it shown on the tentative PUD site plans. Based on these findings and the condition noted above, this criterion is met. Hearings Official Findings: At the hearing, Mr. Williamson testified that he had reviewed the site map and found some areas that are proposed for development that exceed 20% slopes. He provided an annotated map to show the area at issue. During the open record period the applicant submitted a revised map and additional evidence showing the areas of 20% slope. This information appears to resolve questions about where development may occur consistent with this criterion. This criterion is met. Hearings Official Decision (PDT 15-1/ ARA 15-13)