APP-10 <br />PC Findings: Contrary to the Applicant's statements made under sub-assignment (1)(b), the fact <br />that the City would utilize the Applicant's own contour map (which is required by <br />the City's application form to show 5' contours) to determine whether a portion of <br />the site meets or exceeds 20% slope is evidence that the method has been clearly <br />communicated to the Applicants since before they applied for the PUD. Staff <br />confirmed in writing that the five-foot increment shown on the site plan is the <br />correct contour interval following the pre-application conference, well before the <br />PUD application was submitted (see December 20, 2011 letter from Becky Taylor to <br />Carol Schirmer.) <br />The HO also addressed this issue: <br />The applicant argues that there are four methodologies for measuring slope <br />posited to date (Applicant's Testimony, Aug. 22, 2012). The hearings official <br />disagrees. Despite the staff informing the applicant to measure slope using <br />the five-foot contours on the application maps, the applicant chose to ignore <br />that advice and measure slope over the entire site. After the hearing, the <br />applicant then proposed to use yet a different map-the USGS topo map in <br />the refinement plan. USGS topos have 40-foot contours [20-foot (sic)]. Just <br />because the applicant disagrees with the instruction to use the five-foot <br />intervals (and tried to use other methods), does not mean that the 20% rule <br />here is not clear and objective, (See pages 12 and 13 of HO Decision.) <br />PC Decision: The PC rejects this argument and finds no error in the HO's determination that the <br />Applicant had notice of the 20% slope criterion and knew what it must show during <br />the application process ("at the front end of the process"). This ruling does not alter <br />the HO's decision. <br />(c) State law prohibits using the 20% slope grading limitation that would prevent <br />development of any part of this site that could be developed under the <br />discretionary standards of EC 9.8320. ORS 197.307(6). State law requires <br />development under clear and objective standards. ORS 197.307(4); OAR 660-008- <br />0015." <br />PC Findings: The Applicant's argument that the 20% slope grading limitation prevents <br />development of a part of the site that could be developed under the discretionary <br />standards of EC 9.8320 is unfounded. The record shows that the Applicant has been <br />unable to obtain PUD approval to date, with a series of prior applications being <br />denied at the local level without further appeal, under the City's discretionary <br />approval criteria. The Applicant/HBA also asserts that removal of this criterion would <br />make the original 75-lot proposal approvable; however, the record shows that the <br />75-lot proposal had other areas of non-compliance or was lacking evidence that <br />would'be needed to show.compliance with the approval criteria, such as with the <br />stormwater drainage standards. <br />Final Order- Deerbrook PUD (PDT 12-1) December 17, 2012 Page 9 <br />12 <br />