Public Comment (8) - Laserfiche WebLink

APP-12 PC Findings: The Applicant/HBA argues that slope should be measured using 20-foot contour intervals instead of five-foot increments. The argument of this sub-assignment contradicts the argument under sub-assignment (2)(a) (arguing that slope should be measured across the entire site). To support a 20-foot increment, they claim that the slope standard must be read in context of the South Hills Study (SHS) and therefore should be measured consistent with the USGS topographic map used for that study. The South Hills Study is an area-specific plan that is not invoked by the PUD slope criterion, which applies City-wide. A consistent measurement of 5-foot contours is utilized for POD applications in steep slope areas across the City. PC Decision: The PC rejects this argument,- but also finds that the HO erred because he did not expressly state that the USGS topography maps and SHS are not the context for determining the contour measurement required to demonstrate consistency with the code criterion at EC 9.8325(5). The HO should have addressed this question. The PC addresses this question by affirming that the approval criterion regarding slope has no relationship to the SHS or the USGS maps; this approval criterion applies to the entire City, not just the SHS area. This ruling modifies the HO's decision by adding findings under EC 9.8325(5) to expressly state that the SHS and the USGS maps have no relationship to this criterion. (c) The HO erred in considering any measurement of slope based on a five foot contour interval map, because the five-foot contour intervals reflect neither the text nor the context Of 'the code, The five foot contour map requirement is just an information requirement made up by staff; it could change tomorrow or even during this proceeding; it is not ratified in any rule, order or code language, acknowledged or otherwise. Importing 5 -foot contour maps into the standards is contrary to law. Doumani v. City of Eugene, 35 Or LUBA 388 (1999). PC Findings: Here, the Applicant/HBA argues that the HO erred in not addressing the argument that the City cannot use a five-foot increment for determining slope based on the application form's requirement for submittal of that information. The PC agrees with the Applicant/HBA that the HO erred in not addressing this argument; however, the PC disagrees with the Applicant/HBA's argument that the City cannot use a five-foot increment for determining slope based on the application form. Applicant/HBA relies on a case (Doumani) where the City refused to accept an application submitted by a person that did not own the underlying property. The City relied on the application form. requirement for the owner's signature. This case is very different. There is a code criterion that clearly requires the applicant to submit slope information for determining whether any portions of the site are 20% or more. The official application form provides the level of detail the City requests, for determining compliance with that criterion. The PUD application form requires the information to be used to determine Final Order- Deerbrook PUD (PDT 12-1) December 17, 2012 Page 11 14