Public Comment (8) - Laserfiche WebLink

consistency with applicable criteria for any PUD throughout the City; it cell five-foot contour interval. The Applicant/HBA is suggesting that this particular application should be treated differently by using the 20-foot contour map of the SHS or the USGS maps. The PUD application form lists information needed from the Applicant to ensure that staff has sufficient information to evaluate the application under the relevant approval criteria. This ensures consistency - and the clear and objective application of this standard. The SHS is a policy document, whereas this code language is specifically clear and objective, as are the application form requirements. This ensures that there is no subjectivity in the data source - and that the data is correlated to the site in question. The application form requires the Applicant to map the contours of the site, rather than relying on another published form of contours and superimposing those on the site; the former is site-specific, whereas the latter has greater subjectivity and room for error: PC Decision: The PC rejects this assignment of error and finds that the HO was correct in considering slope based on five-foot contour intervals. However, this determination in and of itself does not sufficiently resolve which of the five-foot contour maps showing the 20% slope areas is the most accurate. The various maps of record (i.e. the "staff map," "Matthews Map," and the Applicant's "75-lot plan" and "47-lot plan") all show five-foot contour intervals; the contours are consistent among the various maps of record, as they are all based on the Applicant's plans. Measuring slope at five-foot contour intervals to determine the portions of the development site that meet or exceed 20% slope was the basis for identifying the areas that cannot be graded, pursuant to the approval criterion at EC 9.8325(5). The delineation of these 20% sloped areas is where the maps of record are inconsistent. The staff map highlighted these areas in yellow, using the methodology described in the July 2012 staff report to the HO. The Applicant shaded these areas on their 47- lot plan, which resulted in the removal of the eastern portion of the site because it was-dominated by slopes that met or exceeded 20%. The Applicant's delineation of these areas is generally consistent with the staff map, with some subtle refinements that staff acknowledged and concurred to in the July 2012 staff report to the HO. The Matthews Map was also consistent with the staff map and the Applicant's 47-lot plan mapping of 20% slope areas, except that it identified a few additional areas in excess of 20% that were highlighted in red. The HO relied on the Matthews Map (August 1, 2012 Hearings Official Public Hearing Exhibit Q. As discussed below in sub-assignments of error #3 and #4 of this appeal issue regarding slop-e, the PC finds that the HO erred in relying on the Matthews Map and concludes that the Applicant's 20 % slope delineation (as shown on Sheet L2.0 of the Applicant's site plans dated August 22, 2012) provides the most credible depiction of 20% slope areas based on five-foot contour intervals. The HO's reliance on the Matthews Map was the basis of his denial of the PUD, primarily because he assumed that the development needed to be reconfigured to respond to the Matthews Map and avoid the additional areas highlighted in red. Final Order - Deerbrook PUD (PDT 12-1) December 17, 2012 Page 12 15