Public Comment (8) - Laserfiche WebLink

The HO's error in relying on the Matthews Map establishes a consistent A-Ai further, subsequent errors in the HO's decision. Most notably is his failure to address the Applicant's entire 75-lot plan against all of the approval criteria. This decision corrects those errors by providing findings, making decisions, and imposing conditions as necessary to address the relevant approval criteria. For example, as discussed in greater detail under Appeal Issue #9, regarding stormwater, the HO decision only addresses the western portion of the site. The record shows deficiencies in stormwater and other service provisions to the eastern portion of the site, which the HO's decision does not fully address. Instead, the HO relies on his analysis of the slope approval criterion, as evaluated by Kevin Matthews and shown on the Matthews Map, to assume particular outcomes relative to other approval criteria. To address this appeal issue regarding the use of five-foot contour intervals and to implement PC's accepted method of measurement relative to the approval criterion at EC 9.8325(5), the following condition of approval is imposed: The final PUD plans shall be revised to show removal of proposed development from the eastern portion of the site shown on the Applicant's original 75-lot plans. Proposed development on the western portion of the site shall also be revised to show compliance with the grading prohibition of EC 9.8325(5), by utilizing the 20% slope delineation depicted on Sheet L2.0 of the Applicant's site plans dated August 22, 2012. A note on the final PUD plans shall be included, specifying the following restriction: "The shaded areas of 20 percent slopes shat not be graded, pursuant to EC 9.8325(5). Construction site management shall include protective fencing of these areas. Utilities in these locations will need to be installed without grading, such as with boring or other construction technique." As a result of the above findings, the PC reverses the HO's decision. The above condition of approval (also listed at the end of this Final Order as condition of approval #3) ensures compliance with the relevant approval criterion at EC 9.8325(5). The required removal of proposed development from the "eastern portion" of the site, as that term is used in condition of approval #3, means the development shown on Tax Lot 101 of Assessor's Map 18-03-20-21, including Canyon Drive, Starwood Loop, Lots 50 through 75, and all related utilities and infrastructure. 2 The HO erred in chvvs:.y nn the nAntthevv, r n/Inn gMot tl,auy If he b~ a G.c wirC rifJ d e s i3 d it ' not, d i1cai to u ,...a- rr to him that the Matthews Map resulted in more accurate information. The evidence in the record shows the Matthews Map has methodological flaws that are not in the Staff Map. The Commission should opt for the Staff Map. 4. The HO erred in faulting the applicant for failing to design around the Matthews Map. The record shows that the Matthews Map placed in the record was documented late in the Final Order - Deerbrook PUD (PDT 12-1) December 17, 2012 Page 13 16