My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Public Comment (8)
>
OnTrack
>
PDT
>
2015
>
PDT 15-1
>
Public Comment (8)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/7/2015 4:07:00 PM
Creation date
12/4/2015 1:52:36 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
PDD_Planning_Development
File Type
PDT
File Year
15
File Sequence Number
1
Application Name
CHAMOTEE
Document Type
Public Comments
Document_Date
11/3/2015
External View
Yes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
142
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
APP-17 <br />Final plans for West Amazon Drive will show retaining walls where necessary to <br />ensure that road improvements will not require grading of slopes 20% or greater <br />outside the right-of-way. <br />PC finds no harm in adding this condition of approval to further ensure compliance <br />with EC 9.8325(5), by providing for another construction technique to avoid grading <br />areas outside the right-of-way that have 20% slopes. <br />PC Decision: The PC finds no error, but modifies the HO's decision to add the Applicant's <br />recommended condition of approval for retaining walls, where necessary. (The <br />condition of approval is listed as #5 at the end of this Final Order.) <br />Applicant/HBA Appeal Issue #3 and SEN Appeal Issue #7a: Lot Standards <br />Applicant/HBA: "The HO erred in finding no compliance with the /WR 33% lot area limitation <br />because he erroneously denied the requested modification to allow some <br />undersized lots. He simply applied the wrong standard in denying the requested <br />modification." <br />SEN: "...the Hearings Official determined that neither Application complied with EC <br />9.8325(7)(a), which prohibits a new lot if more than 33% of that lot would occupy a <br />JWR conservation setback zone. The Official expressly found that "the application <br />does not comply with this criterion." Decision.at 21. Despite this finding, the Official <br />did not base his denial on this ground." <br />PC Findings: The standard at EC 9.8325(7) requires: "The PUD complies with all of the following <br />(an approved adjustment to a standard pursuant to the provisions beginning at EC <br />9.8015 of this land use code constitutes compliance with the standard): <br />(a) EC 9.2000 through 9.3915 regarding lot dimensions and density <br />requirements for the subject zone. Within the /WR Water Resources <br />Conservation Overlay Zone or /WQ Water Quality Overlay Zone,.no new <br />lot may be created if more than 33% of the lot, as created, would be <br />occupied by either: <br />1. The combined area of the /WR conservation setback and any <br />portion of the Goal 5 Water Resource Site that extends landward <br />beyond the conservation setback; or <br />2. The /WQ Management Area. <br />Under EC 9.8325(11), a modification to applicable lot standards is allowed if <br />consistent with the purposes as set out in the PUD purpose statements at EC 9.8300. <br />EC 9.8300 Purpose of Planned Unit Development. The PUD provisions are <br />designed to provide a high degree of flexibility in the design of the site and <br />the mix of land uses, potential environmental impacts, and are intended to: <br />(1) Create a sustainable environment that includes: <br />Final Order- Deerbrook PUD (PDT 12-1) December 17, 2012 Page 16 <br />19 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.