(a) Shared use of services and facilities .APP-18 <br />(b) A compatible mix of land uses that encourage alternatives to <br />the use of the automobile. <br />(c) A variety of dwelling types that help meet the needs of all <br />income groups in the community. <br />(d) Preservation of existing natural features and the opportunity <br />to enhance habitat areas. <br />(e) Clustering of residential dwellings to achieve energy and <br />resource conservation while also achieving the planned <br />density for the site. <br />(2) Create comprehensive site plans for geographic areas of sufficient <br />size to provide development at least equal in quality to those that are <br />achieved through the traditional lot by lot development and that are <br />reasonably compatible with the surrounding area. <br />The HO only evaluated the Applicant's illustrative 47-lot plan against the above <br />approval criterion, rather the original 75-lot plans. He appears to have limited his <br />review to the western portion of the site because the entire eastern portion of the <br />site could not be developed consistent with the slope criterion at EC 9.8325(5). The <br />PC finds error in this limited review and provides findings regarding the eastern <br />portion of the site as well. <br />With regard to the HO's analysis of the western portion of the site, the HO found <br />non-compliance with the lot standards approval criterion for two reasons; 1) <br />because he assumed the lots needed to be reconfigured to respond to the Matthews <br />Map, he could not ensure that the lots would meet the approval criterion; and 2) <br />because he did not evaluate the modification approval criteria for the lots with areas <br />below minimum requirements. <br />With regard to the uncertain compliance with the lot standards, the HO states: <br />"...when making the changes to comply with EC 9.8325(5) ...the hearings official <br />cannot determine which lots might need to be modified..." The reference to EC <br />9.8325(5) is the slope criterion, under which the HO evaluated the Matthews Map-to <br />determine non-compliance. The HO was also uncertain how this would affect the <br />33% lot coverage of the /WR setback, when he states "the applicant did not analyze <br />how any of the lots listed above, if sized in compliance with the dimensional <br />standards would have more than 33% of lot occupied by the area listed in subsection <br />EC 9.8325(7)(a)1 and 2. (See page 21 of HO Decision.) The PC finds that the HO erred <br />in relying on the Matthews Map to determine approval of the slope criterion at EC <br />9.8325; therefore, the PC finds that the HO also erred in assuming additional non- <br />compliance with the applicable lot standards. <br />Moreover, the PC finds that the HO applied the wrong test when evaluating the non- <br />compliant lots. The HO states: <br />Final Order - Deerbrook PUD (PDT 12-1) <br />December 17, 2012 <br />Page 17 <br />20 <br />