APP-23 <br />The HO also erred in not evaluating the eastern portion of the site, as represented <br />on the Applicant's original 75-lot plan. Instead, the HO stopped evaluating this <br />portion of the site against the remaining approval criteria when he found that this <br />portion of the site could not meet approval criterion EC 9.8325(5). With regard to <br />the eastern portion of the site, only three of the lots (Lots 58 through 60) comply <br />with the solar lots standards. Although the west boundary of this portion of the site <br />is bordered by a north-south running street (Canyon Drive), which is a fixed <br />alignment given the existing street stub to the south, and the east boundary of this <br />portion of the site is bordered by a north-south running Goal 5 protected waterway, <br />there is sufficient area in-between to reorient these lots. As confirmed previously, <br />regarding lot standards, there is insufficient evidence to grant an exception. Here, <br />similarly, the PC does not grant an exception to the solar lot standards for the <br />eastern portion of the site. <br />PC Decision: The PC reverses the HO's decision regarding the western portion of the site under EC <br />9.8325(10); the ambiguity of compliance with the solar lot standards and the <br />applicable exception thereto has been removed by the PC's ruling on the Matthews <br />Map in the appeal issues above. The PC also modifies the HO's decision to add the <br />above findings regarding the eastern portion of the site, specifically noting that this <br />portion of the site does not comply with the solar lot standards or its exception <br />provisions. <br />Applicant/HBA Appeal Issue #S; Standards Review for Goal 5 Crossing <br />"The Ho erred in denying this application far failure to demonstrate, in this record, that the applicant <br />will be able to get Standards Review approval for Goal 5 road crossings. There is no basis in the code <br />for denying this application for failure to aet Standards Review approval now, rather than in a <br />separate application that will be subject to public notice and an opportunity for a full public <br />hearing." <br />PC Findings: EC 9,8325(11) requires the PUD to comply with applicable development standards <br />explicitly addressed in the application. The HO denied the PUD under this criterion <br />based on the applicable development standards at EC 9.4930 /WR Water Resources <br />Conservation Overlay Zone - Permitted and Prohibited'Uses and Exceptions. The <br />record shows that the proposed public improvement crossings of the /WR resource <br />areas will require Standards Review approval, pursuant to EC 9.4930(3)(b). <br />The HO did not deny the PUD application because the Applicant did not apply for a <br />Standards Review application concurrent with the PUD; rather, the HO denied the <br />PUD application under approval criterion EC 9.8325(11) because he assumed the lots <br />and streets needed to be reconfigured to avoid the additional areas of 20% slope <br />identified by the Matthews Map. The HO states: <br />Because the applicant will need to adjust the locations of roads (and thus <br />possibly crossings within the resource area, the hearings official cannot <br />conclude that the PUD complies with this.criterion. The hearings official <br />Final Order - Deerbrook PUD (PDT 12-1) December 17, 2012 Page 22 <br />25 <br />