Public Comment (8) - Laserfiche WebLink

APP-31 The HO imposed flow control standards at EC 9.8325(7)0), even though they were not required for the western portion of the site, to ensure that the development would provide the detention necessary to comply with the requirement of EC 9.8325(13). As conditioned, each lot within the proposed development will be required to detain post-development peak flows to pre-development levels. The pollution-reduction medium on each lot, required for compliance with EC 9.6792 Stormwater Pollution Reduction, such as a flow-through planter at the roof downspout, will be required to have a larger sizing factor to provide detention and reduce the overflow during peak flow events. The flow control standards were specifically designed to address erosion of Headwater Streams. The use of City standards provides greater certainty at the time of implementation, during building permit review. Further, as a public improvement, the outfall will be required to meet public design standards, which requires stability and velocity measures at outfalls in every case. PC Decision: The PC rejects SEN's arguments and finds that the HO did make an independent evaluation of the criteria at EC 9.8325(7)(j) and EC 9.8325(13), which both relate to stormwater runoff from the proposed development. Although EC 9.8325(7)0) does not require the development to meet EC 9.6793 Stormwater Flow Control - (Headwaters), the PC endorses the HO's imposition of this standard to ensure that the development provides onsite stormwater management facilities that detain post-development peak flows to pre-development levels, which is necessary to ensure compliance with EC 9.8325(13). The flow control standards at EC 9.6793 provide this detention and are standards that City staff can readily implement during the building permit process. The PC finds that the HO did not error by correlating the detention requirements of EC 9.8325(7)(j) to address the "...increased peak flow or velocity" test of criterion EC 9.8325(13). The PC finds, however, that the HO did err in not addressing the eastern drainage basin. The PC modifies the HO's decision by adding the above findings that the applicant did not demonstrate compliance for the eastern drainage basin and establishing the condition that the eastern portion of the site be removed from the development, stated as condition of approval #3, below. SEN Appeal Issue #10: Fence in 30' buffer "The Hearings Official determined that a fence located at the outside edge of the PUD property is permiss,"Ale because the code re quireS a buJJfCeI LoIIC U-1101-1 1-4 tf ie perimetcr1 bUt Hill v%1 the Perini eter. This interpretation is inconsistent with the plain meaning of the term perimeter and along." PC Findings: The approval criterion at EC 9.8325(3) requires that "The PUD provides a buffer area between the proposed development and surrounding properties by providing at least a 30 foot wide landscape area along the perimeter of the PUD according to EC 9.6210(7)." The SEN object to the allowance of a perimeter fence of the requisite 30 foot wide buffer between the proposed development and surrounding properties. Final Order- Deerbrook PUD (PDT 12-1) December 17, 2012 Page 30 33