Final Order - Laserfiche WebLink

® Because the extent of slope easements will not be known for certain until the PER permitting process, the exact requirement for slope easements will be determined at the time of the subsequent subdivision application and required to be shown on the final plat. ® At the time of the subsequent subdivision review, and prior to final plat approval, the private street must be formally created by a separate document (i.e., Private Joint Use Access and Utility Easement and Maintenance Agreement (JAM), or similar document). ® Sections 4.0 and 5.1 of the report [Branch Engineering Geological/Geotechnical Investigation] additional site evaluation at the time of more extensive design work and possible construction may be required. ® To ensure compliance with EC 9.6505, an Engineering and Construction agreement is required for the private construction of public improvements, which must be submitted when the construction plans are submitted for review and approval. The configuration and size of the public improvements will be subject to approval by the City Engineer upon review of the design and supporting analysis prepared by the applicant's engineer. If the improvements are not permitted prior to plat approval, a bond for the construction of public improvements will be required prior to final plat approval. These requirements will be further addressed through the subsequent subdivision application process. ® Individual lots will address flow control and water quality standards when applying for building permits on a case by case basis. ® As required by EC 9.6797(3)(d), applications proposing City operation and maintenance of all or part of the stormwater facility must include an Operations and Maintenance Agreement in accordance with the facility agreements adopted as part of the Stormwater Management Manual. An agreement for the public stormwater treatment manhole will be required as part of the PER permit process and prior to final subdivision approval. Planning Commission's Determination: The appellant makes an argument that the use of conditions of approval in the Hearings Official's Decision is an attempt to remedy a lack of compliance with specific approval criteria. The appellant appears to be making an attempt to invalidate all 20 conditions of approval since it lists each condition in its argument as examples. The appellant also asserts that the process of allowing conditions of approval postpones approval criteria to a later process that lacks public notice or a public hearing. The Planning Commission understands the concern about deferring additional review to a future time. However, in this particular case, the Tentative PUD approval is the first land use approval required, followed by Final PUD, and Tentative Subdivision approvals. These additional, required land use applications provide an opportunity through a Type II process to further evaluate the conditions of approval and whether or not they have been met at the appropriate stage in the process (the appropriate timing of which is often specified in the language of the condition itself). The Type II application process provides another opportunity for written public comment as it requires a public notice. Type II decisions are appealable, which provides another forum including a public hearing and Hearings Official review to evaluate the applicant's compliance with conditions of approval and any information used to demonstrate compliance with them. This sequence and the application procedures are consistent with the Eugene Code and State law. Planning Commission finds there are no Final Order: Capital Hill PUD (PDT 17-1) Page 39