_____________________________________________________________________________________ <br /> <br />Staff Report | Braewood Hills 3rd Addition (PDT 24-1 & ST 24-3) <br />protected upland Goal 5 stream. As shown on the applicant’s site plans, this stream crosses the <br />southern portion of the site and has a 40-foot conservation setback from top of bank. <br /> <br />The applicant’s site plans show the private portion of Randy Lane to be constructed along the <br />south property line of the subject site, where it will cross the stream along the property line <br />between proposed Lots 30 and 34. This crossing would provide the only access for proposed <br />Lots 33 through 38 and is allowed, subject to Standards Review approval according to the /WR <br />Overlay provisions at EC 9.4930(3)(j). The construction of private access roads across protected <br />streams are allowed with a /WR Standards Review approval so long as the applicant can <br />demonstrate that no other point of access is available, and the number of stream crossings is <br />the minimum necessary for the approved use. <br /> <br />The applicant is requesting to defer demonstrating feasibility and compliance with the <br />Standards Review criteria to a later date, and states in the written narrative: <br /> <br />“The exact footprint of the Standards Review proposal cannot be known until the final <br />PUD Site Plan is reduced to a surveyed map. Therefore, the proposal here is to defer <br />application for the Standards Review approval. Deferring the Standards Review <br />application until final platting was justified as a methodology in the first approval for this <br />project. Based on this record, the City can find that the applicant is entitled to a <br />Standards Review approval subject to the standards in the code. <br /> <br />The feasibility of a Standards Review approval need not be demonstrated in conjunction <br />with this application. A Standards Review is a Type II decision, initially decided by the <br />Director and subject to appeal and a full hearing. That public process is enough to allow <br />deferring demonstrating feasibility and compliance with standards to a later date <br />because individual notice, an opportunity to comment, and an opportunity to appeal <br />the Type II decision are all assured.” <br /> <br />Staff is supportive of the deferral of the Standards Review approval to a later date with the <br />following condition of approval: <br /> <br />17. Prior to final PUD approval, the applicant shall obtain Type II Standards Review approval <br />for the proposed private access road and any other utility crossings or allowed <br />improvements within the protected /WR conservation area, subject to the applicable <br />standards at EC 9.4900-9.4980. <br /> <br />Lots 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 are also impacted by the Goal 5 resource and its 40-foot protective <br />setback. The site plan appears to show Lots 30, 34 and 35 having direct access to Randy Lane. <br />Lots 31, 32 and 33 appear to have private easement access across other adjacent lots. As these <br />lots are developed in the future, the following condition is warranted to ensure consistency <br />with permitted and prohibited uses per EC 9.4930: <br /> <br />Page 23 of 87