New Search
within the setback area. The proposed stormwater detention facility also drains into this stream <br />channel, the impacts of which also have not been addressed. Further, the applicant's response to the <br />standards review criteria is inadequate for approval, even where they were addressed. Rather that <br />specifying how approval criteria are met, the applicant responds by indicating that they acknowledge <br />the provisions, orthat.they will comply. The applicant also refers to the Open Space Enhancement <br />Plan as providing specific details regarding enhancement; but no specificity is provided. The <br />applicant's written statement does not address this subsection specifically. The applicant's written <br />statement provides a response to EC 9.49$0(1)(a) through {e) that generally states that the public <br />streets and sewer crossings are necessary, and therefore the impacts are justified. The applicant's <br />proposed street system impacts the /WR conservation area in five areas, but staff does not conclude <br />that all these streets are necessary. <br />Based on the evidence and findings included above, staffconcludes that the approval criteria for the <br />Standards Review have not been met. <br />Staff Recommendation. <br />. ~ ~~~`~~ application materials, and findings confatned m this ~, ~ . <br />r-~c~iinrnends t f the I3carings Official deny the requests fad - ~~~ . nd <br />standards review approval. St~.f€ fads that the apphcanf has fait#ec~'~i d~~onstrate compliance.with. . <br />seu~ral of the planned unit de~lcrpment and standards ~~~,.. " ~,e.~n~,:: A.s described in ; <br />:.s;~vahiation~ the.apPfi°ha~ni#tpravidedadequate information or analg~t~adegc~t <br />oats several elements of th~.~~3e~ T Xioant's written n~ater~ds provide contradictory <br />s ~ ,, din inft~~natbn: <br />~~t~lence, anr~.the desig~:~propt?sal,d nnt~p~ear;tu lie cQOrt~d marthe ~upp!a g <br />'Iile staff recognizes that the applicant has addressed some issues that. were identified in previous <br />PUD reviews, such as the improvement of West Amazon Drive within the existing right-of--way <br />alignment and the proposal for smaller lots, staff does not find that there is evidence that demonstrates <br />how these revisions are consistent with the PUD approval criteria. In staff's opinion, substantial site <br />plan revisions and additional information and documentation would be necessary to determine <br />compliance with applicable criteria for approval. Specifically, these include the tentative planned unit <br />development approval criteria from EC 9.8320 {1),{2), {4), {5), {6}, {9), {11), {12), and (13} or the <br />standards review approval criteria at EC 9.4980. <br />Several common themes arise with respect to the applicable criteria, including the.need for meaningful <br />f~' clustering of development, lack of information regarding grading impacts, design parameters for <br />,~`' proposed dwellings, driveways and other improvements such as utilities, and the lack of accurate <br />~; <br />details regarding vegetation preservation and removal. As the available evidence indicates, the subject <br />property has several challenging characteristics which require thorough and careful analysis. In order <br />for the proposed development to satisfy the required criteria, it is staff's conclusion that additional <br />coordinated information is first needed to fully understand the existing resources and constraints on <br />the property. This evaluation: may also raise additional concerns, conflicts, or design considerations <br />which cannot be identified or properly evaluated at this time. Staff also believes that further <br />commitment is necessary on the tentative site plans to better clarify aid reduce the area where <br />development impacts and construction will occur. Such information would then provide the basis for <br />adequately evaluating the project's ability to satisfy the required criteria for approval. <br />Staff again acknowledges that the applicant did respond to some of the City's previous concerns, but <br />appears to have done so in a piecemeal fashion which was not coordinated within the applicant's <br />design team. The site does have significant development constraints, which have predominantly been. <br />recognized by the applicant as the various easements and /WR conservation areas. As noted in this <br />report, the proposed development includes impacts to 24% ofthe /WR conservation areas, and <br />Deerbrook PUD (PDT 06-2/SDR 06-1) Apri116, 2007 36 <br />