Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutExhibit 1 Planning Action 2006-00078 Helman Springs Homes City of Ashlar. 1 I P:anninQ Exhibi. Ext.ib,t # OJI-UJO'-~ PA it.~~ -()()O'7_ Dati:tf:JlJ#Staff~ .. - · None of the appellants are opposed to approval of this project, if the following points and errors are adequately corrected or mitigated. · This appeal document recommends to council solutions to specific appeal issues. · Nothing to adjudicate. In this appeal, we bring no disagreement among the parties. Water Issues - Language change for the record: · New geothermal language: The well water is warm, not hot (810F), to remedy confusion, appellants describe water as geothermal water, and all springs as geothermal springs. · No cold springs: Water analysis showed no cold springs on the property at the time of testing. · Well change: The record shows geothermal well was 700-1000' deep. Professional testing reveals the well is 24' deep and probably hand-dug. · West side wetland is a geothermal wetland: The west side wetland holds promise as a special demonstration wetland to educate community about this special geothermal ecosystem. Water-Related Errors · PC erred in not properly identifying all existing and natural features. Findings 2.7 detail existing and natural features included as x without identifying the remainder. Agreed remedy: Replace with the following: The property's wellhead is a significant existing feature. All trees, springs, and wetlands identified on the applicant's Outline Plan are natural features. All trees not planned for removal, and all wetlands and springs not mitigated, in the Outline Plan are significant natural features. · PC erred when Finding 2.7 said 'a spring' is a natural feature without including other springs. Agreed remedy: Add to Finding 2.7: All springs shown in the Outline Plan are geothermal springs, and are existing and natural features. All geothermal springs not mitigated in the Outline Plan are significant existing and natural features. · PC erred in not identifying geothermal water as a significant existing and natural feature. Geothermal water itself is a significant natural feature. Agreed remedy: Add to Finding 2.7: The geothermal water is a significant natural feature. · PC erred in not finding the pool was a significant existing feature. Agreed remedy: Add to Finding 2.7. The pool is a significant existing feature. · PC erred by specifying a common area around the geothermal spring, without specifying size, dimensions, shape, or location. Agreed remedy: Replace with: Lot 18 shall have an easement area around the geothermal spring box, the size, shape, and location of which are shown on the applicant's submitted map. · PC improperly required a vague 'water feature'. Finding 2.7 and Condition 33 required applicant to build "a water feature served by the associated spring from the well". Agreed remedy: Replace with: Applicant shall construct a water feature that (1)presents the geothermal water as a day-lighted part of the open space and (2) honors the historical character of the geothermal springs area, and (3) directs the geothermal water into the west side wetland. Traffic Mitiaation Errors · Appellants Stout and Bullock assert PC error in not requiring as a condition of approval that all access streets be upgraded to city standards and not requiring Applicant to share the expense of street improvement as traffic mitigation costs. Agreed remedy: Appellants propose these remedies as new conditions: (1) Council shall establish, on a timely basis, a new policy regarding the appropriate use of L.I.D. approval conditions to mitigate traffic impact. (2) At Final Outline Plan. P.C. shall require mitigation of traffic impact within the Council's new traffic mitigation policy. Procedural Errors Errors Resolved By Relatively Simple Wording Changes In the PC Order · PC improperly changed mid-process from treating the application as having one applicant to two Agreed remedy: This and other references to 'applicants' should be changed to one applicant. Sage clarifies for the record that Sage is, and has been, the agent for the property owner for the entire parcel, so there is only one applicant. Findings 2.7 should be reworded as in the next example. PC improperly asserted as findings what applicant agreed Agreed remedy: Finding 2.7 should remove references to 'applicants have agreed' and simply assert PC's findings, as: The wellhead is a significant existing feature under ALUO 18.88.030.A.c. The associated spring is a significant natural feature under ALUO 18.88.030.A.c." · PC's decision improperly shifts quasi-judicial decision authority to city attorney. Agreed remedy: Remove the words II and approval" in Condition 33, Sentence 3. Add: The conservation easement! deed restriction shall be submitted to PC for approval as part of the Final Plan. Issues Deferred To Final Plan: Based on the developer-neighborhood working relationships, several issues were deferred to Final Plan approval: 1. Fencing. 2. Planting required trees. 3. Storm drain runoff.