Attachment B <br />of the automobile.' <br />(c) A variety of dwelling types that help meet the needs of all income <br />groups in the community. <br />(d) Preservation of existing natural resources and the opportunity to <br />enhance habitat areas. <br />(e) Clustering of residential dwellings to achieve energy and resource <br />conservation while also achieving the planned density for the site. <br />(2) Create comprehensive site plans for geographic areas of sufficient size to <br />provide developments at least equal in quality to those that are achieved <br />through the traditional lot by lot development and that are reasonably <br />compatible with the surrounding area. <br />Staff Findings <br />With regard to EC Table 9.2750 Residential Zone Development Standards, the development <br />complies with the following: density (below 14 units per net acre); building height (below 30 <br />feet); interior yard setback (from the east property line only); and the maximum 50 percent lot <br />coverage. The development does not comply with the front yard setback or the interior yard <br />setback (along the south and west property lines). <br />The substandard front yard setbacks are due to the right-of-way dedications being required; <br />refer to the findings and conditions at EC 9.8320(5), which are incorporated by reference. <br />Following right-of-way dedication, Buildings 1 and 2 will be below the minimum 10-foot front <br />yard setback requirement, being about a half of a foot and eight feet away, respectively. The <br />applicant requests a modification to this setback, stating that "...the dwellings abutting Oakleigh <br />Lane do not exceed massing widths or heights inconsistent with the neighborhood single-family <br />proportions. Along Oakleigh Lane, at the southern side of the street, townhouses address the <br />residential street with covered porches as found in this and other neighborhoods of the River <br />Road area. Internally, the site plan is pedestrian oriented with many places for children to play <br />and residents to sit outside. By clustering the units keeping all the parking to one side of the <br />site, more usable open space, free from vehicle traffic, was able to be conserved with open <br />views to the river and bike path." (See page 26 of the applicant's June 14, 2013 written <br />statement.) <br />The substandard interior yard setbacks are as follows: the concrete wall, garages and carports <br />abutting the west property line and Tax Lots 10100 and 5700, respectively to the northwest and <br />southwest; the concrete wall at the southwest property corner, abutting Tax Lot 5600; and <br />Building 6, abutting Tax Lot 500. There is no explanation in the applicant's materials for the <br />substandard building setback along the south property line; however, staff notes that the <br />affected property owners (Mr. Adee of Tax Lot 500 and Mr. Campbell of Tax Lot 5600) <br />submitted letters in support of the proposed development. <br />With regard to the west property line, the applicant explains that the garages and carports are <br />located near the property line because it makes for a better site layout. The applicant claims <br />Hearings Official Decision (PDT 13-1, WG 13-1) 44 <br />