Attachment B <br />overall success of the development. Here, staff believes that the alternative of requiring <br />compliance with the setback standards is both feasible and would not jeopardize compliance <br />with any other approval criteria or applicable standards. <br />Opponent Arguments <br />As described in prior findings, the neighbors object to the proposed wall on the western <br />boundary for many reasons. Also, the adjacent property owners have submitted statements <br />indicating they will not grant an easement to allow the applicant to avoid the required five foot <br />setback. The neighbors also state that the reduced setback on the south boundary line cannot <br />be justified merely because the adjacent property owner does not oppose the development. <br />The Hearings Official also assumes that opponents' argument relating to proper screening are <br />also pertinent with respect to the applicant's requests to'reduce various applicable setbacks. <br />Hearings Officer Conclusions <br />The applicant's final comment addresses the opponents' setback arguments in two ways. First, <br />the applicant notes that the reason that setbacks are proposed to be reduced in several <br />locations is to accommodate clustering of the buildings. Second, the applicant provided an <br />example site plan that shows that the five foot required setback along the western boundary is <br />not needed by shifting the buildings slightly to the east. <br />As to the proposed wall, the Hearings Officer agrees that the example site plan is sufficient <br />evidence to show that "non-compliance" with the five foot setback will not be necessary. The <br />Hearings Officer incorporates the findings for EC 9.8320(3) for a full discussion of the wall along <br />the western property line. <br />As to the other reduced setbacks, the primary purpose of the PUD provisions generally is to <br />"provide a high degree of flexibility in the design of the site." Clustering of residential dwellings <br />is anticipated and encouraged under EC 9.8300(1)(e). The applicant testified both orally and in <br />writing that the site design was specifically intended to cluster the residential building to <br />achieve this goal. As to the setback reductions requested for the south and east boundaries, <br />the Hearings Official finds that the proposed non-compliance facilitates clustering of the <br />residential buildings. It is also relevant that the Hearings Official previously found that the <br />applicant needs to provide sufficient screening along those boundaries under EC 9.8320(3). The <br />site plan shows sufficient space to accommodate that screening. In part for those reasons, the <br />Hearings Official concludes that the reduced setbacks do meet the purposes of EC 9.8300. <br />Staff Findings <br />With regard to 9.2795 Solar Setback Standards, EC 9.2795(3) grants an exception to these <br />standards because the buildings abutting the north property line (Buildings 1 and 2) would <br />shade a non-developable area, namely right-of-way for Oakleigh Lane and the <br />bicycle/pedestrian access way required. along the north property line. For comparative <br />Hearings Official Decision (PDT 13-1, WG 13-1) 46 <br />