ER-16 <br />1 9.8320(11)(k)(2009). In its application, Meadows proposed noncompliance <br />2 with the setback standards for the north; south, and west property lines and <br />3 argued that the proposed noncompliance was consistent with EC 9.8300(1)(e), <br />4 which specifically provides that the Planned Development provisions are <br />5 intended to provide flexibility in designing the PUD and are intended to, in <br />6 relevant part "create a sustainable environment that includes * * * clustering of. <br />7 residential dwellings to achieve energy and resource conservation while also <br />8 achieving planned density for a site.". See n 5. Along the north, property line, <br />9 for Building 1, rather than the 10 foot front yard setback that would apply, <br />10 Meadows proposed setbacks that varied from 6" to 8 feet after 22.5 feet of the <br />11 property is dedicated as right of way for future improvement -and widening of <br />12 Oakleigh Lane for 50 feet along the northern property boundary, and 13 feet of <br />13 the property for a length of 117 feet is dedicated as a future hammerhead <br />14 turnaround and sidewalk to enable development of the property to the north of <br />15 the subject property. <br />16 For Building 2, Meadows proposed a setback of 12 feet from the <br />17 property line, which would place the northwest corner of Building 2 within the <br />18 setback after 13 feet is dedicated for right of way purposes for the future <br />19 hammerhead turnaround. On ` appeal of the hearings officer's decision, the <br />20 planning commission imposed a condition of approval that requires a building <br />21 setback of 5 feet (less than the 10 foot minimum setback) from the newly <br />22 dedicated right of way boundary for Oakleigh Lane for a distance of 199 feet, <br />quality to those that are achieved through the traditional lot <br />by lot development and that are reasonably compatible with <br />the surrounding area." <br />Page 16 <br />000065 <br />