7-28-15 Trautman Public Comment (07)

ER-17 1 and a 10 foot building setback along the remainder of the right of way 2 boundary for the newly dedicated right of way for a bike/pedestrian path for a 3 distance of 24 feet. Record 12. 4 For the west and south property lines, rather than the 5 foot setback that 5 would apply to the concrete walls, garages, carports along the western 6 boundary line and Building 6 along the south property line, Meadows proposed 7 noncompliance with a zero setback. However, during the proceedings before 8 the hearings officer, Meadows agreed to shift the concrete wall and buildings 9 along the western and southern property line 5 feet to the east and north, 10 respectively, to satisfy the applicable setbacks. 11 To summarize, when the dust sealed on the planning, commission's 12 decision, all buildings and the concrete wall met. the required minimum 13 setbacks from the future post-dedication property lines, except that the 14 planning commission included a condition of approval that allows a 5-foot 15 setback from Oakleigh Lane for Buildings 1 and 2, and allows Building 6 to 16 have a zero setback if a maintenance access easement is obtained from the 17 adjacent property owner to the south. We understand the planning commission 18 to have concluded, under EC 9.8320(11)(k)(2009), that the proposed 19 noncompliance of a 5-foot setback for Buildings 1 and 2 and a zero setback for 20 Building 6 is consistent with the purpose of the Planned Development 21 Standards at EC 9.8300(1)(e). 22 In their second assignment of error, we understand Neighbors to argue 23 that the buildings on the north property line and the south property line do not 24 meet the required setbacks and that the city's findings are inadequate to explain 25 why the city concluded that the proposed PUD meets the required setbacks. 26 Neighbors also challenge the city's reliance on the PUD's proposal for Page 17 000066