05 Public Record Pages 824-1020 - Laserfiche WebLink

PDF Page 39 and fill requirements and single family homesites were reduced to increase clustering and provide more open space. . The Third Plan (July 2012) showed the same unit count and breakout as above, but it has 44.5% in open space. This was discussed with staff in August and September of 2012. The third plan differed from the second plan in that, in response to city comments, street connectivity was increased at public works request, multi-family driveway connectivity was increased at the fire marshal's request and single-family lot sizes were increased at the suggestion of planning staff (in the opinion that larger lot sites would allow for greater tree preservation). The Fourth Plan (September 2012) showed all multi-family development- 608 units, clustered at the west end of the site. This plan was generated and reviewed with staff during one of the staff/applicant completeness review meetings following submittal of the Third Plan. It was in response to a `what if comment regarding maximizing clustering and open space. This plan was never formally submitted as a proposal from the applicant. The Fifth Plan (January 2013) showed 608 units, including 538 multi-family and 70 single-family, with 58.5% open space. It was presented at the applicant's second neighborhood meeting. It differs from the Third Plan in a number of ways, primarily including fewer streets to lessen cut and fill impacts, fewer east-west streets, no need for more than one street connection to the south, no need to dedicate right-of-way clear to the south or east property lines, additional connections to and through the multi-family clusters, and fewer and larger single-family lots to maximize tree preservation and increase open space. The Sixth Plan (June 2013), now before the Hearing Official, shows 608 units, including 533 multi-family and 75 large lot single family, with 63.2% open spaceAt differs from the Fifth Plan in response to neighborhood concerns regarding proximity of multi-family units to existing residential developments. Two multi-family clusters were removed - the northernmost cluster adjacent to Hendrick's Hill PUD and the westernmost cluster adjacent to the City's Ribbon Trail Park near residential development to the west. The Four applications were submitted concurrently at staff's request. Ostensibly this path would give staff greater clarity and surety about what was being proposed in order to better evaluate the Zone Change request which would have been the first application submitted if they were not submitted concurrently. The Applicant,'in its Monday morning quarterbacking, believes that bundling the applications at staffs request was a mistake. The staff took a legally incorrect position on the plan designation, which spoiled their taste for the zone change, likely dampened their interest in the site plan, and resulted in an overly harsh review. Compared to other PUDs, staff has not taken the time to get familiar with the record, and has not even drafted conditions of approval in the event the HO wants to approve this project. This situation may have led to the HO's comment at the hearing that he is missing a positive Staff Report if he LaureiRidge Applicant Final Argument - Page 5 88 Laurel Ridge Record (Z 15-5) Page 843