P®F Page 87 <br />9.8320(10): Lots proposed for development with one family detached dwellings shall <br />comply with EC 9,2790 Solar Lot Standards or as modified according to subsection <br />(11) below, <br />9.2790 Solar Lot Standards. <br />The Staff Report, at page 36, explains that the application complies with this standard. <br />9.8320(11): The PUD complies with all of the following: <br />(a) EC 9.2000 through 9.3915 regarding lot dimensions and density requirements for <br />the subject zone. <br />The Staff Report, at page 47, explains that the proposal meets the density and dimension <br />requirements, with a few exceptions, as explained below. <br />Oversized single family lots: Staff appears to support the single family lots exceeding the <br />13,500 sq. ft. maximum, due to the conditions on the site, as provided for in-EC 9.2761(5)(a)_ <br />However, the Staff requests a covenant against further division of the lots- This objective can <br />be accomplished with the following condition: <br />O All single-family lots will be precluded from future land division. <br />Three double frontage lots: For the reasons stated in the Application Narrative at page 57, the <br />applicant has shown three double frontage lots (Lots 20-22), contrary to the single frontage <br />requirement in EC 9,2761(7). Double frontage is allowed when there is no feasible alternative. <br />The Staff Report does not object to this request. The risks associated with the double frontage <br />lots can be avoided with the following condition: <br />Prior to Final POD approval the double frontage lots will indicate a 1 foot reserve strip <br />on one of the two frontages so as to eliminate the ability to access the lots from 2 sides. <br />Lots with no street frontage: Staff notes that 12 lots will have no frontage on a public or <br />private street, hence do not meet the 50-foot frontage requirement so Table EC9.2760. The <br />staff asserts these variations were not explicitly requested and are notjustified. In a PUD, lots <br />with no frontage are allowed if there is an access easement. The following condition should be <br />applied: <br />Prior to Final PUD approval the applicant will note on the plans that Lots 15-17, 25-27, <br />40-42 and 58-60 do not meet frontage minimums. A note will be added to the plans <br />indicating the location and dimensions of a joint access and maintenance easement <br />servicing these lots. <br />LaurelRidge Applicant Final Argument- Page 53 . <br />136 <br />Laurel Ridge Record (Z 15-5) Page 891 <br />