05 Public Record Pages 824-1020 - Laserfiche WebLink

PDF Page 93 to explicitly request relief for some item. As an example of the latter, we recommend the HO PUD in The Jewell on Bailey Hill, PDT 08-1 (Oct. 24, 2008) at 29-31, Prehearing Exhibit 3-1.4. The Staff Report organizes the noncompliance requests into three categories, addressed below. Multi-Family Design Standards, EC 9.5500: The Staff Report looks at the design of the Multi- Family units, for which noncompliance is not requested, and says there is not enough detail to show compliance with the standards with respect to upper story building entrances, percentage of street facade in windows, and building articulation. The Applicant may have made a mistake in providing enough detail for these buildings that it invites the Staff to pick at it. The Applicant will comply with these three sets of design standards. No relief is requested. These details are way down the road, at the end of the marathon. Here, with the tentative PUD application, the race is just starting. Standards with "Proposed Noncompliance": The Staff Report lists these on page 51, to include: EC 9.2750 Building Height (35 versus 30 foot building height); EC 9.5500 Multi-Family Standards for Street Frontage, maximum Building Dimension, Block Requirement, Setback Sidewalks; and EC 9.6420(3)(c) and (d) (Parking Area Driveway and Perimeter Landscaping). The Applicant has adequately shown these requests for relief are consistent with the PUD Purposes. A summary of the Applicant's showing on these items is provided below. Standards Not Met/No "Proposed Non-Compliance": The staff report states on multiple occasions that the application does not appear to include a request for flexibility. These items, from the Staff Report at page 52, are: Standards Not Met/No "Proposed Non-Compliance" EC 9.2760 Residential Zone Lot Standards - Lot Frontage EC 9.5500 Multi-Family Standards (12)(b) Maximum of 3 Parking Courts connected (12)(c) Parking along no more than 50% of private street frontage The Applicant documents numerous requests for non-compliance throughout the narrative as well as through non-compliance depicted on the face of the drawing set. The operative word in the purpose statement is show. Whether the applicant textually requested non-compliance in narrative, or requested flexibility by showing non-compliance within the drawing set, the objective is met. The Applicant addresses the Purpose Statement of the PUD in the Applicant's Narrative dated June 24, 2013 at pages 19 -21, There are instances where the applicant's text states that the project is in compliance with the standard. Following that is a statement regarding non-compliance following each standard. This is a complex, lengthy and challenging set of documents. It is possible this was an oversight by the applicant when crafting the written statement, and recrafting it two more times as the Applicant chased a blessing from Staff through six successive Site Plans. In these cases no non- compliance is needed. This isn't a difficult conclusion to reach and many of these standards will LaurelRidge Applicant Final Argument - Page S9 142 Laurel Ridge Record (Z 15-5) Page 897