PDF Page 94 <br />be reviewed again at time of building permit submittal. The Hearing Official should do here <br />what the HO has done in other PUDs approved. Look at the narrative and the plans as a whole, <br />see what flexibility is needed, see that it isjustified under the "Purposes," and approve it. <br />A summary of the "Proposed Non-Compliance" issues follows: <br />EC 9.2750 Maximum Building Height -30 feet required - 35 feet proposed <br />EC 9.5500 Multi-Family Standards ' <br />(4)(b) Street Frontage - 60 percent of frontage occupied by building <br />(6)(a) Maximum Building Dimension -Maximum of 100 feet <br />(10) Block Requirement-4 acres maximum <br />(11)(d) Site access regarding requirement for setback sidewalks <br />EC 9.6420(3)(c),(d) Parking area driveway and perimeter landscaping. <br />This is a complex, lengthy and challenging set of documents. It is possible that requesting non- <br />compliance where none was needed or not requesting non-compliance where it was needed <br />was an oversight by the applicant when crafting the written statement. There were 6 different <br />Site Plan designs created and 3 iterations of the written statement submitted to the city. It <br />would not be unreasonable to expect that revisions were made to the site plan that weren't <br />carried over to the Narrative. <br />In the Hearing Official decision on The Jewel (PDT 08-1) at Page 31 there is an extensive <br />discussion of how minor oversights in Tentative PUD phases can be resolved through <br />conditioning of the project or deferring these issues until building permit phase. It has been <br />done before, it can be done again. <br />The Applicant's discussion of the Purpose of the PUD as well as the accompanying drawings <br />demonstrates the need for the flexibility provided by this application. These standards are met. <br />9.8320(12): The proposed development shall have minimal off-site impacts, <br />including such impacts as traffic, noise, stormwater runoff and environmental <br />quality. <br />The Staff Report, at pages 41-42, finds noncompliance with this standard, with that finding <br />being derivative of Staff's faulting the application on issues of the TIA, the stormwater analysis, <br />and geotechnical. If, as the Applicant requests,' the HO finds thatthe approval, as conditioned, <br />will comply with the standards in these three areas, then the basis for the staff's finding of <br />noncompliance with this standard should be gone. <br />In terms of noise, the Staff Report concurs there are no noise issues. <br />9.832 13 : The proposed development shall be reasonably compatible and <br />Laurel Ridge Applicant Final Argument - Page 60 <br />143 <br />Laurel Ridge Record (Z 15-5) <br />Page 898 <br />