PDF Page 97 <br />EC 9.4980 /WR Water Resources Conservation Overlay Zone Development <br />Standards (2) through (6) and(1D). <br />The applicant is requesting standards review for impact areas 4 and 6 to allow <br />private crossings to access the apartments and townhomes in the middle portion <br />of the site. The applicant has stated that due to topography, crossing the stream <br />is the only access to the townhomes and apartments on the northwest portion <br />of the site. <br />The Staff Report recommends denial of the Standards Review application because the PUD uses <br />to be served have not been justified. In this sense, once again, the recommended denial is <br />derivative of the recommended denial of the Tentative PUD. The Staff Report says, again at SS; <br />However, the location, size and intensity of the multi-family development <br />does not comply with SHS policies, natural resource standards and other PUD <br />criteria. Without resolution to those fundamental issues, the applicant cannot <br />demonstrate that these crossings are the minimum necessary for an "approved <br />use," As such, the applicant has not provided adequate justification to support a <br />positive finding under this standard. If the Hearings Official approves the <br />concurrent PUD and TIA applications and finds that the number of private <br />crossings is the minimum necessary for an approved use, the applicant's findings <br />on pages 22-33 of the Standards Review written statement could be relied on for <br />further information. <br />The Staff'Repbrt is correct in observing that the Standards Review approvals that are needed <br />are derivative of the site plan being considered. In a site such as this, which spans several <br />drainages protected with Conservation Areas, approval of improvements in the Conservation <br />Area is going to be needed. The code spells out in objective terms the.rules for making the <br />improvements. The larger question is whether the uses need to be made at all? That takes the <br />question back to whether the Site Plan as a whole is adequate to be approved. <br />The Tentative PUD can be approved, as discussed above. Based on that approval, the . <br />requested uses under Standards Review, as listed in the Staff Report quoted above, should also <br />be approved. The site plan has been amended (many times) to trim down the number of items <br />needed Standards Review. <br />LaurelRidge Applicant Final Argument - Page 63 <br />146 <br />Laurel Ridge Record (Z 15-5) Page 901 <br />