At bottom, the parties dispute whether Policy E.2, coupled with the flexibility provided by the PUD <br />and /WR standards require the applicant to avoid the /WR area if at all possible. The purpose <br />statements set out in EC 9.8300 state that the flexibility provided by the PUD standards are intended, <br />in part to preserve and enhance natural resources. According to staff, the flexibility provided by the <br />standards are, in effect, a two-way street. They provide relief from strict design and density standards, <br />but only if the PUD overall preserves and enhances the resource more effectively than a standard <br />design. <br />The applicant disagrees that the proposal will not better preserve the riparian resource, arguing that <br />default subdivision standards require the construction of a public street across the waterway, which <br />would have a far greater impact on the resource than the private driveway proposed under the PUD. <br />Further, the applicant argues that the city clearly intended the site to be developed with R-1 uses, <br />asserting the city's residential lands inventory is based in part on the use of lands that are limited by <br />resource protections for some residential development. The applicant argues that its proposal <br />recognizes and balances the resource values by providing a conservation area, by visibly delineating <br />conservation setbacks on residential lots with a keystone wall, and by proposing a private driveway <br />crossing over the waterway, which will be less intrusive than a public streeti_. City staff, in contrast, <br />argue that Policy E.2 requires greater protection if the applicant can otherwise develop the site in <br />accordance with R-1 standards. Staff argues that the applicant can re-design the site to push residential <br />development to the eastern portion of the site, thereby protecting the resource to the maximum extent <br />possible. <br />It is true that the PUD purpose standards explain the reasons the city adopted an alternative to the standard <br />subdivision plan. However, it is also true that the purpose statement is not to be used as approval <br />standards for the PUD itself. Therefore, EC `9.8300, standing alone, does not provide a basis for denying <br />the application, or requiring modifications to ensure the purposes are served. Because EC 9.8320(1) <br />requires that the proposal be consistent with the Metro Plan policies, policies like Policy E.2 (which are <br />very similar to one of the purposes of the PUD provisions) provide a basis -For denial or modification for <br />sites with limited or no resource protections if another design both satisfies the PUD criteria and protects a <br />resource. However, here the /WR overlay and stormwater drainage standards implement the PUD purpose <br />statement and Policy E.2 because both limit whether and how a use 1s introduced into the water resources <br />conservation area. Hence, for the most part, if the applicant demonstrates that the proposal satisfies those <br />criteria, Policy E.2 is satisfied as well.5 As further addressed below, the hearings official concludes that the <br />/WR criteria can be satisfied only if the proposal does not include development west of the eastern arm of <br />the riparian corridor. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with Policy E.2 so long the proposal is limited to <br />development east of the eastern arm of the riparian corridor. <br />Turning to Policy EA, the hearings official interprets "public and private facilities" to mean the utilities <br />and accessways needed to serve individual lots. The hearings official interprets this policy to require that <br />"desireable features of local and neighborhood areas" that "promote [a] sense of identity" be preserved and <br />protected. Here, the riparian corridor'as a whole is a desirable local feature. For the most part, the <br />applicant's proposal preserves and enhances that feature by retaining the riparian corridor within a <br />conservation area, and by minimizing stream crossings. To the extent the applicant can also demonstrate <br />that the proposed stream crossing will be able to satisfy stormwater design standards, the proposal will <br />also "preserve" a natural feature forms part of the local drainage network. Therefore, the proposal is <br />generally consistent with Policy EA. <br />5 This is not to say that compliance with development standards will ensure compliance with Policy E.2 in all cases <br />However, here, it is fairly clear that the resources that are intended for protection under Policy E 2 are amply protected by <br />the /WR, stormwater and SDR criteria. <br />Alder Woods PUD (PDT 07-5 & SDR 08-2) Page 6 <br />Laurel Ridge Record (Z 15-5) Page 1134 <br />