1 intrusions into the conservation area that would be required by the construction of a public-right-of way <br />across the eastern riparian corridor. Staff argues that the proposed configuration does not qualify for a <br />waiver to lot frontage requirements pursuant to EC 9.8320(11)(k) because the proposed zero-frontage lots <br />are not consistent with the PUD purpose in providing flexibility to development standards to create a <br />sustainable environment and comprehensive site planning that will achieve development that is of equal or <br />greater quality than can be achieved by traditional lot by lot development. 1,i6ff s argument is based, in <br />part, on their conclusion that more than 33 percent of Lots 5 and 6 would b~-, occupied by the combined <br />area of the /WR setback and the portion of the Goal 5 Water Resource site that extends landward beyond <br />the setback. Staff argues that the flexibility contemplated by the code for this development would include <br />smaller lots located on the eastern portion of the site, -thus protecting the riparian corridor from <br />development altogether. <br />Turning to the other residential development standards, there are no structures proposed as part of this <br />PUD, but the applicant asserts there is sufficient room on most of the proposed lots to meet height and lot <br />coverage standards. This criterion is specific to applicable density and lot dimension standards which are <br />intended to ensure sufficient area is available to develop the lots in accordance with applicable standards, <br />however staff concedes compliance with lot dimension requirements does not guarantee the lots will be <br />buildable. Even if the 33% requirement could be met with alternative configurations, which is not clearly <br />the case, the buildable area of Lots 5 and 6 does not appear to accommodate the intended development and <br />accommodate access, driveways and parking areas, the proposed soakage trenches and yard areas available <br />for landscaping in keeping with the surrounding residential development. <br />l l <br />The hearings official concludes that there is some question as to the extent of developable building area on <br />lots 5 and 6, and the applicant has not demonstrated that it is feasible to develop in that area consistent <br />with applicable development standards. Because of this uncertainty, the hearings official concludes that it <br />is not appropriate to permit the adjustment to the standards for those two lots as they are presently <br />configured. However, if the applicant submits a revised plan that shows that development on the <br />westernmost portion of the site can occur consistent with /WR and stormwater development standards, the <br />hearings official concludes that an adjustment to the lot frontage standards is appropriate to minimize the <br />impact of development on the riparian corridor. The western portion of the site does not have access to an <br />existing street, and new access from off-site is unlikely to be provided because of the riparian corridor to <br />the north, and the parkland to the south. Therefore, the only possible access to development is through the <br />riparian corridor. Requiring the applicant to meet lot frontage standards will require the extension of a <br />public street through the riparian corridor. Public streets are wider, and most must accommodate an <br />emergency turn-around. Compliance with public street frontage standards will consequently significantly <br />alter both the quantity and quality of the riparian corridor. Private driveway access will be much less <br />intrusive, and will provide adequate access to the western lots consistent with the purposes of the <br />adjustment standards. The private street is authorized by EC 9.4930(3)(j), subject to the standards set out <br />in EC 9.4980(2) through (6) and (10). <br />In any event, future development on all lots would be subject to compliance with applicable height and lot <br />coverage requirements as well as applicable /WR development standards. Overall, as conditioned, the <br />hearings official concludes that these standards are or can be satisfied. <br />(b)EC 9.6500 through EC 9.6510 Public Improvement Standards. <br />The applicant's proposal includes variable width public drainage easements along the drainage ways <br />on the east and west side of Lots 5 and 6 and public utility easements (PUEs) along both sides of the <br />proposed public streets. Public Works staff confirms that no additional public easements are needed <br />Alder Woods PUD (PDT 07-5 & SDR 08-2) <br />Page 28 <br />Laurel Ridge Record (Z 15-5) Page 1156 <br />