Public Comment (8) - Laserfiche WebLink

The applicant's alternative site plan shows lots 9, 10, 11, 26, 32, a19 would not comply with applicable R-1 lot standards at EC 9.2760, with regard to the minimum lot size of 4,500 square feet. The applicant requests relief from the applicable minimum standards under EC 9.8325(11), for these lots because the purpose of the PUD provisions is to provide a high degree of flexibility in the design of the site, clustering, and potential environmental impacts. Applicants Testimony at 13 (Aug. 22, 2012). [See page 21 of HO Decision.] The six lots the HO references (9, 10, 11, 26, 32, and 42 on the Applicant's August 22, 2012 plan) have lot areas between 3,777 and 4,460 square feet, which are all below the 4,500 square feet required for R-1-zone lots. The applicant requests relief from the applicable minimum standards under EC 9.8325(11), for up to 50% of the proposed lots. Of the 47 lots proposed on the western portion of the site, the six non-compliant lots equate to only 12% of the proposed lots, well below the 50% allowed. Instead of evaluating the purpose statements at EC 9.8300, the HO stated that he "believes that the applicant has sufficient opportunity on site to comply in full with the dimensional standards." (See page 21 of HO Decision.) The PC agrees with the Applicant that this is not the test for modifying the applicable lot standards. The June 21, 2012 staff report responded to the Applicant's request, as follows: Staff generally agrees with the applicant that PUD process can provide an opportunity for flexibility under applicable standards, subject to a demonstration of compliance with the PUD purposes at EC 9.8300, and that such flexibility is desirable on a site such as this to allow for example, clustering of dwelling units. Under EC 9.8325(11), the applicant relies on one of the PUD purposes set out at EC 9.8300(1)(e), by stating: "Clustering means having lots with smaller dimensions. Clustering conserves energy and resources. For this reason alone the requested relief meets the code standard." While staff views this as a minimal showing under the applicable criteria for granting flexibility, and the applicant's analysis of applicable lot standards remains incomplete as noted above, the request to allow flexibility for only up to 50% of the lots does provide some quantifiable measure that can be verified at a later stage. Staff would also note that the term "clustering" is not defined in code, and the applicant does not offer any clear basis for their interpretation of the term in this case, beyond the statement quoted above. The PC finds that the western portion of the development plan (as represented by the Applicant's illustrative 47-lot plan) meets the applicable approval criteria for granting a modification to the lot standards for the following reasons: Final Order - Deerbrook PUD (PDT 12-1) December 17, 2012 Page 18 21