1. With regard to EC 9.8300(1)(a), some of the affected lots (i.e. Lot ,olnd <br />42) would have "shared use of services and facilities" with regard to the <br />private street and stormwater infrastructure provided by "West Morning <br />Drive." <br />2. With regard to "preservation of existing natural features..." udder the <br />needed housing approval criteria, the PUD is not afforded the same review of <br />natural resource protection; however, subject sub-standards lots are located <br />to avoid existing natural features, namely the open waterways and the areas <br />of 20% slope. <br />3. With regard to EC 9.8300(1)(e), "clustering of residential dwellings to achieve <br />energy and resource conservation while also achieving the planned density <br />for the site," the non-compliant lots are "clustered" to the extent the smaller <br />lot sizes enable future residential dwellings to be located closer together and <br />utilizing energy and resources more efficiently with regard to urban services <br />and utilities. With regard to density, the substandard lot areas are offset by <br />larger tracts of open space; the overall density is only one-unit per acre (47 <br />lots on 26 acres), which is well below the maximum density of five-units per <br />acre (required by the property's location being east of Friendly Street.) <br />4. With regard to EC 9.8300(2), the site plan is "at least equal in quality to those <br />that are achieved through the traditional lot by lot development" to the _ <br />extent the development consists of individual lots for the future residences. <br />This "lot by lot" development layout is "reasonably compatible with the <br />surrounding area." <br />However, the PC finds that the eastern portion of the development plan (as <br />represented by the Applicant's original 75-lot plan), does not contain the same <br />elements described above to warrant a modification to the lot standards. The <br />Applicant's plan for the eastern portion of the site identifies nine non-compliant lots: <br />Lots 50 through 54 have lot sizes that range between 4,254 and 4,294 square feet; <br />and Lots 63 through 68 have lot sizes that range between 3,301 and 4,468 square <br />feet. These lots are located between two streets, which appears to be the primary <br />constraint; whereas the compliant lots abutting the /WR resource associated with <br />the site's most easterly waterway, are larger- ranging between 7,098 and 10,000 <br />square feet. Therefore, the PC finds no sufficient basis to grant a modification to the <br />lot standards for the eastern portion of the site. It is noted that the PC's decision <br />otherwise requires the eastern portion of the site to be removed from the <br />development plan for other areas of non-compliance, namely with the provision of <br />key urban services and with the restriction from grading 20% slopes. However, the <br />lack of justification for a modification to lot standards on the eastern portion of the <br />site is a further basis for the PC's finding of non-compliance under EC 9.8325(7)(a), <br />and thus to require elimination of the proposed development on the eastern portion <br />of the site. <br />PC Decision: The PC reverses the HO's basis for denial under the approval criterion EC <br />9.8325(7)(a) and, instead, approves a modification to the lot standards only on the <br />western portion of the site as shown on the Applicant's illustrative 47-lot plans <br />Final order - Deerbrook PUD (PDT 12-1) December 17, 2012 Page 19 <br />22 <br />