LUBA 076/077 VOL 2 of 2 - Laserfiche WebLink

Attachment 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 .16 17 18 19 20 21 22 9.8320(11)(k)(2009). In .its application, Meadows proposed noncompliance with the setback standards for the north, south, and west property lines and argued that the proposed noncompliance was consistent with EC 9.8300(1)(e), which specifically provides that the Planned Development provisions are intended to provide flexibility in designing the PUP and are intended to, in relevant part "create a sustainable environment that includes * * * clustering of residential dwellings to achieve energy and resource conservation while also achieving. planned density for a site." See n 5. Along the north property line, for Building 1, rather than the 10 foot front yard setback that would apply, Meadows proposed setbacks that varied from 6" to 8 feet after 22.5 feet of the property is dedicated as right of way for future improvement and widening of Oakleigh Lane for 50 feet along the northern property boundary, and 13 feet of the property for a length of 117 feet is dedicated as a future hammerhead turnaround and sidewalk to enable development of the property to the north of the subject property. For Building 2, Meadows proposed a setback of 12 feet from the property line, which would place the northwest corner of Building 2 within the setback after 13 feet is dedicated for right of way purposes for the future hammerhead turnaround. On appeal of the hearings officer's decision, the planning commission imposed a condition of approval that requires a building setback of 5 feet (less than the 10 foot minimum setback) from the newly dedicated right of way boundary for Oakleigh Lane for a distance of .199 feet, • quality to those that are achieved through the traditional lot by lot development and that are reasonably compatible with the surrounding area." Page 16 • PC Agenda - Page 122 .606