Attachment5 <br />• <br />C <br />0 <br />1 and a 10 foot building setback along the remainder of the right of way <br />2 boundary for.the newly dedicated right of way for a bike/pedestrianpath for a <br />3 distance of 24 feet. Record 12. <br />4 For the west and south property lines, rather than the 5 foot setback that <br />5 would apply to the concrete walls, garages, carports along the western <br />6 boundary line and Building 6 along the south property line, Meadows proposed <br />7 noncompliance with a zero setback. However, during the proceedings before <br />8 the hearings officer, Meadows agreed to shift the concrete wall and buildings <br />9 along the western and southern property line 5 feet to the east and north, <br />10 respectively, to satisfy the applicable setbacks. <br />11 <br />To <br />summarize, when the dust settled on the planning commission's <br />12 <br />decision, <br />all buildings and the concrete <br />wall met the required minimum <br />13 <br />setbacks <br />from the future post-dedication <br />property lines, except that the <br />14 <br />planning <br />commission included a condition <br />of approval that allows a 5-foot <br />15 <br />setback from Oakleigh Lane for Buildings <br />1 and 2, and allows Building 6 to <br />16 <br />have a zero setback if a maintenance access easement is obtained from the <br />17 adjacent property owner to the south. We understand the planning commission <br />18 to have concluded, under EC 9.8320(11)(k)(2009), that the proposed <br />19 noncompliance of a 5-foot setback for Buildings 1 and 2 and a zero setback for <br />20 Building 6 is consistent with the purpose of the Planned Development <br />21 Standards at EC 9.8300(1)(e). <br />22 - In their second assignment of error, _we understand Neighbors to argue <br />23 that the buildings on the north property line and the south property line do not <br />24 meet the required setbacks and that the city's findings are inadequate to explain <br />25 why the city concluded that the proposed PUD meets the required setbacks. <br />26 Neighbors also challenge the city's reliance on the PUD's proposal for <br />Page 17 - <br />PC Agenda - Page 123 <br />607 <br />