Attachment 5 <br />1 clustering the residential -development on the property to justify "proposed <br />2 noncompliance" with setback requirements as allowed under EC 9.8320(11)(k).. <br />3 _ With regard to the north property line setbacks, petitioners argue: <br />4 "[T]he proposed conditions and modifications appear to permit the <br />5 developer to build a condo without any setback at all once right of <br />6 way is designated and/or is in conflict with other conditions <br />7 imposed. A condo directly ,adjacent to a ROW does not satisfy the <br />8 code requirements and the fmdings do not address the grave <br />9 detrimental impacts to adjacent land owners, nor, does it address <br />10 the incompatibility with proposed bike/ped path to city park land, <br />11 and are in conflict with the public interest mandating 10 foot <br />12 setbacks * * Neighbors' Petition for Review 19-20. <br />13 With regard to the South property line setbacks, petitioners argue: <br />14 "The record does not contain substantial evidence and the findings <br />15 are inadequate to demonstrate that . the South property line <br />16 development complies with the required setback standards. <br />17 Buildings 5 and 6 are within inches from the south property line at <br />18 worst, and within 7' at best and thus fail to comply with the 10'. <br />19 setback standards as well as.the screening requirements. The fact <br />20 that one of the developers'* * * currently owns the adjacent south <br />21 property does not negate the setback requirements because of <br />22 course property ownership can change..in the future. * <br />23 Neighbors' Petition for Review 21-22. <br />24 Neighbors' arguments reflect a couple of points of misunderstanding of the <br />25 planning commission's- decision. First, the planning commission's decision <br />26 requires compliance with all setbacks except that it conditionally allows <br />27 proposed noncompliance with setbacks for Buildings 1 and 2, which have a 5 <br />28 -foot setback, and Building 6, which can be built with a zero setback only if an <br />29 easement is obtained. Second, EC 9.8320(11)(k) and EC 9.8300 specifically <br />30 allow proposed noncompliance with an otherwise applicable setback if the <br />31 PUD meets the purpose of the planned development standards, one of which. is <br />32 to promote clustering .of residential development while achieving the required <br />Page 18 <br />C, <br />C7 <br />r 1 <br />~J <br />PC Agenda - Page 124 <br />608 <br />