2.TheBasinSummaryforDischargeSite2doesnotincludethefuturepotential <br />contributionfromtheboundLots27thru32,whichhave40,000sq.ft.ofbuildable- <br />impervioussurfaceand13,000sq.ft.ofpervioussurface. <br />3.TheBasinSummaryforDischargeSite3doesincludethefuturepotentialcontribution <br />fromtheboundLots25and26,whichhave14,000sq.ft.ofbuildable-impervioussurface <br />and5,000sq.ft.ofpervioussurface. <br />Theapplicationfailstoaccuratelydescribethebasinsummaries,whichareused <br />throughouttheSWPlan,tocalculatestormwaterrunoffandsystemcapacities,thereby <br />renderingtheresultingproposedmeasureswithoutadequatecapacitytotreatthe <br />stormwaterasrequiredbyECcodereferencedherein,theCity’sPublicImprovement <br />StandardsandtheCity’sStormwaterManagementManual.TheSWPlandoesnotmeet <br />EC9.8320(10)(j)andshouldbedenied. <br />#### <br />Criteria(10).ThePUDcomplieswith…thefollowing: <br />(k)Allotherapplicabledevelopmentstandardsforfeaturesexplicitlyincludedinthe <br />applicationexceptwheretheapplicanthasshownthataproposednon-complianceis <br />consistentwiththepurposessetoutinEC9.8300PurposeofPlannedUnit <br />Development. <br />Applicationstates:“PropertyiszonedR-1.”Committeeconcurs. <br />MaximumBuildingHeight <br />MainBuilding30feet <br />Applicantstates: <br />“ProposedBuildingHeightNobuildingsareproposedasapartofthisPUD. <br />Buildingwillnotexceedmaximumheightallowedinthe <br />zone. <br />Tobeevaluatedattimeofbuildingpermitsubmittal.” <br />Onceagain,theCommitteepointsoutthatApplication’sstatementthat“nobuildingsare <br />proposedaspartofthisPUD”isblatantlyfalse.TheTentativeApplicationforaPlannedUnit <br />Development,bydefinition,indicatesthattherewillbe“developmentofunits.”Werethe <br />ultimategoalanythingbuttodevelopunits,therewouldbenoneedforthePUDApplication <br />beforeus.Moreover,incontradiction,theApplicationindicatesthatitisarequestforhousing. <br />SeePage12of67oftheApplication“Thisisaproposalforhousing.”(Emphasisadded.) <br />128 <br /> <br />