standards are not satisfied or there is no finding of feasibility. The staff report explains that these <br />standards are satisfied or can be satisfied through the proposed conditions of approval. I agree with <br />the staff report and I find that it is feasible to comply with the articulation requirements of EC <br />9.5500(7) with the proposed condition of approval. As discussed later, there is a long list of <br />building articulation features involved in the proposal. <br /> All of the site review approval criteria are satisfied. <br />D.Adjustment Review <br />The applicant applied for a number of adjustments to the site review approval criteria. The <br />11 <br />staff report explains that all of the requested adjustments satisfy the applicable approval criteria. <br />The staff report explains how the adjustment review approval criteria are satisfied. There are <br />numerous approval criteria, and opponents do not challenge most of the findings in the staff report. <br />Therefore, I adopt and incorporate the findings in the staff report in this decision, except as <br />12 <br />discussed further. <br />After the staff report had been issued, staff determined that the applicant needed to either <br />amend the site plan or seek an adjustment to the Nodal Development Overlay setback <br />requirements. In its July 16, 2018 memorandum, the applicant addressed this issue by requesting <br />an adjustment to EC 9.4290(2). The applicant provided a thorough analysis explaining why an <br />adjustment is warranted. Opponents have not challenged the applicant’s request for this <br />adjustment. I have reviewed the applicant’s findings and conclusions regarding an adjustment to <br />EC 9.4290(2), and I agree with those findings and conclusions. Therefore, I adopt and incorporate <br />those findings and conclusion in this decision. Applicant’s July 16, 2018 Memorandum 1-5. <br />Opponents argue that the applicant’s proposed adjustment for EC 9.5500(6) is not satisfied. <br />EC 9.5500(6) provides: <br />“Building Mass and Facade. <br />“(a) Maximum Building Dimension. Neither the maximum length nor width <br />of any building within 40 feet of a front lot line can exceed 100 feet in the <br />R-1 and R-2 zones and 150 feet in all other zones. <br />11 <br />As discussed later, staff indicated that one additional adjustment would be required for Nodal Development setback <br />requirements. That adjustment is addressed later. <br />12 <br />This includes the clarifications to the staff report as explained in staff’s July 9, 2018 Memorandum. <br />Hearings Official Decision (WG 18-3/SR 18-3/ARA 18-8) 18 <br /> <br />