A 14-foot driveway is insufficient for safe two-way passage of larger vehicles. The term <br />“variable width” fails to establish a measurable or enforceable standard. Delegating <br />infrastructure maintenance to private homeowners without city oversight creates long-term <br />safety and durability risks inconsistent with sound PUD planning. <br />Because these provisions introduce material changes affecting access and infrastructure <br />responsibility, the Final PUD does not demonstrate conformity with EC 9.8365. <br />II. WR Overlay and Goal 5 Non-Compliance <br />The property contains a Category B wetland (AMA 5B / Wetland 2B) and Category C stream <br />(E35A / Videra Creek), and the City previously determined the entire property is Goal 5. <br />A. Wetland Setback – EC 9.4920(2)(b) <br />Category B wetlands require a 25-foot setback from the jurisdictional boundary. <br />The application materials indicate areas where the mapped wetland extends beyond the <br />conservation setback depicted on the site plan. Compliance with the required 25-foot buffer <br />has not been clearly demonstrated. <br />Without an accurate and updated conservation setback, the standard is not met. <br />B. Combined Conservation Area – EC 9.4920(3) <br />Where wetland and stream occur together, the WR conservation area must reflect the <br />combined footprint of required setbacks. <br />The application does not properly calculate or map the total combined conservation area for <br />the wetland and stream. Without a mapped and quantified /WR footprint, compliance cannot <br />be verified. <br />C. Natural Resource Identification Deficiencies <br />Under the WR overlay and Goal 5 requirements, the application must adequately: <br />Identify wetlands within 50 feet of property lines <br />Identify trees by species and dimension <br />Map critical root zones for trees within conservation areas <br />The site plan shows numerous mature native oaks in proximity to proposed infrastructure, <br />including the Randy Lane extension. The application does not adequately demonstrate how <br />these trees and their root zones will be protected. <br />Failure to properly identify and protect Goal 5 resources is grounds for denial.