Attachment D <br />and legally indefensible. <br />The Hearings Official is also persuaded that the proposed co-hous[ing] will be compatible <br />and harmonious for the following reasons: 1) the development will be at the end of the <br />street where comparatively fewer property owners along Oakleigh Lane will be affected <br />visually, 2) the scale of the buildings, as the applicant points out, are within the range of <br />typical single family homes. The applicant states that the common house is similar in size <br />to a large home and the other buildings are similar to smaller single family homes, 3) the <br />proposed density is less than the maximum and the proposed height is less than the <br />maximum height allowed, and 4) the proposed use is residential (as opposed to some <br />conditional use allowed in the zone). <br />As to arguments about traffic impacts, the Hearing Official adopts the findings for EC <br />9.8320(12) here by this reference. Evidence of a modest increase in total vehicle trips, <br />where there is no evidence of associated traffic problems, is sufficient to demonstrate that <br />the proposed PUD will be compatible with adjacent and nearby uses (HO Decision, Pages 54 <br />and 55). <br />As with related appeal issues discussed above, if the PC disagrees with the HO's analysis, the PC may <br />want to consider modifying the decision to require additional transportation amenities. The PC could <br />consider requiring compliance with the 10-foot front yard setback and/or the 5-foot interior yard <br />setbacks, and/or additional landscaping along all property lines. Alternatively, the PC could make <br />findings to explain how the approval criteria have not been met. <br />7. Seventh Assignment of Error: The Decision erred by finding the application met EC 9.8320(3) <br />"The PUD will provide adequate screening from surrounding properties including, but not <br />limited to anticipated locations, bulk, and height. <br />The appellant states that the HO appears to have only considered height, but not building bulk and <br />location. The appellant also asserts that the HO erred in relying on the cedar trees on adjacent lands to <br />the north as screening for the development because those trees are not within the development's <br />control. The appellant also notes that screening on the north property line will not be provided on the <br />development site because the required right-of-way dedication wipes out the area the applicant had <br />planned on using for landscaping and stormwater planters. For reference, the Hearings Official <br />addresses EC 9.8320(3) on pages 9-14 of his decision. <br />With regard to the west and south property lines, the appellant notes that, while the setbacks can be <br />modified by meeting the PUD Purpose statements, the above criterion requires the PUD to provide <br />adequate screening. The appellant questions how the development on the exterior property lines <br />meets this criterion, while keeping open space in the center. The appellant also claims that the HO's <br />conditions for additional screening on the east and south property lines are deferring a design <br />consideration that will be made without sufficient public input or opportunity to comment. With <br />regard to these conditions of approval, staff notes that the Final PUD process includes public notice <br />and comment, with appeal provisions. <br />Summary of Appeal Issues Page 10 <br />