Attachment D <br />If the PC determines that the HO erred, one option could be to require greater setbacks and/or <br />additional landscaping or screening along the north and west boundaries as conditions of approval. <br />Alternatively, the PC could make findings to explain how the approval criteria have not been met. <br />8. Eighth Assignment of Error: The Decision erred by finding the application met EC <br />9.8320(11)(a) "The PUD complies with EC 9.2000 through EC 9.3915 regarding lot dimensions <br />and density requirements for the subject zone." <br />A. Sub-assignment of Error B.A: the Hearings Official erred in his calculation of the net <br />density area pursuant to EC 9.2751... <br />B. Sub-assignment of Error B.B: the Hearings Official erred in his understanding of the <br />concept of "clustering" under EC 9.8300(1)(e). <br />Under sub-assignment 8.A, the appellant asserts that the HO erred in his calculation of the net density <br />by not excluding all easements. Contrary to the staff findings, the HO determined that the public <br />wastewater easement along the east property line did not need to be deducted to determine the net <br />acreage (HO Decision, pages 34 and 35). <br />Staff considered the public wastewater system to be a public facility, over which, development is not <br />allowed; accordingly, staff's recommendation was that the easement area should be excluded from the <br />net density calculation. Staff did not exclude the on-site hammerhead turnaround because it is only for <br />the development, not the general public traveling on Oakleigh Lane. It is less clear to staff whether the <br />easement requested by EWEB should be excluded from the calculation, because EWEB has not <br />identified the alignment or scope of this easement (whether it is specifically to serve this development <br />or if the water line to run through the site, within the easement, is a public facility benefiting <br />surrounding properties as well). <br />If the PC disagrees with the HO's analysis, the PC may want to consider modifying the decision to <br />require exclusion of certain areas for "other public facilities" as that phrase is used in EC 9.2751. In <br />doing so, the PC would need to consider how this would affect net density and if the proposed number <br />of dwelling units need to be reduced. Alternatively, the PC could make findings to explain how the <br />approval criteria have not been met, if additional areas are excluded such that the proposed <br />development does not meet the maximum allowable net density of 14 units per acre for the R-1 zone. <br />Under sub-assignment 8.13, the appellant asserts that the HO erred in his understanding of the concept <br />of clustering under EC 9.8300(1)(e). Staff notes that EC 9.8300 contains the PUD Purpose statements, <br />which must be addressed specific to any modifications to standards. The appellant notes that the <br />buildings and development have been pushed out to the edge of the property requiring modifications <br />to setbacks on three sides of the property; as such, the appellant asserts that this is not clustering, but <br />imposing negative impacts of the development onto the adjacent lands. Staff notes that EC 9.2000 <br />through EC 9.3915 (the scope of this assignment of error) is specific to lot dimensions and density <br />requirements for the subject zone, but not setbacks. <br />Summary of Appeal Issues Page 11 <br />