For ease of reference, the issue is summarized on page 2 of Trautman's Appeal <br />Testimony as follows: <br />"Approximately 6 feet of the paving on the 250-foot segment of Oakleigh Lane <br />immediately to the west of the subject property lies outside the 20-foot public right-of- <br />way and on private property. The Public Works Report, on which the Hearings Official <br />relied, assumed a 19-foot wide, unobstructed pavement as the basis for the report's <br />conclusion that Oakleigh Lane's existing pavement was adequate and safe. <br />"The Hearings Official's findings did not explain how the decision would ensure that the <br />entire 19-foot pavement width would remain available for public use and that cars <br />wouldn't be legally parked on the pavement on private property and thus obstruct the <br />pavement. Accordingly, all conclusions regarding the safety and adequacy of Oakleigh <br />Lane that are based on a '19-foot pavement width' are not valid and cannot be relied <br />upon." <br />The Planning Commission must determine whether this particular issue was raised in the <br />original appeal statement. EC 9.7655(3) requires that an appeal must be limited to the issues set <br />out in the "filed statement of issues." It also requires that the appeal statement explain <br />specifically how the hearings official failed to properly evaluate the application or make a <br />decision consistent with applicable criteria. In short, the code requires a local appellant to <br />identify the specific grounds that form the basis for the appeal. Accordingly, a local appellant <br />may not thereafter raise different grounds for appeal that were not identified in the appeal <br />statement. <br />In this case, the appellant raised numerous issues related generally to the safety of <br />Oakleigh Lane and that the proposed PUD did not comply with certain approval criteria <br />addressing transportation. See First through Fourth Assignments of Error in Appeal Statement, <br />PC Agenda - Pages 8-18. However, the appeal statement does not include the alleged error that <br />Mr. Trautman now asserts; i.e., that Oakleigh Lane is not safe because a portion of the paved <br />roadway falls outside the right-of-way and therefore cannot be considered when determining the <br />safety of Oakleigh Lane. The planning commission should therefore not consider that new issue. <br />However, even if the commission chooses to consider that issue, it is doubtful that it <br />could provide a basis to overturn the underlying decision or to revisit the commission's previous <br />findings regarding the safety of Oakleigh Lane. First, Mr. Trautman's assertion that 6 feet of <br />pavement lies outside the right of way is based on a rough outline of lot lines superimposed on <br />an aerial photo. Even though a version of that aerial photo was submitted in the prior <br />proceedings, it does not contain the level of accuracy required to determine the amount of <br />property, if any, that lies outside the right-of-way. Second, any of the paved portion of Oakleigh <br />Lane that lies outside the right of way that has existed for 10 years or more will be considered to <br />have been acquired by the City as a prescriptive easement. <br />ACD:abm <br />Attachments <br />PC Agenda - Page 8 <br />