over a private street or easement of record approved in accordance with provisions contained in <br />this land use code. <br />Appeal Issue #26: The Hearings Official erred on Page 69 of her Decision when she stated that <br />"Access to Lots 5-10 and 16-19 will be provided via 20 foot wide shared access easements. " <br />(Emphasis added.) <br />The Hearings Official's error is an incorrect statement regarding the width of the easement <br />providing access to Lots 5-10. The 11/27/17 Site Plan L 2.0 clearly indicates that the access <br />easement for Lots 5-10 is 28 feet wide with a 20 foot wide paving surface. (This identical <br />language, including failure to identify the width error, was found on Page 45 of the 2/28/18 Staff <br />Report.) The access easements for Lots 16 & 17 and for Lots 18 & 19, are noted on the 11/27/17 <br />Site Plan L2.0 to be 20 feet wide with 12 foot wide paving surfaces. These two access easements <br />are narrower. <br />The Hearings Official erred on Page 69 when she failed to recognize the proposed access <br />easement across Lot 16 to reach Lot 17 should be designed with a wider easement and paving <br />width, in the event that one or both of Lot 16 and Lot 17 are improved with single family <br />attached residences. As, mentioned above, the access easement serving Lots 6 through 10 is <br />shown as on site Plan L 2.0 as 28 feet wide with a 20 foot paving width. Presumably this larger <br />width is called out on the site plan because the easement is serving 6 units rather than the 2 units <br />to be served by the access easement for Lots 18 and 19 (which is narrower at 20 foot wide <br />easement and 12 foot wide paving). <br />If Lot 16 and Lot 17 are developed with 3 single family attached units each, the access easement <br />will serve 6 units, exactly the number to be served by. the wider access easement serving Lots 5 <br />through 10. None -of the access easements are flanked with sidewalks; however, they are slated <br />to provide two-way vehicular access as well as all pedestrian, bicycle and service truck access to <br />the units. A 12 foot wide paved access for 6 units is unsafe. The adequacy of the width of <br />access easements based,on the number of units to be served by such easement should have been <br />a condition of approval.' <br />The Hearings Official also erred on Page 69 when she stated on the same page (also in identical <br />language to that of the Staff Report on Page 45) that "As noted previously, one of the future <br />subdivision application requirements will include the review and approval of a joint access <br />easement and maintenance agreement that will be recorded concurrent with the final plat. " <br />Herein, the Hearings Official is relying on a future act to satisfy a current condition of approval. <br /> <br />EC 9.8320(10)(k) Re: Fences <br />The PUD will comply with ...all other applicable development standards for features explicitly <br />included in the application except where the applicant has shown that a proposed noncompliance <br />is consistent with the purposes set out in EC 9.8300 Purpose of Planned Unit Development. <br />28 <br />