these areas are open to the public and not for the exclusive use of the residents. Lastly, the <br />Appellants argue that the "Greenway area" designated as open space is also open and not <br />exclusive to the residents. <br />Planning Commission's Determination <br />The Planning Commission finds that the Hearings Official did not err in determining that the <br />application properly applies the net density calculation and that EC 9.2751 is satisfied. <br />In regards to "parking drives," the Planning Commission agrees with the Hearings Official's <br />findings. The Applicant's proposal includes two through-motor vehicle parking drives. The <br />Applicant requests an adjustment to the parking drives standard, which is allowed, subject to <br />review under the criteria listed at EC 9.8030(8)(e). Even though the Applicant requests an <br />adjustment to parking drive standards, the adjustment does not change the features' <br />designation from "parking drives" to "streets." Therefore, the Planning Commission finds that <br />none of the area identified as parking or parking drives must be excluded from the net density <br />calculation. <br />In regards to the leasing office, maintenance building, and required open space, the Planning <br />Commission notes that EC 9.2751(1)(c) provides the applicable instrument for calculating <br />density and excludes any reference to resident-only exclusivity. The leasing office and <br />maintenance building are accessory to the residential use, specifically serving current and <br />future residents as well as employees carrying out functions directly related to maintenance <br />and operations of the residential use. In no way do either structures constitute a public park or <br />public facilities for the purpose of calculating density. <br />The Planning Commission confirms the Applicant's residential density calculations and agrees <br />with the Hearings Official that the standards at EC 9.2751 are met. <br />Appeal Issue #6: The Hearings Official misconstrued applicable law and made findings not based <br />on substantial evidence with regard to EC 9.8445(4)(f)(2), EC 7.420(3)(i), and EC 9.6780. <br />Hearings Official's Decision <br />The Hearings Official comes to the conclusion that the intersections in question are not part of, <br />nor adjacent to, the subject property. On page 16 of the decision document, he finds that the <br />Applicant will provide adequate vision clearance for the access points at River Road and <br />Lombard Street, and also concludes that the development does not propose any new <br />intersections. Thus, the Hearings Official finds no basis by which to deny the application based <br />on opponents' vision clearance arguments. <br />Summary of Appellants' Argument <br />Appellants argue, on page 4 of the appeal statement, that the proposal does not provide <br />"triangular visual clearance on the corners of Lombard and Fir Lane." <br />Planning Commission's Determination <br />The Planning Commission finds that the Hearings Official did not err in determining that <br />Final Order: Lombard Apartments (WG 18-3 / SR 18-3 / ARA 18-8) Page 9 <br />