Planning Commission Staff Report (8-6-19)

Hearings Official's Decision: The Hearings Official found that the PUD was consistent with EC 9.6735 under EC 9.8320(10)(f) Public Access Required since all lots had either frontage on a public street (Capital Drive), or access to a public street via a private street (Cupola Drive) or easement. EC 9.6735 and EC 9.8320(10)(f) govern the ingress and egress for all proposed lots via lot frontage or private access easement. The Hearings Official noted that Lot 5 through 10 and 16 through 19 will have private access easements connecting to Cupola Drive or to Capital Drive. Summary of Appellant's Argument: The appellant's assert that the Hearings Official's error is an incorrect statement regarding the width of the easement providing access to Lots 5-10. The 11/27/17 Site Plan L 2.0 clearly indicates that the access easement for Lots 5-10 is 28 feet wide with a 20 foot wide paving surface. (This identical language, including failure to identify the width error, was found on Page 45 of the 2/28/18 Staff Report.) The access easements for Lots 16 & 17 and for Lots 18 & 19, are noted on the 11/27/17 Site Plan L2.0 to be 20 feet wide with 12 foot wide paving surfaces. These two access easements are narrower. Planning Commission's Determination: The Planning Commission affirms the Hearing Official's finding of compliance with EC 9.6735 under EC 9.8320(10)(f) Public Access Required on page 69 of the Hearings Official's decision, third paragraph, modified as follows: "Access to Lots 5-10 will be provided via a 28-foot-wide shared access easement and Lots 16-19 will be provided via 20-foot-wide shared access easements". Regardless of the overall width of the easement, the standard is met with the inclusion of a private easement that connects to a private street (Cupola Drive), which then connects to a public street (Capital Drive). Based on the available information in the record, the Planning Commission finds that the Hearings Official did not err with respect to this appeal issue. Appeal Issue #127: EC 9.8320(10)(k) All other applicable development standards for features explicitly included in the application except where the applicant has shown that a proposed noncompliance is consistent with the purposes set out in EC 9.8300 Purpose of Planned Unit Development. The Hearings Official erred on Page 76 of her Decision because under EC 9.8320(10)(k) she did not address the issue of the prohibition of individual lot fencing within the proposed PUD. The Applicant indicates, on Page 56 of the 8122117 Application, the code requirements for interior and front yard fencing height and setbacks. The Application then indicates "None ('i.e., no Final Order: Capital Hill PUD (PDT 17-1) Page 34