Public Comment (8) - Laserfiche WebLink

original application"; APP-4 2) The HBA comments did not "raise any issues of substance concerning the Applications' compliance with the requisite code criteria"; 3) The HBA should have submitted its own appeal form and fee and should not be allowed to join the Applicant's appeal; and 4) It appears the HBA did not sign the appeal statement or appeal form. On October 9, 2012: . The Applicant/HBA submitted a response, first noting that SEN's request is pointless since, if it was approved, nothing would change; it would merely result in striking some.references to the HBA from the appeal documents (the appeal would otherwise remain as it is filed and the HBA would simply testify as a participant in the hearing before the PC). In response to SEN's issues, the Applicant/NBA assert that: 1) The February 23, 2012 HBA letter was dated after the neighborhood meeting where the development plan (later submitted with the application) was presented to the neighborhood, so the comments were "in regard to the original application"; and 2) The code does not require that an appellant's comments be substantive as to the applications' consistency with specific criteria; 3) The code does not prohibit multiple persons from filing a joint appeal; and 4) The HBA did sign the appeal form and was not required to sign the appeal statement (like SEN's appeal statement, the Applicant/RBA's appeal statement was signed only by the attorney). On October 11, 2012: The SEN submitted a reply to NBA's response, stating that: 1) "The Code does not allow for HBA to circumvent this process by 'pre-commenting' on a developers proposed plans before those plans have actually been transcribed onto a formal application and officially filed with the City"; and 2) The HBA's comments to the HO did not include any of the issues now raised in the appeal and HBA should be limited to raising issues that it raised to the HO. Specifically, HBA did not raise before the HO the argument that the code should be interpreted in such a way that "allows property in the Buildable Lands Inventory to be developed under clear and objective standards." PC Determination: The PC hereby denies SEN's request because HBA has clearly satisfied the City's requirements for filing an appeal, as further articulated below. 1) The February 23, 2012 HBA letter qualifies as "written comments in regard to the original application." The date on the HBA letter is immaterial. A copy of the HBA letter was submitted for the HO's consideration in regard to the application that. originated this appeal and it clearly relates to that application. This is consistent with the code text at EC 9,7655(1)(d). The letter specifically refers to PDT 12-1 and states, in part: "I have reviewed the Site Plan and narrative for the PUD, which will go to public hearing in late June. This project, proposing 75 lots on 26 acres in the South Hills, to be reviewed under the Needed Housing Standards, is a case study for the reasonableness of the density assumptions for the BLI in the South Hills." The June 2012 staff report specifically identified and responded Final Order - Deerbrook PUD (PDT 12-1) December 17, 2012 Page 3