from being reasonably compatible and harmonious with nearby residential development. The <br />proposed gross density of 2.5 to 2.9 units per acre is well below the maximum allowable density <br />of 14 units per acre, and is below the recommendation of 5 units per acre both in the South <br />Hills Study and the Laurel HIII Plan (Staff Report, page 57). <br />Residential development directly abutting recreational uses makes the proposed development <br />compatible with the nearby Hendriks Park and the Ribbon Trail. Protections for significant <br />natural features and vegetation on the subject site will further ensure compliance with the <br />applicable criterion. As noted in the staff report, "Given the varied nature of the existing <br />neighborhood, `reasonable' and "harmonious" could mean that the proposed development will <br />have a mixture of units that are mostly single family detached, some single-family attached, one <br />and two stories in height, with varied and eclectic architectural styles, and variable parking <br />options (i.e. garages, no garages, carports)" (Staff Report, page 58). The applicant is not <br />proposing to build homes as part of the PUD. Since lots will be sold and developed individually <br />by their respective owners over time, each home will have a distinct and different architectural <br />style and appearance, using various materials consistent with single-family home construction. <br />Also, the varying topography will conceivably have an effect on the type of house and <br />construction methods. This is consistent with the neighboring single-family areas that have also <br />developed overtime in a similar fashion. <br />Based on the available information in the record, the Planning Commission finds that the <br />Hearings Official did not err with respect to this appeal issue. <br />Appeal Issue #30: The Hearings Official postponed determining whether several <br />approval criteria had been met until a future process, and that process lacks public <br />notice or a public hearing. <br />Hearings Official's Decision: <br />The Hearings Official approved the PUD with 20 conditions of approval in order to ensure <br />compliance with all code requirements and to establish the framework for additional changes <br />to the final PUD plans as prescribed in these conditions and necessary for the Final PUD review <br />process. <br />Summary of Appellant's Argument: <br />The appellant asserts that the Hearings Official erred by postponing a determination on <br />whether a number of approval criteria had been met until a future process, and that process <br />lacks public notice or a public hearing. The appellant provides a list of all 20 conditions of <br />approval as evidence for their assertion (Appeal Statement, pages 35 through 39). Also listed <br />are references in the Hearings Official Decision to any mention of a future process for further <br />review, such as: <br />® At the time residential dwellings are proposed for any of the approved lots, they must <br />be evaluated for compliance with the R-1 zone development standards, and the bulk <br />and height must be consistent with those development standards. <br />® The proposed street design will be more precisely reviewed for compliance with <br />applicable standards during the subsequent Privately-Engineered Public Improvement <br />(PEPI) permit process. <br />Final Order: Capital Hill PUD (PDT 17-1) Page 38 <br />