3) The Planning Commission rejected the second and third sentences in the second paragraph <br />on page 1 of the May 2, 2018, letter from Gunnar Schlieder attached to the Joint Response <br />Committee's appeal statement because the Planning Commission determined that they <br />constitute new evidence not presented to the Hearings Official; <br />4) The Planning Commission rejected the fifth and sixth sentences in the last full paragraph on <br />page 10 of the May 2, 2018, letter from Gunnar Schlieder attached to the Joint Response <br />Committee's appeal statement because the Planning Commission determined that those <br />sentences constitute new evidence not presented to the Hearings Official; and, <br />5) The Planning Commission rejected the first sentence of the first paragraph under the <br />heading "Conclusion" in the Schlieder letter as a statement of fact that constituted new <br />evidence not presented to the Hearings Official. <br />IV. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW <br />After consideration of the applicable law and all argument and evidence in the record, the <br />Planning Commission finds that the subject application meets all applicable PUD approval <br />criteria from EC 9.8320 as specified by the Hearings Official, with the additional findings and the <br />additional and modified conditions of approval described below. In the event of any conflict <br />between the Hearings Official's decision and this Final Order, this Final Order shall prevail. The <br />Hearings Official's decision is adopted by reference and included as Attachment A. <br />As noted above, the Planning Commission was presented with two appeals. One appeal was <br />filed by the applicant with two assignments of error (Applicant's Appeal). The other appeal was <br />filed by the Joint Response Committee of the Fairmount Neighbors Association and Laurel Hill <br />Valley Citizens (Neighbors' Appeal) with 31 appeal issues. Each assignment of error in the <br />appeals is set forth below, followed by the Planning Commission's findings of fact and <br />conclusions of law as to each one. The Planning Commission's deliberations supporting this <br />decision took place on June 4, June 7, June 12, and June 14, 2018. <br />Applicant's Appeal <br />In its appeal, the applicant makes essentially the same two legal arguments it made before the <br />Hearings Official: 1) that the applicant is entitled to review of its application only under clear <br />and objective standards even though the applicant chose to proceed under the City's <br />discretionary (General) track; and 2) the City's adopted South Hills Study does not apply to the <br />property that is the subject of this Tentative PUD application. The following are the Planning <br />Commission's findings and conclusions on the two appeal issues raised by the applicant: <br />Clear and Objective Standards <br />Applicants for a Tentative PUD approval have the option of proceeding under the City's <br />"Needed Housing" track, or the City's "General" track. The approval criteria contained in the <br />Needed Housing track are clear and objective, while the approval criteria in the General track <br />tend to be more flexible and discretionary. In this case, the applicant chose to proceed under <br />the discretionary approval criteria of the General track, but then argued that state law requires <br />that the City only apply a subset of the General track approval criteria which are clear and <br />objective. <br />Final Order: Capital Hill PUD (PDT 17-1) Page 3 <br />