The Planning Commission finds that the Hearings Official correctly concluded that state law <br />does not require the City to apply only clear and objective approval criteria to an application <br />filed under the City's discretionary (General) track. The Hearings Official also correctly <br />concluded that all of the General track approval criteria are applicable to this Tentative PUD <br />application. <br />Applicability of South Hills Study <br />The applicant argues that the South Hills Study does not apply to the subject property because <br />the subject property was located outside City limits at the time the South Hills Study was <br />adopted. <br />The Planning Commission finds that the Hearings Official correctly concluded that the South <br />Hills Study does apply to the subject property. The South Hills Study applies to properties that <br />are: 1) located within the City, 2) south of 18th Avenue, and 3) above 500 feet in elevation. The <br />Hearings Official concluded that as properties located south of 18th Avenue and above 500 feet <br />annex into the City, they become subject to the South Hills Study. The Hearings Official <br />correctly concluded that the subject property is located within the City limits, south of 18th <br />Avenue and above 500 feet in elevation; therefore, the South Hills Study applies to the subject <br />property. <br />The Planning Commission agrees with the conclusion of the Hearings Official on the applicant's <br />appeal issues and finds no error that would warrant modification or reversal of the decision. <br />Neighbors' Appeal <br />The appeal submitted by the Joint Response Committee of the Fairmount Neighbors <br />Association and Laurel Hill Valley Citizens identifies 31 appeal issues related to what the <br />Committee believes represent errors in the Hearings Official's decision related to approving the <br />Capital Hill tentative PUD application, with supporting argument provided in a letter from <br />Geoscience, Inc. that was included with the appeal. The appeal makes the case that the <br />Hearings Official's decision should be reversed (and the application should be denied). The <br />Planning Commission's findings and conclusions related to each appeal issue are provided <br />below. <br />Appeal Issue #1: EC 9.8320 (1) - The Hearings Official erred regarding applicability of <br />the policies of the Metro Plan by denying that seven individual policy statements <br />should be considered as applicable in determining compliance with this criterion. The <br />Hearings Official incorrectly interpreted the requirements of this approval criterion <br />and failed to evaluate evidence in the record that contradicts the findings. <br />Hearings Official's Decision: <br />The Hearings Official identifies three Metro Plan policies (A. 10, A. 13 and A.17) as general <br />directives, "to the City to guide the City in implementing the Metro Plan" and not mandatory <br />approval criteria (Hearings Official Decision, page 14). The Hearings Official discusses policies A. <br />11 and A. 20, acknowledging that both policies, "provide direction to the city, and are not <br />mandatory approval criteria for the proposed development" (Hearings Official Decision, page <br />15), also pointing out that the applicant is not requesting a higher density development. <br />Final Order: Capital Hill PUD (PDT 17-1) Page 4 <br />