Planning Commission's Determination: <br />Staff discussed the applicability of adopted Metro Plan policies in its February 2018 Staff Report <br />(pages 6 and 7). Staff noted that none of the relevant Metro Plan policies appear to directly <br />apply as mandatory approval criteria. Staff found that the applicant's request did appear to <br />meet the intent of policies A. 10, A. 13 and A. 17, and the Hearings Official generally agreed. <br />The Planning Commission agrees with the Hearings Official's decision, that the proposed PUD is <br />consistent with the applicable provisions of the Metro Plan, with one important clarification <br />with regard to the wording in her decision. The Planning Commission accepts and adopts the <br />Hearing Official's findings related to this appeal issue except that the Planning Commission <br />modifies one sentence as follows: on page 14 of the Hearings Official's decision, fourth <br />paragraph, the Planning Commission modifies the following sentence to read: "The Planning <br />Staff have identified the three following policies within the Metro Plan Residential Land Use <br />and Housing Element as relevant to approval of the proposed PUD...." <br />Based on the available information in the record and the proposed clarification, the Planning <br />Commission finds that the Hearings Official did not err with respect to this appeal issue. <br />Appeal Issue #2: EC 9.8320(2) - The Hearings Official erred by incorrectly interpreting <br />the requirements of the South Hills Study, Ridgeline Park Section - Specific <br />Recommendations. <br />Appeal Issue #3: EC 9.8320(2) - The Hearings Official erred in the determination of <br />whether the PUD served the purposes outlined in the Ridgeline Park Section, South <br />Hills Study. <br />Hearings Official's Decision: <br />The Hearings Official determined that "because the subject property is designated for <br />residential development and is specifically not recommended for preservation or park usage, <br />the recommendations for the park and preservation purposes do not expressly apply" (Hearings <br />Official Decision, page 18). The Hearings Official also determined that the portion of the <br />property above 901 feet is permitted to develop subject to the PUD procedures since <br />consistency with the purposes of the Purpose Statements and Recommendations could be <br />demonstrated. The Hearings Official determined that the preserved area which includes Tract A <br />and the preserved areas of the individual lots was consistent with purpose statement #1- To <br />ensure preservation of those areas most visibly a part of the entire community. The Hearings <br />Official determined that preservation areas will be protected from construction and tree <br />Final Order: Capital Hill PUD (PDT 17-1) Page 5 <br />