Planning Commission Staff Report (8-6-19)

The Hearing Official discusses several issues raised by the Neighborhood Response Committee (NRC). The NRC makes the argument that the subject property should be retained as a park purpose and not be residentially developed. The Hearings Official states that "the South Hills Study does not designate the subject property for preservation or park use and does not prohibit residential development". The NRC also objects to the number of trees to be removed. The Hearings Official acknowledged that future construction requires the removal of trees, and noted that "this property is designated for residential development, the South Hills Study does not require that there be no impact". Summary of Appellant's Argument: The appellant states, "The Hearings Official incorrectly interpreted the Ridgeline Park section of the South Hills Study to mean that the specific recommendations in EC 9.9630(1)(a)2 do not apply" (Appeal Statement, page 3). Based on the Hearings Official's interpretations and decision no protection is afforded any land above 901 feet. The appellant argues that, "All subject property above 901' must be developed according to the South Hills Study refinement zone, not simply R-1 zoning" (Appeal Statement, page 3). The appellant argues that the Hearing Official's analysis is in error, because the Ridgeline Park section refers to land above 901 feet and the Hearings Official erred by allowing the applicant to fulfill the purposes by setting aside property below 901 feet. Planning Commission's Determination: The Planning Commission concurs with the findings of the Hearings Official, and as noted in its staff report, "The Ridgeline Park section of the South Hills Study is primarily intended for areas within the south hills suitable as recreational parks" (page 8). The Planning Commission agrees that the applicant has demonstrated consistency with the South Hill Study and exceeded the recommendations by demonstrating consistency with three of the Ridgeline Park purpose statements. Based on the available information in the record, the Planning Commission finds that the Hearings Official did not err with respect to this appeal issue. Appeal Issue #4: EC 9.8320(2) - The Hearings Official incorrectly interpreted the language and requirements of the Development Standards SEC 9.9630(3)(b)]. Hearings Official's Decision: The Hearings Official interpreted the South Hills Study standards to "encourage" the applicant to propose a development that uses procedures afforded through the PUD process to balance the clustering of development and preservation of open space to effectively minimize overall impacts (Hearings Official Decision, page 19). The Hearings Official also determined that the combined preservation areas will locate building sites closer to the Final Order: Capital Hill PUD (PDT 17-1) Page 6