Planning Commission's Determination: <br />Staff confirms the findings of the Hearings Official, and as noted in its staff report, "the R-1 <br />zoning requirements limit building heights to 30 feet, consistent with existing single-family <br />structures both on and off site and in the general vicinity" (Staff Report, page 12) and, "the <br />applicable residential development standards for the R-1 zone will ensure general compatibility <br />with the surrounding residential area" (Staff Report, page 13). The applicant is not proposing to <br />build any of the potential new single-family houses. The lots will be sold and individual property <br />owners will build houses sometime in the future. Based on the applicant's statement, of the 34 <br />proposed lots, only 8 lots have the potential to be viewed from beyond the property to the <br />west, and the offsite view of these 8 lots will be limited based on the current condition of off- <br />site mature trees. Offsite views of the lots on the eastern side of the development will be <br />limited by the significant preservation areas and large number of preserved trees. As stated in <br />the staff report, "the individual lot conservation areas, along with the previously described <br />Tract A, provide a significant buffer and visual screen from lower elevations to the east of the <br />site. This will limit the scale and bulk of the proposed single-family residential development as <br />viewed from the east". Staff also notes that the applicant did not request a modification of <br />maximum height limits or other residential development standards, therefore the applicable <br />residential development standards for the R-1 zone will ensure general compatibility with the <br />surrounding residential area. <br />During deliberations The Planning Commission expressed concern that the Hearings Official did <br />not adequately address the issue of bulk and scale as it relates to lot coverage, specifically <br />pertaining to Lots 5, and 8 through 19 all of which have preservation areas on the lots. As <br />further discussed in this Final Order under Appeal Issue #25, the Planning Commission has <br />modified the Hearings Official's decision with an additional condition of approval in order to <br />provide clarity on lot coverage requirements based upon only the "buildable" portion of a lot. <br />The Planning Commission also finds that Conditions of Approval #11 and #12 provide further <br />support for the conclusion that the intent of the relevant South Hills Study policy language has <br />been met. <br />The Planning Commission also notes that the application does not include any CC&R's to <br />demonstrate consistency with any of the applicable standards, and it is not required to. The <br />Hearings Official correctly determined that CC&Rs are not required to show that the approval <br />criteria are met. <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 I#8: EC 9.9630(3)(8) - The Hearings Official erred in determining <br />compliance with this standard, failing to evaluate evidence in the record contradicting <br />this finding, "That planned unit development review shall be based upon a recognition <br />of both public and private interest. In areas of significant conflict (e.g., locating <br />development in a highly visible area as opposed to a less visible area or in an area of <br />significant vegetation as opposed to a relatively open area) which could be resolved <br />through the use of an alternative development plan, primacy shall be given to the <br />public interest in any determinations." <br />Final Order: Capital Hill PUD (PDT 17-1) Page 12 <br />