The Hearings Official also considered the input of the NRC and individuals who provided <br />opposing testimony that the proposed PUD does not give primacy to the public interest. The <br />Hearings Official relied on the fact that the South Hills Study does not designate this property <br />for preservation or public acquisition, noting the site is privately owned and zoned for low- <br />density residential development. The Hearings Official concludes, "While the Response <br />Committee and surrounding residential neighbors would like to see more preservation and less <br />development, in fact, the proposed residential development does reflect a recognition of the <br />public's interest in a residential development that minimizes impacts and retains the site's <br />significant natural features while also being consistent with the property's residential zoning" <br />(Hearings Official Decision, page 27). <br />Summary of Appellant's Argument: <br />The appellant disagrees with Hearings Official's findings, claiming that previous iterations of the <br />proposed development by the applicant dating back to 2008, all showed fewer lots on the site, <br />which did a better job of meeting the public interest. <br />Planning Commission's Determination: <br />The Planning Commission concurs with the findings of the Hearings Official, and as noted in its <br />staff report, "Staff finds that the proposal provides for an appropriate level of low-density <br />residential development, while attempting to preserve the natural features and qualities of the <br />subject property as much as possible" (Staff Report, page 14). The staff report also notes that <br />"the applicant has attempted to cluster the developable areas of the lots in less vegetated <br />areas, through the use of common open space preservation area (Tract A) and individual <br />preservation areas on the eastern lots to provide for a larger overall preserved area on the <br />steepest slopes and most densely vegetated portion of the site. The applicant has attempted to <br />work with the constraints and opportunities of the property which have dictated the <br />development pattern of the proposal" (Staff Report, page 15). The applicant has also placed a <br />majority of lots and the new private road where previous site disturbance occurred in the past, <br />while locating preservation areas in the steepest portion of the site where trees and vegetation <br />are most dense, which serves the public interest. The Planning Commission agrees with staff's <br />analysis and the Hearings Official's decision, and emphasizes that previous iterations of the <br />applicant's plans which may have been shared with neighbors dating back to 2008 but are not a <br />part of the current application nor included within the existing record, were not considered. <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 />Final Order: Capital Hill PUD (PDT 17-1) Page 13 <br />