23 <br />analysis and calculations, resulting in changes to its proposed system, and could impact the <br />applicant’s proposed stormwater detention system and compliance with the requirements of EC <br />9.6791 through EC 9.6797. The Hearings Official found that given the potential modifications that <br />could be necessitated, whether the proposed development could satisfy the criteria at EC 9.6791 <br />through 9.6797 cannot yet be determined. <br />Summary of Applicant’s Argument <br />The applicant argues that because the finding can be made that the system design can be adjusted <br />to accommodate the increment of stormwater from the public road, the Planning Commission may <br />condition the approval to achieve compliance. <br />Staff Response <br />In the Staff’s Memorandum dated July 31, 2024, Public Works referral comments were revised with <br />findings regarding the application’s compliance with EC 9.6815(2)(a) and (b) Street Connectivity <br />Standards, recommending that the proposed extension of Randy Lane, initially proposed as a private <br />street, should be a public street instead. This change also triggers necessary changes in stormwater <br />facilities, as discussed in the referral comments regarding the application’s compliance with EC <br />9.6791 through 9.6797, because portions of the proposed private conveyance system will need to <br />be constructed as a public conveyance system. Additionally, the requirement to construct Randy <br />Lane as a public street may also impact the calculations provided in the applicant’s Storm Drainage <br />Memorandum dated March 5, 2024. In order to accommodate these changes, Public Works <br />recommended the following condition, believing it is conceptually feasible to design a public <br />conveyance system that will meet the City’s stormwater standards: <br />Prior to final PUD approval, the applicant shall submit an updated Storm Drainage <br />Memorandum that addresses the conditions of approval under EC 9.6815 requiring Randy <br />Lane to be constructed as a public street and demonstrate compliance with EC 9.6791-EC <br />9.6797 based on this change. <br />Staff recommends the Planning Commission modify the Hearings Official’s decision and find that the <br />requirements of EC 9.6791 through EC 9.6797 can be met as conditioned, demonstrating the storm <br />system design can be adjusted to accommodate the increment of stormwater from the required <br />public road. <br />Appeal Issue #9: <br />The applicant argues that the Hearings Official erred by finding that because almost all of <br />proposed Lot 39 is above 901 feet and the land comprising proposed Lot 39 did not exist as a <br />separate lot on August 1, 2001, the applicant is prohibited from further development on that lot. <br />Hearings Official’s Decision <br />This appeal issue contains two important considerations, with the first being whether or not <br />development is prohibited above 901 feet for this Tentative PUD and Subdivision, while the second <br />pertains to the applicant’s assertions that Middle Housing must be allowed above 901 feet. The <br />Hearings Official addressed this issue on pages 42 through 44 of the decision, under approval <br />Planning Commission Agenda Page 25 of 159