<br /> <br /> 25 <br /> <br />only in areas that otherwise allow the development of a single-unit dwelling and, since no <br />development of any kind (single-unit dwelling or otherwise) is permitted on Lot 39 under the Clear <br />and Objective PUD criteria, state law does not require the City to allow the development of middle <br />housing on Lot 39. <br /> <br />Summary of Applicant’s Argument <br />The applicant argues that the Hearings Official incorrectly analyzed the relationship between the <br />Middle Housing Statute and the 901-foot prohibition in the code by concluding it is appropriate to <br />use overlay zones to limit Middle Housing rights. <br /> <br />Staff Response <br />Staff recommends that the Planning Commission affirm the Hearings Official’s finding that the <br />approval criterion at EC 9.8325(8) prohibits all development on Lot 39 because almost all of <br />proposed Lot 39 is above 901 feet, and because Lot 39 did not exist as a separate lot on August 1, <br />2001. In Attachment G, Proposed Conditions of Approval, staff recommends the following condition <br />to address the restriction of development above 901 feet in elevation: <br /> <br />The final PUD plans shall be revised to remove any references to middle housing lots to be <br />created on land above 901-foot elevation. The final PUD plans shall also include a note <br />stating that: “No development of middle housing, single-unit dwellings, or any other <br />development, including but not limited to land divisions, may occur on any land above 901 <br />feet in elevation.” <br /> <br />With this condition of approval, the relevant approval criterion will be satisfied and, if the applicant <br />or any future owner may wish to develop above that elevation (middle housing or otherwise), they <br />would be able to avail themselves of a new Tentative PUD process under the track for <br />General/Discretionary approval to request further development above 901 feet, subject to the <br />applicable standards at that time. <br /> <br />Appeal Issue #10: <br />The applicant argues that the Hearings Official erred by not doing a separate review of the <br />subdivision proposal, relying instead on the analysis of the PUD. <br /> <br />Hearings Official’s Decision <br />The Hearings Official noted that in the staff report, staff relied almost exclusively on its analysis of <br />the Tentative PUD approval criteria in determining that the proposed subdivision also satisfied the <br />Tentative Subdivision approval criteria. Because the PUD is subject to the requirements EC 9.8325(3) <br />and EC 9.8325(5)(d), which the Hearings Official found were not satisfied, the Hearings Official <br />determined that the PUD application cannot be approved. To the extent the subdivision application <br />relies on compliance with the PUD criteria, she determined that it also cannot be approved. <br /> <br />Summary of Applicant’s Argument <br />The applicant argues that Hearings Official should have included a separate review of the <br />subdivision criteria, and that the subdivision application should have been approved. <br />Planning Commission Agenda Page 27 of 159