Appeal Agenda 2025-01-28 - Laserfiche WebLink

and emergency medical vehicles. Staff recommends modifying the decision to find that the secondary access requirements are met and there should be no condition of approval at this time for No-Parking Fire Lane signage. • Appeal Issue #4, EC 9.8325(4) – relates to compliance with street connectivity standards at EC 9.6815(2)(b) and the related criteria at EC 9.6815(2)(h), for an exception to providing a street connection for a portion of Randy Lane due to steep slopes. Staff recommends modifying the decision to grant the applicant’s requested street connectivity exception according to EC 9.6815(2)(h). • Appeal Issues #5 & #6, EC 9.8325(4) – relates to compliance with street connectivity standards at EC 9.6815(2)(a) and the requirement for the extension of Randy Lane to be a public rather than private street. Staff recommends affirming the Hearing Official’s finding that EC 9.6815(2) requires that Randy Lane be extended as a public street (but not connect to the east) and modifying the decision to include staff’s proposed conditions for right-of- way dedication and public improvements which she found were justified if the applications were to be approved. • Appeal Issue #7, EC 9.8325(5)(d) – relates to compliance with EC 9.6710 Geological and Geotechnical Analysis and why the applicant need not demonstrate compliance with those requirements if the entire site is on the City’s acknowledged Goal 5 inventory. Staff recommends modifying the decision and finding that the entire site is on the City’s Goal 5 inventory, and therefore exempt from the Geological and Geotechnical Analysis requirements at EC 9.6710(6). • Appeal Issue #8, EC 9.8325(5)(j) – relates to compliance with stormwater standards at EC 9.6791 through 9.6797. Staff recommends modifying the decision and finding that the requirements of EC 9.6791 through EC 9.6797 can be met with staff’s proposed conditions of approval. • Appeal Issue #9, EC 9.8325(8)(a) – relates to the South Hills Study requirement that no development can occur above an elevation of 901 feet in elevation, except that either middle housing or one single-unit dwelling may be built on any lot in existence as of August 1, 2001. Staff recommends affirming the Hearings Official’s finding that EC 9.8325(8) prohibits development above 901 feet in elevation and modifying the decision to include staff’s proposed condition of approval to address this restriction, which she found was justified if the applications were to be approved. • Appeal Issue #10, EC 9.8520 – relates to compliance with the Tentative Subdivision approval criteria and the extent to which the Hearings Official relied on her denial of the Tentative PUD to also deny the Tentative Subdivision. If the Planning Commission does modify the decision as recommended to approve the Tentative PUD, the Tentative Subdivision should also be approved and the decision modified accordingly. The attached Draft Final Order also includes a complied list of recommended conditions of approval to date. If the Planning Commission agrees with the recommendation to reverse and modify the Hearings Official’s decision to approve the subject applications, staff recommends that the Planning Commission impose all the recommended conditions of approval as listed. Staff is otherwise available as part of this process to facilitate whatever final decision is made and prepared to draft a Final Order based on Planning Commission’s deliberations and final decision. Planning Commission Agenda 01/28/2025 Page 6 of 42