Appeal Agenda 2025.02.18 - Laserfiche WebLink

and conclusions, with conditions of approval, that would be necessary if the Planning Commission agrees with the staff recommendation and decides to reverse and modify the Hearings Official’s decision, thereby approving the applications on appeal. If the Planning Commission decides otherwise and/or requires any additional revisions to the Draft Final Order, staff will be prepared to facilitate those changes based upon further deliberations. As a reminder, the Planning Commission’s role in this appeal is to serve as a “quasi-judicial” decision-maker. The Planning Commission is being asked to act as an impartial decision-maker in determining whether to affirm, reverse, or modify the Hearings Official’s decision based solely on the applicable approval criteria and the evidence and argument in the record. Under EC 9.7655, appeals to the Planning Commission are “on the record,” that is, the Planning Commission is limited to consideration of the record before the Hearings Official and may not consider new evidence provided during the appeal process. In addition, appeals to the Planning Commission are “limited to issues raised in the record that are set out in the filed statement of issues.” The Planning Commission’s decision on the appeal is therefore limited to the issues raised by the appellant and the relevant evidence and argument within the record. STAFF RECOMMENDATION/NEXT STEPS Consistent with the prior AIS and record materials to date, the staff report for the public hearing, and in the attached Draft Final Order, staff recommend that the Planning Commission reverse and modify the Hearing’s Official’s decision, and thereby conditionally approve the Tentative PUD and Subdivision applications. At the meeting on February 18, 2025, staff recommend that the Planning Commission continue deliberations on the appeal as described above, starting with discussion of Appeal Issues #8 through #10. Following straw poll votes on the remaining appeal issues, and if the Planning Commission ultimately agrees with the findings and conclusions included in the Draft Final Order, final action may be taken on the appeal by way of a formal motion and final vote. For ease of reference, the following is a list of the appeal issues and related approval criteria and topics organized according to the associated appeal issue number, where staff’s recommendations for modifications of the Hearings Official’s decision would primarily be made. As noted above, the Planning Commission has already taken straw poll votes in support of the recommendations for resolving Appeal Issue #1 through #7: •Appeal Issue #1, Evidentiary – relates to the applicant’s evidence submitted during the second open record period following the initial public hearing, which was rejected by the Hearings Official for consideration on procedural grounds, and partly served as a basis for denying the applications. Staff recommends the Planning Commission reverse this portion of the Hearings Official’s decision and consider all the applicant’s evidence and argument submitted on August 14, 2024, as responsive to the evidence submitted during the first open record period. •Appeal Issue #2, EC 9.8325(3) – relates to compliance with EC 9.6880 through 9.6885 Tree Preservation and Removal Standards if the site is not on the City’s Goal 5 inventory. Staff Planning Commission 02/18/2025 Agenda Page 5 of 89