The Hearings Official's decision includes an extensive discussion of the applicant's proposed <br />stormwater system and opposing testimony, as it relates to compliance with the applicable <br />stormwater standards listed under this criterion. As she describes at pages 37-38 of her decision: <br />Essentially, the applicant proposes that it will complete initial property improvements, <br />filling the wetlands and completing private street improvements. Thereafter, rather than a <br />single, site -wide stormwater detention and filtration solution for the entire 15-acre <br />property, each individual landowner would be responsible for development of their own <br />stormwater detention and filtration system. <br />The applicant acknowledges that, should it decide to develop the lots under the Middle <br />Housing standards in such a way that the impervious area of each site is increased, the <br />applicant would be required to provide an updated stormwater detention system to reflect <br />that increase. <br />As the Hearings Official further explains regarding Randy Lane at page 40 of her decision: <br />[W]hile neighbors raise legitimate concerns regarding the proposed "piece -meal" <br />approach, the City's clear and objective criteria do not appear to include any requirements <br />for a more integrated approach or otherwise allow controls over the timing of the <br />improvements. And, while there is certainly conflicting evidence and testimony, the <br />Revised Public Works Referral Comments evaluate the proposal for compliance with each <br />of the EC 9.6791 through 9.6797 standards and finds that conceptually the proposal can <br />satisfy each of the applicable standards. Public Works notes that, at the time of <br />development, the system would be subject to more detailed Building/Site Development <br />permit reviews. Those findings (Revised Public Works Referral Comments, July 30, 2024, <br />pages 21-25) are incorporated and adopted here. <br />Also, as noted in the Revised Public Works Referral Comments, the requirement to <br />construct Randy Lane as a public street may impact the applicant's analysis and <br />calculations, resulting in changes to its proposed system. <br />The Hearings Official ultimately concluded that based on the Revised Public Works Referral <br />Comments dated July 31, 2024, that the requirement to construct Randy Lane as a public street <br />may impact the applicant's analysis and calculations, resulting in changes to its proposed system, <br />and could impact the applicant's proposed stormwater detention system and thus compliance <br />with the requirements of EC 9.6791 through EC 9.6797. The Hearings Official found that given the <br />potential modifications that could be necessitated, whether the proposed development could <br />satisfy the criteria at EC 9.6791 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 <br />may condition the approval to achieve compliance. In addition, the applicant provided additional <br />argument and evidence as part of the second open record period which was rejected by the <br />Hearings Official and should have been considered in her decision. The applicant argues that the <br />Final Order: Braewood Hills V Addition (PDT 24-1 and ST 24-3) Page 25 <br />