Appeal Decision - Final Order - Laserfiche WebLink

Hearings Official's Decision The Hearings Official noted that in the staff report, staff relied almost exclusively on its analysis of the Tentative PUD approval criteria in determining that the proposed subdivision also satisfied the Tentative Subdivision approval criteria. Because the PUD is subject to the requirements of EC 9.8325(3) and EC 9.8325(5)(d), which the Hearings Official found were not satisfied, the Hearings Official determined that the Tentative PUD application could not be approved. To the extent the Tentative Subdivision application relies on compliance with the PUD criteria, she determined that it also could not be approved. Summary of Applicant's Argument The applicant argues that Hearings Official should have included a separate review of the subdivision criteria, and that the subdivision application should have been approved. Planning Commission Determination The July 10, 2024, Staff Report provided analysis and recommendations regarding the Tentative PUD criteria at EC 9.8325 (Section 1 of the Staff Report) and concurrent Tentative Subdivision criteria at EC 9.8520 (Section 2 of the Staff Report). As demonstrated therein, most of the Tentative Subdivision approval criteria are identical to the Tentative PUD approval criteria. When analyzing the Tentative Subdivision criteria, wherever they were identical to the Tentative PUD criteria, staff incorporated the PUD evaluation by reference in justifying findings of compliance or, in some cases, inapplicability with the correlating Tentative Subdivision criteria. Where the Tentative Subdivision criteria were different than the Tentative PUD criteria, staff provided a separate analysis as necessary. The Hearings Official found that staff's analysis of the Tentative PUD approval criteria could be used in determining whether the proposed Tentative Subdivision criteria were also satisfied. The Hearings Official's denial of the Tentative PUD application was primarily based on her finding that the applicant had not demonstrated that the subject property is included on the City's acknowledged Goal 5 inventory. Because of this fact, the Hearings Official determined that the applicant was required to demonstrate compliance with the Clear and Objective requirements for Tree Preservation and Removal and Geological and Geotechnical Analysis required under the Tentative PUD and Tentative Subdivision approval criteria. Because the applicant did not make those required demonstrations, the Hearings Official denied the applicant's Tentative PUD and Tentative Subdivision applications. However, as discussed above under Appeal Issues #2 and #7, Planning Commission finds that the entire subject property is included in the City's acknowledged Goal 5 inventory and reverses the portions of the Hearings Official's decision determining otherwise. The Tentative PUD approval criteria at EC 9.8325(3) and the Tentative Subdivision approval criteria at EC 9.8520(5) both require a demonstration of compliance with Tree Preservation and Removal Standards of EC 9.6880 to 9.6885. Similarly, the Tentative PUD approval criteria at EC 9.8325(5)(d) and the Tentative Subdivision approval criteria at EC 9.8520(2)(e) both require a demonstration of compliance with Geological and Geotechnical Analysis standards of EC 9.6710(6). Because the Tentative PUD approval criteria and Tentative Subdivision approval criteria reference many of the same standards, it is appropriate to incorporate the findings regarding compliance with the Tentative PUD criteria when making findings of compliance with identical Tentative Subdivision Final Order: Braewood Hills 3rd Addition (PDT 24-1 and ST 24-3) Page 31