BERG-JOHANSEN Erik <br />From: <br />FLOCK Gabriel <br />Sent: <br />Monday, February 23, 2015 10:54 AM <br />To: <br />'Alice and Ross' <br />Cc: <br />SMITH Deanna N; GILLESPIE Scott N; STARK Donna L; COGBURN Jordan D; BERG- <br />JOHANSEN Erik X <br />Subject: <br />RE: PDT 15-001 Chamotee Trails <br />Thanks for the email, Ross. I appreciate being kept in the loop on your concerns and I'm copying this to other staff that <br />will be involved the completeness review process. We'll surely be in touch as the process moves forward. GF <br />From: Alice and Ross [mailto:ross-alice@comcast.net] <br />Sent: Monday, February 23, 2015 10:35 AM <br />To: FLOCK Gabriel <br />Subject: PDT 15-001 Chamotee Trails <br />Good morning, Gabe. <br />This is a personal e-mail, sent as a City resident. I am not representing anyone in this matter; I am <br />only appearing in my individual capacity. <br />I have an interest in the newly filed Chamotee Trails PUD application. I suspect I will be appearing <br />throughout this proceeding. <br />I am not sure who you will be putting on this file, so I thought I would send you this initial e-mail. I <br />have some thoughts on the completeness review process. <br />I suspect y'all will find other deficiencies in the application, but I see three off the bat. <br />1) The application does not demonstrate the application is for needed housing as defined by state <br />law. (You and I will probably disagree on this point, but I still fail to see where the City has made the <br />determination, as defined "by state law", where all housing is needed housing. For instance, there is <br />no indication of the income level this housing is intended to appeal to a necessary element for any <br />needed housing analysis.) <br />2) The application has not submitted the 5' interval map for slope analysis. <br />3) The application has not submitted any type of tree plan that would support a finding that the <br />development will "insure maximum preservation of existing vegetation." <br />I also will point out to you the applicant mentioned at the neighborhood meeting that public works <br />directed them to not seek any increase in paving width for W. Amazon, to use a pressure sewer <br />system that runs up Foxboro Lane rather than a gravity system that runs down W. Amazon, and to <br />not propose sidewalks for W. Amazon. Each of these directives were made by public works without <br />any clear and objective criteria let alone any documentation that is included in the application. <br />I know the completeness review process is a staff process, but I thought I would offer these thoughts <br />in case they are helpful. <br />