My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Public Testimony (Opposition)
>
OnTrack
>
PDT
>
2017
>
PDT 17-1
>
Public Testimony (Opposition)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/25/2018 9:08:26 AM
Creation date
3/7/2018 11:42:49 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
PDD_Planning_Development
File Type
PDT
File Year
17
File Sequence Number
1
Application Name
CAPITAL HILL PUD
Document Type
Public Testimony
Document_Date
3/7/2018
External View
Yes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
105
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
I We need not resolve the issue of waiver, because we agree with the city and <br />2 intervenor that the CDC does not require intervenor to consider trees that will not be <br />3 removed under the proposed development-the PUD--but may be removed under <br />4 subsequent individual building permits for lots created by that PUD. <br />5 As the city and intervenor point out, nothing in the CDC requires a PUD applicant to <br />6 identify specific building pads or envelopes for lots created by the PUD approval. Under <br />7 petitioners' reading of the code, the PUD applicant and city would be required to guess <br />8 where building pads and envelopes would be proposed on individual lots, in order to <br />9 determine which and how many trees are likely to be removed pursuant to future, individual <br />10 building permits. Instead, CDC 9.1010(B)(2) appears to contemplate that such tree removals <br />11 are evaluated at or following the time when individual building permits are applied for. 7 <br />12 Petitioners argue that the city misconstrues CDC 9.1010(B)(2) to allow tree removal <br />13 for individual building sites to be evaluated at the time a building permit is sought. While <br />14 that construction of CDC 9.1010(B)(2) may be the rule outside the HPCD, petitioners argue <br />15 that CDC 9.1010(E) clarifies that where the HPCD applies, removal of regulated trees <br />16 requires a Type II development permit, and cannot be approved as part of a mere building <br />raised the issue of tree removal from individual home sites at LUBA, Appellants have waived <br />any opportunity to raise the issue now." Record 15 (underline in original; footnote omitted). <br />7 CDC 9.1010(B) provides, in relevant part: <br />"Removal of Regulated Trees: Removal of Regulated Trees as defined in Section 3.0010 shall <br />be reviewed under Type II procedures for compliance with the standards of Sections 9.1010- <br />9.1012, <br /> <br />"(2) Regulated trees located within 10 feet of the outer edge of the outline of a proposed <br />single family residence or related site improvements may be removed without a <br />separate or additional development permit after issuance of the building permit for <br />the proposed residence. When additional trees are to be protected on the site outside <br />the building envelope, a tree protection plan as approved by the City shall <br />accompany the building plans and shall be enforced during all construction activities <br />on the site. Mitigation in accordance with an approved mitigation plan for lost <br />perimeter trees shall be completed or guaranteed prior to Final Inspection." <br />Page 13 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.