My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Public Comments submitted at hearings official hearing (NRC 1)
>
OnTrack
>
PDT
>
2017
>
PDT 17-1
>
Public Comments submitted at hearings official hearing (NRC 1)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/12/2018 10:39:26 AM
Creation date
3/12/2018 10:38:33 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 Comments submitted at hearings official hearing
Document_Date
3/7/2018
External View
Yes
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
334
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
planhasbeenconceivedandtreescategorizedaccordingtotheirhealth,allwithouttheexpertise <br />ofacertifiedarboristortheequivalentofanarborist. <br />TheApplicantadmitsthattheexpertiseofanarboristisnecessarytoenforcetheirplan,butthey <br />failedtoemploythesamelevelofexpertiseintheconceptionandconstructionoftheplanitself. <br />Asaresult,theplanlackscredibility.Wehavenowayofknowingwhichtreesarehealthyand <br />whichtreesarenothealthy,andthereforenowayofevaluatingiftheirplanforwhichtrees <br />shouldbecutdownislegitimate.Inaddition,SheetL3.0,SitePlansassertsthatconservation <br />treesmaybecutdownifnecessaryfor“construction”andreplacedwithdeciduoustreesof1.5 <br />inchesindiameterorfirtreesof5feetinheight.Allowingconservationtreestobecut <br />underminestheintegrityoftheTreePreservationPlan. <br />Accordingto EC6.310,treeremovalpermitsarerequiredfortheremovaloftreesoncertain <br />privateproperties.“Ifthepropertyispartofanapproved,plannedunitdevelopment,sitereview, <br />orconditionalusepermitthatincludesatreeremoval/preservationplanorconditionsrelatedto <br />theremoval,thenthelanduseagreementandapprovedplansregulatethetreeremovalprocess.” <br />TheApplicationclaims(p.39of67):“Theconservationareasheldbothinprivateandcommon <br />ownershipwillberegulatedbytheCCRsforthePlannedUnitDevelopment,”buttheproposed <br />CHPUDprovidesnoHOAcovenants,conditions,restrictions,orotherenforcementmechanisms <br />bywhichtheconservationoftreesinconservedareasmightbeprotected.Weassertthatitisnot <br />enoughtostatethatcertaintreeswillbeconservedwithoutprovidingthemeansandmechanisms <br />bywhichsuchconservationmaybeaccomplished,andwithoutdefiningwhatconstitutes <br />“conservation”inthefirstplace.Inessence,wecansafelyassumethatthereisnoTree <br />PreservationPlan;thereisonlythepretenseofaTreePreservationPlan. <br />EveniftheApplicantweretoprovideCCRs,HOAenforcementamountstoself-regulation <br />becausetheCityofEugenewillnotdirectlyenforceCCRs,whicharethereforeaninadequate <br />mechanismforpreservation.IftheApplicantwereseriousabouttreepreservation,theycould <br />stipulatespecificrestrictionsinthedeedsofspecificlotsthatwouldmandateconservationin <br />certainareas.Deedrestrictionsareoftenperceivedtolimitresalevalue,thoughthisisnotalways <br />thecase. <br />TheApplicationfailstooutlineaseriousTreePreservationPlan,andthereforefailsto <br />meetEC9.8320(4)(b). <br />TheCHPUDResponseCommitteecontendsthattheApplicationfailstooutlinea <br />substantiveTreePreservationPlanandfailstomeetthecriteriadefinedinEC9.8320(4). <br />Therefore,theApplicationshouldbedenied. <br />57 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.