Appeal Materials - Laserfiche WebLink

3. The Hearings Official states (p. 24): "With the additional protections provided through private preservation areas on the eastern lots, common open space (Tract A), and the clustering of the proposed homesites, the applicant has demonstrated that the proposed development will blend with, rather than dominate, the natural characteristics of the area. In combination with configuration of the proposed development and the clustered open space, the applicable residential development standards for the R-1 zone will ensure general compatibility with the surrounding residential area and consistency with the policy language above. " EC 9.9630(3)(e) concerns the effect of the PUD on the "natural characteristics" of the South Hills area and does not concern compatibility with the residential area at lower elevations. With approximately 1100 sq ft and two large trees preserved above 901', it is impossible to claim that a denuded and clear cut ridgeline will blend in with the natural characteristics of the south hills area. The Hearings Official (p. 24) states that the response committee's argument with regard to building heights on steep slopes being permitted to reach as high as 47 feet "misconstrues the height limitation" code. As she then admits, the current code allows building heights up to 47 feet based on slope and roof pitch. This is the measurement that matters, because hikers on the Ribbon Trail will be looking up at the 47-foot side of the building, not one that blends with rather than dominates the natural characteristics of the south hills area. Therefore, the Hearings Official in incorrect in stating that the Applicant has provided adequate review of the bulk and height of potential construction in the proposed Capital Hill PUD. EC 9.9630(3)(g): That planned unit development review shall be based upon a recognition of both public and private interest. In areas of significant conflict (e.g., locating development in a highly visible area as opposed to a less visible area or in an area of significant vegetation as opposed to a relatively open area) which could be resolved through the use of an alternative development plan, primacy shall be given to the public interest in any determinations. Appeal Issue #8: The Hearings Official erred in determining compliance with this standard, failing to evaluate evidence in the record contradicting this finding. She states (p. 27): "This South Hills Study development standard does not require (or permit) the "public interest" in preservation of the undeveloped private property within its boundaries to disregard the private property owner's interests. As the Response Committee recognizes, as it is worded, this standard requires that in the areas where there is a significant conflict, and where an alternative plan that would resolve those conflicts is available, the public interest - i. e., the alternative plan that would resolve the conflict by reducing the impact - shall be given primacy. The proposed site plan furthers this standard. The proposed site plan has considered alternatives and locates residential development the less visible area as opposed to the highly visible areas, and in areas of relatively open space rather than in areas of significant vegetation. It also clusters both the open space and the residential development in a way that minimizes the impacts of development and maximizes the preservation of site's vegetative cover. " 10