abuts Hendricks Park to the north. However, these two preservation areas are not located where <br />the screening is needed ...along the buildable portions of Lots 5, 4 and 1. There is no screening <br />proposed for the buildable portion of these 3 lots. The project relies on Hendricks Park to <br />provide this screening. The Response Committee pointed out this discrepancy in its discussion <br />of Criterion 9.8320 (3) on Pages 44 & 45 of their Response Document. Again, the screening <br />should be located on the subject property. Screening should not be located on or dependent upon <br />adjacent properties, especially public lands (Hendricks Park) that is not under the control of the <br />project owner. <br />The Hearings Official further erred in logic on Page 23 (South Hills Study) when she stated that <br />based on topography, the proposed tree preservation and the proposed site plan, the scale, <br />bulk and height will create and maintain an impact consistent with the view scape created by of <br />[sic] the adjacent established residential neighborhoods. " In order to come to this conclusion, a <br />person has to use their imagination to mentally envision the to-be-built homes somewhere on the <br />lots and to "see" the community of homes (structures) as a whole, then compare that "vision" to <br />the optics of the surrounding neighborhood. <br />This is the type of analysis the Committee is asking for but in a tangible way. Rather than <br />imagine the future homes, provide concerned citizens with a best, worst and probable case of the <br />spatial envelopes that, at build out, the homes would occupy and how they will likely relate to <br />each other. These. capabilities are easily within the reach of the professionals representing the <br />Applicant in this project. <br />The Hearings Official erred in logic on Page 31 when discussing EC 9.8320 (3) The PUD will <br />provide adequate screening from surrounding properties, including but not limited to, anticipated <br />building locations, bulk and height. The Hearings Official stated the "While the proposed lot <br />locations and configurations must be evaluated for compliance with this criterion, future <br />buildings are not subject to this review and evaluation for compliance with this criterion does <br />not include consideration of those future buildings. " If compliance with this criterion does not <br />include consideration of.-future buildings, how else can one determine that proposed screening <br />is "adequate." This is a three dimensional issue. Unless the item being "screened" has an <br />approximate or generally agreed upon size, height and width, upon what basis does the screening <br />assessment begin? The code clearly references "anticipated building locations, bulk and height." <br />Is a two foot hedge adequate screening for a three story building? You have to start somewhere. <br />Depth and verticality matter. The Applicant should not be able to circumvent this all important <br />assessment merely because he is building lots without structures. The lots are being built <br />because they will have structures on them. The PUD overlay is intended to supplement the R-1 <br />requirements to ensure a more acceptable, attractive community. <br />If, as the Hearings Official indicates on Page 32, "At the time residential dwellings are proposed <br />for any of the approved lots, they must be evaluated for compliance with the R-1 zone <br />development standards. " Let's start there. At least a rendering of the impact to the lots of <br />general R-1 design standards should be provided in a public setting prior to any project approval. <br />On Page 34 the Hearings Official erred in her interpretation that the Response Committee <br />misconstrued how the city will apply the height limitations to the to-be-built homes. The <br />13 <br />