Appeal Materials - Laserfiche WebLink

Applicant must provide this information for approval. The Applicant needs to outline the effect of construction on the natural features, and the Hearings Official fails to stipulate that such details be made a condition of approval. The Hearings Official states (p. 34) that "the areas included in the Tract A common open space and within individual lot preservation areas comprise the majority of significant trees, vegetation, and other natural features that are suitable for preservation; while also accommodating street extensions, utilities, and other infrastructure in a compact manner to serve a reasonable level of low-density residential development. " On the contrary, the PUD does not preserve the most significant trees that are suitable for preservation. Of the largest trees above 901', important to slope stability and the prevention of soil erosion and windthrow in adjacent Hendricks Park, only two are preserved. Appeal Issue #12: The Hearings Official erred by stating (p. 35) that the evidence suggests there is minimal threat of windthrow threatening trees on-site and within adjacent Hendricks Park. The Hearings Official states (p. 34-35): "While Mr. Mehrwein and surrounding neighbors would conclude that the applicant could do more to preserve trees and further reduce (or eliminate) the potential for windthrow, the applicant's plan to remove trees necessary for the proposed development demonstrates that is has satisfied its obligation to avoid unnecessary disruption or removal of those trees " and quotes the comments of Kyle King during the first open record period that "Prevailing winds are typically out of the west to southwest and will be deflected over and above the preservation area. The remaining trees will be well protected on the north, south and east * * " The windthrow concerns raised by Mr. Mehrwein regard the trees on the ridgeline, and not, as the Hearings Official indicates, the trees in the preservation area. In other words, as trees are cut down above 901', surrounding trees on the site and in the adjacent park on the ridgeline will become vulnerable to windthrow. Given the significant concerns raised by Mr. Mehrwein and the inadequate analysis provided by the Hearings Official above, it is false to conclude that the Applicant has "satisfied its obligation to avoid unnecessary disruption or removal of those trees" because the Hearings Official cited incorrect evidence to support her finding and because she fails to apply the danger of windthrow to the trees on the ridgeline. The Hearings Official fails in this regard to enforce (4)(b)(5), (6), (7),.and (8). Because the Applicant's plan allows for a clearcut along the ridgeline above 901', trees "along the perimeter of the lots and within setback areas" (5), "trees and stands of trees located along ridgeline and within corridors" (6), "Trees with significant habitat value" (large trees important to protecting the forest against windthrow) (7), and "Trees adjacent to public parks, open space and streets" are all under threat of destruction. Appeal Issue #13: The Hearings Official has made errors regarding Condition 8 (DHO, p. 2 and pp. 38-39) in approving that "the applicant's Tree Preservation Plan complies" with Criterion E9.8320 (4)(b). This Condition would not satisfactorily protect the proposed preservation and 15