Appeal Materials - Laserfiche WebLink

responsibilities. They are called "premature" (CHPUD, p. 30, p. 35). Thus there are no guarantees that any claims and warrants anticipated in the Application would be implemented at later stages in the approval process, The Application proposes "there will be a design review team that will review and approve proposed plans ensuring that the intent of the CCRs is met. It is premature to be preparing CCRs. These should implement final conditions imposed on the approval, if any" (CHPUD, p. 35). The Application seems to consider the content of CC&Rs regarding buildings and preservation of environment as merely "aspirations" (CHPUD, p. 30). No long-term means are in place to protect the proposed preservation and conservation areas once the applicant sells the individual lots. Such general promises at this stage in the development process are not sufficient to ensure that proposed requirements will be met. At the end of the buildout phase, when the individual lots with their intended protected areas are sold for homesites, what's to prevent unscrupulous owners from illegally cutting some of these protected trees in exchange for a small fine from the City if caught - just like the applicant did. He clearcut trees on the lot in front of his house and paid a few thousand dollars for a better view. On proposed individual CHPUD lots, there would not appear to be clear and enforceable boundaries that would prevent encroachment between buildable and preserved areas of each lot and among lots with staggered borders. Appeal Issue #14: The Hearings Official failed to consider all the attributes of significant trees in establishing compliance with EC 9.8320(4). The Hearings Official bases her decision on compliance largely on the basis of tree preservation along the eastern border of the property. This ignores: 1. Trees that provide a buffer between potentially incompatible land uses 2. Trees located along the perimeter of the lot(s) and within building setback areas 3. Trees and stands of trees located along ridgelines and within view corridors 4. Trees adjacent to public parks, open space, and streets In his report (Response Document, Attachment H, p.2), the forester Mr. Mehrwein stated "harvesting the designated trees would significantly increase the risk of wind damage to the remaining trees. Trees not only on the CHPUD site, but also in adjacent private properties and in Hendricks Park and the Ribbon Trail would be increasingly vulnerable to being blown down or having tops broken. " The same argument would apply to homes adjacent to the proposed PUD site near the ridgeline, where cutting trees near lot lines endangers neighboring properties. The proposed PUD shares a 378 foot boundary with Hendricks Park, and the Applicant has failed to create a buffer between the trees to be cut above 901' on the ridgeline and the trees in the Park. Appeal Issue #15: The Hearings Official erred on pages 38 and 39 by stating that Applicant satisfies section (4)(b) by agreeing to replace trees cut down in preservation areas for the 17