Appeal Materials - Laserfiche WebLink

sites. Preservation of Tract A and the preserved areas of the individual lots bordering Tract A are consistent with Policy 1. " Examination of Site Plan L2.0 dated 1/19/18 shows that Tract A and the preserved portions of individual lots are all below 901' elevation. Policy 2: To protect areas of high biological value in order to provide for the continued health of native wildlife and vegetation. The Hearings Official (p.17) states: "In addition to the preservation areas in Tract A and on adjacent individual lots, the proposed PUD designates several smaller areas of land throughout the site (Tracts B, C and D) for preservation, bringing the total preservation area of the PUD site to approximately 4.54 acres. As the staff notes, (and as depicted on the site plan, at sheets L3.3, L3.4 and L4.0) a small area of Tract A will be initially disturbed in order to install a storm drainage feature. As a result, and as further described in findings of compliance with EC 9.8320(4)(b) Tree Preservation, five trees will be removed in or adjacent to TractA and ten replacement trees will be required in their place. These described preservations areas will be protected from any future construction and removal of trees, therefore providing for the continued health of the native wildlife and vegetation, consistent with Policy 2. " Examination of Site Plan L2.0 dated 1/19/18 shows that slightly more than half the area of Tract B lies above 901', or approximately 1100 sq ft. Tract B is a 20 foot wide rectangular section between lots 29 and 30 that extends west from Cupola Drive to dead-end at the back of Lot 24. Of the entire preserved area, just 0.5 % lies above 901'. Policy 5: To provide connective passageways for wildlife between important biological preserves. The Hearings Official cites the combined preservation areas of Tract A and the preserved areas of the eastern lots as an uninterrupted natural wildlife corridor. Again, these sections of the PUD lie below 901'. Further, any wildlife corridor assertion is nullified by the "Proposed 6'see through agricultural type fence at the property line" shown on Site Plan L2.0. This fence extends along the full southern and eastern boundary of the PUD, terminating on the north at the "neighbor's fence at Lot 4. " It appears that the presence of this fence was not considered by the Hearings Official. Appeal Issue # 4: The Hearings Official incorrectly interpreted the language and requirements of the Development Standards [EC 9.9630(3)(b)]. She states (p.19): "the subject property is designated for residential development and because some of the subject property is located above an elevation of 901 feet, the proposed residential development must be reviewed in accordance with the PUD procedures and must be consistent the purposes identified in the Ridgeline section. Specifically, the Development Standards for the Ridgeline section of the South Hills Study require that any "intense level of development" of that 5