My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Appeal Materials
>
OnTrack
>
PDT
>
2017
>
PDT 17-1
>
Appeal Materials
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/10/2018 4:01:03 PM
Creation date
5/9/2018 8:58:19 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
PDD_Planning_Development
File Type
PDT
File Year
17
File Sequence Number
1
Application Name
Capital Hill PUD
Document Type
Appeal Materials
Document_Date
5/7/2018
External View
Yes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
58
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
not believe the applicant has done enough; there are always ways that `more' could be <br />preserved. However, in `encouraging' the applicant to design a residential development the <br />respects the existing characteristics of the site and minimize the impacts, the South Hills Study <br />residential development standards do not require absolute preservation or the absence of any <br />impacts. In the context of the residential zoning of this property, the applicant has used the PUD <br />procedures to design a proposed development that minimizes impacts and respects and preserves <br />the site's natural characteristics. " <br />As stated above, the Hearings Official uses the phrase "overall impact" as an invented goal or <br />policy set out by the South Hills Study section 9.9630. However, 9.9630 does not refer to <br />"overall impact." Nor does the original South Hills Study refer to "overall impact." The Hearings <br />Official erroneously casts the argument in terms of more or less general effort on the part of the <br />Applicant with regard to "overall impacts." However, 9.9630 refers to specific "impacts" that a <br />PUD Applicant should minimize. In 9.9630, "impacts" are twice referenced with regard to the <br />need for the Applicant to minimize "visual" "impacts." In the case of the site in question, the <br />highest visual impact comes from cutting trees on the ridgeline above 901'. <br />EC 9.9630(3)(c): That adequate review of both on-site and off-site impact of any development <br />by a qualified engineering geologist occur under any of the following conditions: <br />1. All formations <br />Soil depth of 40 inches or above <br />Slopes of 30 percent and above <br />2. Basalt flows <br />Soil depth of 40 inches or above <br />Slopes of 20 percent to 30 percent <br />3. Eugene Formation <br />Soil depth of 40 inches and above <br />Slopes of 20 percent to 30 percent <br />4. Basalt flows <br />Soil depth of 20 to 40 inches <br />Slopes of 30 percent and above <br />5. Eugene Formation <br />Soil depth of 20 inches to 40 inches <br />Slopes of 30 percent and above <br />Appeal Issue #5: The Hearings Official's findings regarding the consistency of the application <br />with EC 9.8320(2) are based on two errors: <br />1. She failed to consider that, by their own admission, the investigation conducted by <br />Branch Engineering was "a preliminary study" rather than an 'in-depth, detailed <br />analysis." <br />2. She failed to consider evidence that Branch Engineering's areally limited work cannot <br />"adequately consider both on-site and off-site impacts" as required by the SHS. <br />7 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.