My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Appeal Materials (2)
>
OnTrack
>
PDT
>
2017
>
PDT 17-1
>
Appeal Materials (2)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/10/2018 4:01:40 PM
Creation date
5/9/2018 9:09:54 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.
/
56
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
the same manner as the proposal here. The best evidence that this will work out is in the <br />neighbors' own forested. <br />Tree preservation standards are a perennial hotspot in all reviews of PUDs in the South Hills. <br />The standards above are inherently subjective and call for the most basic value judgments. There <br />are many ways to get trees "right" and just as many ways to get trees "wrong." The applicant's <br />approach has been to preserve trees in large groupings and to require replanting of trees that may <br />be removed at a 2:1 ratio. The approach to tree preservation is the combined effort of Oregon <br />licensed professionals - a landscape architect and an arborist. The staff has given the proposal a <br />good shaking out, and the applicant has incorporated staff recommendations along the way; thus, <br />we have a positive staff recommendation. The HO should approve this approach as well with the <br />conditions recommended by staff. <br />EC 9.8320(4) The PUD is designed and sited to minimize impacts to the natural <br />environment by addressing the following: <br />(c) Restoration or Replacement. <br />2. For areas included on the city's acknowledged Goal 5 inventory, any loss of <br />significant natural features described in criteria (a) and (b) above shall be consistent with <br />the acknowledged level of protection for the features. <br />1. "Natural Features" is not defined in the code; we question whether it can be applied as a clear <br />and objective standard if a definition must be found for it. <br />2. We recommend the finding of compliance as stated in the Staff Report at 24. <br />EC 9.8320(4) The PUD is designed and sited to minimize impacts to the natural <br />environment by addressing the following: <br />(d) Street Trees. If the proposal includes removal of any street tree(s), removal of those <br />street tree(s) has been approved, or approved with conditions according to the process <br />at EC 6.305. <br />The Staff Report at 25 recommends a finding of compliance with a condition. The applicant <br />supports that approach. <br />EC 9.8320(5) The PUD provides safe and adequate transportation systems through <br />compliance with the following: <br />There are three parts to this standard - (a), (b), and (c). They are addressed separately in the staff <br />report, so we take that approach here. <br />APP C - Final Argument 4.6.2018 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.