My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Hearings Official Decision
>
OnTrack
>
PDT
>
2017
>
PDT 17-1
>
Hearings Official Decision
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/16/2018 4:02:00 PM
Creation date
5/15/2018 12:02:14 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
PDD_Planning_Development
File Type
PDT
File Year
17
File Sequence Number
1
Application Name
CAPITAL HILL PUD
Document Type
Decision Document
Document_Date
5/15/2018
External View
Yes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
79
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
EC 9.8320(6), the applicant's investigation and the Response Committee's review are addressed <br />below. <br />That developments he reviewed to encourage clustering of open space elements of <br />different developments in order to preserve the maximum amount of continuous open <br />space. <br />Finding: This South Hills development standard encourages adjoining developments to `cluster' <br />open space. The proposed PUD does not abut open space of any of the established residential <br />development adjacent to it. It does, however, enhance the continuous open space of the park and <br />public areas to the east and northeast of the site. <br />As described above, the proposed PUD includes a total of 4.54 acres of protected open space. It <br />buffers the proposed residential development from the eastern property boundary with common <br />open space preservation area (Tract A) and individual preservation areas on Lot 5 and Lots 8 <br />through 19. This clustering of open space both buffers the proposed development from the <br />Ribbon Trail and protects significant natural features and vegetation. The common area and <br />individual preservation areas of Lot 5 and Lots 8 through 19 will effectively act as one large <br />continuous open space. The proposed development also includes a preservation area along the <br />northeast boundary of the subject property which abuts the established public open space of <br />Hendricks Park, consistent with the policy language above. <br />That developments he reviewed in terms of scale, hulk and height to ensure that <br />development blends with rather than dominates the natural characteristics of the south <br />hills area. <br />Finding: As described in the Staff Report, the subject property is characterized by two distinct <br />areas: the area along the ridge of the site comprised of Lots 1 through 4, Lots 6 and 7, and Lots <br />20 through 34; and the eastern side, comprised of Lot 5 and Lots 8 through 19. Lots on the top of <br />the ridge are characterized by a mixture of flatter terrain and typical slopes of 20% or less with <br />relatively few trees. Five of the seven existing structures are located in this area. <br />Lots on the eastern side of the development are characterized by steeper slopes of between 20% <br />and 50%. A majority of the trees and other vegetation on the site are located in this area. All of <br />the lots in this area have defined preservation areas that prohibit construction of buildings. Many <br />of these lots have close to, if not more than, half of their lot areas protected by preservation area. <br />This effectively acts as building envelope, forcing building locations closer to the streets that <br />provide access to the lot, limiting grading impacts, creating a larger natural buffer to the adjacent <br />Ribbon Trail to the east, and preserving more of the existing vegetation. The individual lot <br />preservation areas, along with Tract A, provide a significant buffer and visual screen from lower <br />elevations to the east of the site. This will limit the scale and bulk of the proposed single-family <br />residential development as viewed from the east. <br />The proposed PUD does not include specific building areas or envelopes to accommodate <br />development impacts on each lot. The Response Committee and several neighbors argue that <br />without details specifying the height and placement of homes on the sites, and without a specific <br />Hearings Official Decision (PDT 17-1) 22 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.