Final Order - Laserfiche WebLink

existing vegetation. With regard to the proposed 6-foot see-through agricultural-type fence along the eastern property line, the appellant argues that it would effectively nullify the utility of Tract A as a wildlife corridor. However, staff does not believe this issue is relevant under the criterion for adequate screening, as it would be a see-through fence and not intended for the purpose of visual screening. Initially, when this issue was raised in the appeal testimony, staff believed there may be a basis under the PUD approval criteria to preclude the fence in the interest of facilitating wildlife passage. Upon closer evaluation, the appellant has not sufficiently identified any specific code authority (and the Planning Commission was unable to find any), that would enable such a requirement. Based on the available information in the record, the Planning Commission finds that the Hearings Official did not err with respect to this appeal issue. Appeal Issue #10: EC 9.8320(4) - The PUD is designed and sited to minimize impacts to the natural environment. The Hearings Official erred by waiving the requirement for a licensed arborist on the professional design team, and by disregarding the evidence provided by Jim Mehrwein, Registered Professional Forester. Hearings Official's Decision: As explained in the Hearings Official's decision, "at the applicant's request, the City Planning Director waived the requirement for a licensed arborist on the professional design team" (Hearings Official Decision, page 36). In response to concerns raised regarding the tree preservation plan, the applicant retained Kyle King, a local certified arborist, who provided a report dated March 21, 2018, concluding that, in his opinion, the assessment in the applicant's Tree Preservation Plan is appropriate. The Hearings Official discusses the report submitted by James Mehrwein, February 27, 2018, on behalf of the Neighborhood Response Committee on pages 34 and 35 of her decision. The Hearings Official concludes, "while Mr. Mehrwein and surrounding neighbors would conclude that the applicant could do more to preserve trees and further reduce (or eliminate) the potential for windthrow, the applicant's plan to remove trees necessary for the proposed development demonstrates that is has satisfied its obligation to avoid unnecessary disruption or removal of those trees" (Hearings Official Decision, page 35). The Hearings Official also discusses Mr. Mehrwein's assertion of negative impacts from tree removal on Hendricks Park and the Ribbon Trail, and concluding that the development demonstrates compliance: "this criterion [EC 9.8320(4)] relates specifically to minimizing the impact to natural features on the proposed development site. Potential off-site impacts are addressed above with regard to the applicable South Hills Study policies" (Hearings Official Decision, page 35). Summary of Appellant's Argument: The appellant asserts that the Hearings Official erred by failure to ensure the applicant satisfied the requirements of EC 9.8320(4) by waiving the requirement for a licensed arborist on the professional design team, and by disregarding the evidence provided by Jim Mehrwein, Registered Professional Forester. Final Order: Capital Hill PUD (PDT 17-1) Page 16