Final Order - Laserfiche WebLink

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 noted that this section of the code relates specifically to minimizing the impact to natural features on the proposed development site, and not to off-site impacts which are addressed in the South Hills Study policies (Hearings Official Decision, page 35). Summary of Appellant's Argument: The appellant asserts that the applicant proposes to only preserve approximately 1,100 square feet of area and two trees of significant size on the portion of the site above 901 feet, and that the applicant has not provided anticipated building locations, bulk and height in order to outline the effect of construction on the natural features. The appellant asserts that the Hearings Official failed to stipulate that these details should be a condition of approval. The appellant also asserts that significant concern was raised by Jim Mehrwein, Registered Professional Forester, that trees cut down on the site will have negative impacts for adjacent trees both on-site and in Hendricks Park, becoming vulnerable to windthrow. The appellant asserts that the Hearings Official failed to show how the applicant satisfied its obligation to avoid unnecessary disruption or removal of trees on the site. The appellant asserts, "the Hearings Official fails in this regard to enforce (4)(b)(5), (6), (7), and (8). Because the Applicant's plan allows for a clearcut along the ridgeline above 901', trees "along the perimeter of the lots and within setback areas" (5), "trees and stands of trees located along ridgeline and within corridors" (6), "Trees with significant habitat value" (large trees important to protecting the forest against windthrow) (7), and "Trees adjacent to public parks, open space and streets" are all under threat of destruction" (Appeal Statement, page 15). Planning Commission's Determination: The Planning Commission concurs with the Hearing s Official's decision. As discussed in the staff report (page 20), the applicant demonstrated minimizing impacts to the site by clustering residential lots areas of previous manmade impact with less steep terrain, and less dense or otherwise less significant vegetation. Significant conservation areas are proposed on the steepest slopes of the site. Based on the available information, the areas included in Tract A and within individual lot preservation areas comprise the majority of significant trees, vegetation, and other natural features which are suitable for preservation. The proposed combined conservations areas total approximately 33% percent of the site. The chosen placement of Cupola Drive will limit the necessary grading and associated cut and fill, which helps to minimize soil erosion and flood hazard. Locating Cupola Drive in this area also requires fewer tree removals since trees have already been removed along the vehicle accessway. The appellant asserts that the applicant's plan allows for the clear cutting of trees along the ridgeline. Planning Commission disagrees with this assertion, noting that the removal of trees in buildable areas will be at the discretion of the developer or future lot owners, and these trees can only be removed for the construction of a home and associated improvements such as driveways. Eugene Code development standards will restrict the maximum lot coverage on each lot so that lots cannot be completely covered by structures. Condition #10 further insures Final Order: Capital Hill PUD (PDT 17-1) Page 18