Final Order - Laserfiche WebLink

limitations on maximum lot coverage for Lots 16 and 17, since these lots have the option to construct up to three attached homes on each lot. 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 #13o EC 9.8320(4)(b) - Tree Preservation. The Hearings Official made errors regarding Condition 8 in approving that "'the applicants Tree Preservation Plan complies" with Criterion EC 9.8320(4)(b). Hearings Official's Decision: The Hearings Official found the applicant responded to concerns raised by the NRC regarding the tree preservation plan by retaining a certified arborist. The applicant's arborist analysis concluded that the previously submitted Tree Preservation Plan assessment was appropriate. The Hearings Official found that the applicant's proposal preserves as many healthy trees as possible by concentrating the tree preservation in one large area along the eastern border of the property. This provides larger stands of trees in their natural habitat and limits further wind-throw damage to which isolated trees are more susceptible (Hearings Official Decision, page 37). The Hearings Official found that the applicant agreed to several revisions to the Tree Preservation Plan Notes that will provide additional mitigation and protection of trees on the site, and were adopted as conditions of approval. Also, as conditions of approval, the applicant will replace trees removed in Tract A for a storm drainage feature at a rate of two new trees for every one removed tree; all lots that border Tracts A, B, C, and D or have a preservation area on the lot shall have a temporary 10-foot construction easement from all abutting preservation areas during home construction. Also, the Hearings Official approved a condition of approval that limits all preservation areas from having above ground structures and grading activity (Hearings Official Decision, page 38). The Hearings Official concluded that the applicant's Tree Preservation plan complied with the criteria of this code section. Summary of Appellant's Argument: The appellant asserts that condition #8 is insufficient to protect all the preservation areas once the individual lots have been sold, and therefore is not adequate to rely on for compliance with EC 9.8320(4)(b) regarding tree preservation. The appellant maintains that the individual lot preservation areas will not be policed or enforced if an unscrupulous property owner cuts down protected trees. The appellant asserts that all preservation areas should be under the control of the home owners association for better protection. Planning Commission's Determination: The provisions of the applicant's tree preservation plan, in combination with specific notes on the plans as additional conditions of approval, along with conditions of approval for a temporary construction easement setback and restrictions on above ground structures and grading activity in the preservation areas will ensure compliance with the applicable criteria regarding tree preservation (Staff Report, pages 22-23). Much like CC&R's, the City does not rely on private homeowners associations (and cannot) for enforcement of the land use code Final Order: Capital Hill PUD (PDT 17-1) Page 19