Final Order - Laserfiche WebLink

Appeal Issue #15: The Hearings Official erred on pages 38 and 39 by stating that Applicant satisfies section ()(b) by agreeing to replace trees cut down in preservation areas for the construction o the storm ter system. Hearings Official's Decision: The Hearings Official found 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 siting the residential lots and new street in areas of previous impact, with less steep terrain and less dense or otherwise less significant trees and vegetation (Hearings Official Decision, pages 33-37). The Hearings Official found that the applicant agreed to include Tree Preservation Plan Notes on the final plans that will provide additional mitigation and protection of trees on the site. These additional notes were adopted as conditions of approval. Other conditions of approval require the applicant to replace trees removed in Tract A 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 their lot shall have a temporary 10-foot construction easement from all abutting preservation areas during home construction (Hearings Official Decision, page 38). Also, the Hearings Official adopted staff's proposed 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 the Hearings Official based her decision on compliance with tree preservation along the eastern border of the property; ignoring trees that provide a buffer between potentially incompatible land uses, trees along the perimeter of lots within building setback areas, trees located along ridgelines and within view corridors, and trees adjacent to public parks, open space, and streets. The appellant also asserts that the Hearings Official erred by allowing the applicant to remove and replant trees in the Tract A preservation area, where the storm water system is located. The appellant argues that the storm water system will require maintenance over time and it is possible the trees will not be able to grow or will have to be removed when work is done on the storm water system. 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, and with conditions of approval for a temporary construction easement setback and restrictions on above ground structures and grading activity in the preservation areas demonstrates compliance with the applicable criteria regarding tree preservation (Staff Report, pages 22-23). Regarding the removal and replacement of trees in Tract A for the storm drainage feature, five trees are slated for removal and based on the conditions of approval, 10 trees of native species will be required to be planted as replacements. For this type of storm drainage feature, typical maintenance requires cleaning out of the installed drain pipes and no grading or ground disturbance is anticipated (Staff Report, page 23). Final Order: Capital Hill PUD (PDT 17-1) Page 21