Appeal Issue #9a EC 9.8320(3) ® The PU will provide adequate screening from <br />surrounding properties including, but not limited to, anticipated building locations, <br />bully, and height. <br />Hearings Official's Decision: <br />The Hearings Official found that the combined private lot preservation areas combined with the <br />common preservation area of Tract A will provide substantial screening for areas to the east. <br />The site is currently mostly obscured from view from the flatter elevations below and to the <br />west. The Hearings Official also noted conditions of approval that require trees on individual <br />lots cannot be removed until a construction permit is issued, and trees in developable areas <br />that are removed for future homes or die for any reason shall be replaced with a one to one <br />ratio. This ensures that the site will remain vegetated and provide adequate screening in the <br />future. <br />The Hearings Official also found that while the proposed lot locations and configurations must <br />be evaluated for compliance, future buildings are not subject to this review, and evaluation for <br />compliance with this code section does not include consideration of future buildings. All future <br />proposed homes must be evaluated for compliance with the R-1 zone development standards, <br />and the bulk and height must be consistent with those development standards, which includes <br />building heights, setbacks and lot coverage. <br />Additionally, the Hearings Official imposed staff's recommended condition of approval to limit <br />buildable areas for Lots 5, 16 and 22. For compliance with the R-1 zoning standards, as a <br />condition of approval the site plans must be revised to show buildable areas on these three lots <br />not to exceed 13,500 square feet. <br />Summary of Appellant's Argument: <br />The appellant asserts that the Hearings Official made multiple errors regarding compliance with <br />this requirement, as summarized below: <br />® The Hearings Official erred on Page 31 in the initial paragraph of her Decision when she <br />stated, "The proposed site plan provides for significant continuous preservation areas <br />along the eastern boundary, adjacent to the Ribbon Trail..."" The appellant asserts that a <br />6 foot fence along the entire length of the eastern property line is proposed, and this is <br />counter to several of the Hearings Official's statements that a beneficial characteristic of <br />the eastern lots is that they, "act as an uninterrupted natural wildlife corridor" (Hearings <br />Official Decision, page 18); "continuous buffer" (Hearings Official Decision, page 18); <br />"continuous preservation area" (Hearings Official Decision, page 31); and, "continuous <br />wildlife habitat and corridor" (Hearings Official Decision, page 78). <br />® The Hearings Official erred on Page 31 of her decision when, in discussing screening, she <br />stated that "the site is currently mostly obscured from view and difficult to observe from <br />flatter elevations below and to the west". The screening referred to by the Hearings <br />Official includes mature trees both onsite and offsite. An analysis of the proposed <br />removal of the mature trees should have been requested, as well as "the likelihood that <br />some neighboring trees will become damaged or die over time or that they will be <br />removed because of further development of adjoining lots" (Appeal Statement, page 12). <br />Final Order: Capital Hill PUD (PDT 17-1) Page 14 <br />