Planning Commission Staff Report (8-6-19)

® The Hearings Official erred in not recognizing that the planned removal of one large redwood tree (Tree 41398 in good condition) located in Tract C is in direct violation of the guidelines for Preservation Areas. ® The Hearings Official erred in logic on page 31 when discussing how the PUD will provide adequate screening from surrounding properties, including but not limited to, anticipated building locations, bulk and height. ® The Hearings Official erred in logic on pages 31 and 32 because she relied on both mature trees off-site and off-site neighboring residential structures to provide screening for the development. The Hearings Official previously stated that, "based on topography, the proposed tree preservation and the proposed site plan, the scale, bulk and height will create and maintain an impact consistent with the view scape created by of [sic] the adjacent established residential neighborhoods" (Hearings Official Decision, page 23 as part of the South Hills Study discussion). ® The Hearings Official erred on page 34 in her interpretation that the Response Committee misconstrued how the city will apply the height limitations to the to-be-built homes. Planning Commission's Determination: The Planning Commission concurs with the findings of the Hearings Official that the criteria for adequate screening have been met. As discussed in the staff report (page 19) there are no proposed buildings or additions proposed with the PUD application. Single-family homes will be constructed by individual property owners over time, and required to comply with the applicable R-1 zoning and development standards. The applicant's narrative indicates that private CC&Rs will provide guidelines for the bulk, height, and scale of the buildings and a design review team will review and approve proposed building plans to ensure that the intent of the CC&Rs are met. However, it is important to understand that the City does not enforce private covenants or agreements between private parties, and that while CC&Rs can be more restrictive than City code, they cannot provide exceptions to City codes regarding restrictions on building locations, bulk, and height, or any other City codes. As discussed in the staff report, the large tree preservation area on the eastern portion of the site will provide a significant buffer and provide screening for the adjacent Ribbon Trail and provide screening for the residential properties to the east, which are significantly lower in elevation. Any trees in the buildable areas of individual lots that are removed for development, or die for any reason, must be replaced with new trees at a one to one ratio. The PUD is also conditioned so that if any trees must be removed from any preservation area, justification of the removal must be documented by a certified arborist and provided to the City for review prior to the tree being removed. Removal of a preservation tree will require the planting of 2 replacement trees for every tree removed. This ensures that the site will remain vegetated and provide adequate screening in the future. Another important factor to consider as to the correct interpretation of this approval criterion is the meaning of "adequate screening" in the context of the site, proposed development, and surroundings. This is an inherently subjective standard, and does not require that the proposed development be invisible from surrounding properties, which include residential uses similar to that which is proposed, and park lands, which staff believes will be adequately screened by Final Order: Capital Hill PUD (PDT 17-1) Page 15