JANISCH Amy C <br />From: <br />FLOCK Gabriel <br />Sent: <br />Monday, February 23, 2015 10:54 AM <br />To: <br />'Alice and Ross' <br />Cc: <br />SMITH Deanna N; GILLESPIE Scott N; STARK Donna L; COGBURN Jordan D; BERG-JOHANSEN <br />Erik <br />Subject: <br />RE: PDT 15-001 Chamotee Trails <br />Thanks for the email, Ross. I appreciate being kept in the loop on your concerns and I'm copying this to other staff that will be <br />involved the completeness review process. We'll surely be in touch as the process moves forward. GF <br />From: Alice and Ross [mailto:ross-alice@comcast.net] <br />Sent: Monday, February 23, 2015 10:35 AM <br />To: FLOCK Gabriel <br />Subject: PDT 15-001 Chamotee Trails <br />Good morning, Gabe. <br />This is a personal e-mail, sent as a City resident. I am not representing anyone in this matter; I am only <br />appearing in my individual capacity. <br />I have an interest in the newly filed Chamotee Trails PUD application. I suspect I will be appearing <br />throughout this proceeding. <br />I am not sure who you will be putting on this file, so I thought I would send you this initial e-mail. I have some <br />thoughts on the completeness review process. <br />I suspect y'all will find other deficiencies in the application, but I see three off the bat. <br />1) The application does not demonstrate the application is for needed housing as defined by state law. (You <br />and I will probably disagree on this point, but I still fail to see where the City has made the determination, as <br />defined "by state law", where all housing is needed housing. For instance, there is no indication of the <br />income level this housing is intended to appeal to a necessary element for any needed housing analysis.) <br />2) The application has not submitted the 5' interval map for slope analysis. <br />3) The application has not submitted any type of tree plan that would support a finding that the development <br />will "insure maximum preservation of existing vegetation." <br />I also will point out to you the applicant mentioned at the neighborhood meeting that public works directed <br />them to not seek any increase in paving width for W. Amazon, to use a pressure sewer system that runs up <br />Foxboro Lane rather than a gravity system that runs down W. Amazon, and to not propose sidewalks for W. <br />Amazon. Each of these directives were made by public works without any clear and objective criteria let <br />alone any documentation that is included in the application. <br />I know the completeness review process is a staff process, but I thought I would offer these thoughts in case <br />they are helpful. <br />I hope all is well with you. <br />-Ross <br />