My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE - Batch A
>
OnTrack
>
PDT
>
2017
>
PDT 17-1
>
PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE - Batch A
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/8/2018 4:01:00 PM
Creation date
3/7/2018 10:15:24 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
PDD_Planning_Development
File Type
PDT
File Year
17
File Sequence Number
1
Application Name
CAPITAL HILL PUD
Document Type
Misc.
Document_Date
3/6/2018
External View
Yes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
68
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
ELL Nick <br />From: Paul Conte <paul.t.conte@gmail.corn> <br />Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2017 6:12 PM <br />To: GIOELLO Nick R <br />Subject Re: Capital Hill PUD <br />Thanks Nick, very helpful. <br />Re the "No Parking" signage and enforcement question Without digging back into the documents, <br />weren't some of the existin segments of road going to remain with 20' pavement width? Those are <br />the ones that would need "no parking" (in addition to one side of a 21-foot pavement. <br />Also, as a note for the staff report to the HO PWD should be involved with careful wording of <br />any condition of approval re street and associated improvements (curbs, sidewalks, etc.) <br />For example, 21' is NOT adequate without signage, pavement marking and enforcement to provide <br />adequate "pullout" areas. I haven't found a spec on the min length of, and max spacing of, the <br />pullout areas. But somewhere I've seen a 20-foot pullout every 150 feet. You need to be sure that <br />this requirement is expressed, either in precise figures or by reference to a standard. <br />We are currently appealing the approval of PDT 13-1 and one of our AoEs will be that the EPC's <br />condition of "widening the pavement to 20"' in a 20' ROW is ambiguous and the EPC did not explain <br />how it was even feasible. (if there has to be curb and gutter improvements where the pavement is <br />widened, then you can't get 20' of paving in 20' of ROW.) <br />Staff has never bothered to learn the appropriate way to deal with EC 9.8320(6) and similar or <br />related criteria (e.g., EC 9.8320(7)). <br />There is a difference between requiring the developer to improve a public street and requiring the <br />public street to be improved to a certain spec without stating who will do it. It's very simple and is <br />directly elucidated in Butte Conservancy LUBA decision. <br />You can read my testimony in PDT 13-1 (or Trautman) in the first remand for the details and copies <br />of the decision.I would be happy to explain it if you want to discuss by phone. <br />Paul <br />On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 4:18 PM, GIOELLO Nick R <Nick.R.Gioello(cr ci.eugene.or.us> wrote: <br />Paul; <br />1 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.