My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE - Batch D
>
OnTrack
>
PDT
>
2017
>
PDT 17-1
>
PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE - Batch D
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/8/2018 4:03:37 PM
Creation date
3/7/2018 10:20:15 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.
/
56
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 />I: S A <br />From: Susan Hoffman <shortgamesue@yahoo.com> <br />Seat: Tuesday, January 16, 2018 5:38 PM <br />To: GIOELLO Nick R <br />Cc: Tom Bruno; Kathleen and Mike Masterson; Cathy Johnson; Susan Hoffman; Brent <br />Lorscheider <br />Subject: Capital Hill PUD -A Couple of Questions about Easements <br />Hi Nick. Thanks for the answer this AM from an earlier email from our group. I had these two <br />questions drafted earlier today but just got back to finishing them up. Know it is past 5 but thought I'd <br />send them anyway so you'll have them in the AM. <br />I have the following two questions about easements: <br />A portion of Tract A of the Common Preservation Area lies between Lots 13 & 14. It has a storm <br />water runoff drainage pipe through its entire length from Cupola Drive to the east to a point where <br />Tract A abuts the city owned forested area paralleling the Ribbon Trail. The Application indicates on <br />page 56 of 67 that "all stormwater management measures on the development site are private <br />improvements." I guess that means that this strip of land is NOT a public utility easement?? Please <br />confirm. <br />If this strip of land is not a public utility easement, will the Applicant be required to follow similar <br />measures as the city regarding accessibility to the stormwater drainage equipment for repairs and <br />maintenance? Will the entire 40 foot width of this piece of land be a complete "set aside" for access <br />to the under ground utility?? I believe that EC 9.6500 requires that "no building, structure or tree be <br />placed or located on or in a public utility easement." Will the Applicant be held to the same standard <br />and where would I find that in writing?? <br />Additionally, I cannot find anywhere in EC Section 9.0500 Definitions a definition for slope <br />easement. I know there are a few areas on the 11/27/17 site plan that are notated "slope <br />easement." What are the City's guidelines/limitations for the handling of a slope easement within a <br />development? Or does this issue also fall into a "private improvement" category which would put it <br />out of the purview of city regs?? If slope easements are out of the city regs world, what is the typical <br />handling of this type of easement?? Will homeowners and/or the HOA be prevented from generally <br />accessing this land?? Where would I find that in writing? <br />Thanks as always for your help. Will send along another question in the AM. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.