My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
APPLICANT ADDITIONAL EXHIBIT (1 of 2)
>
OnTrack
>
PDT
>
2017
>
PDT 17-1
>
APPLICANT ADDITIONAL EXHIBIT (1 of 2)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/7/2018 10:35:45 AM
Creation date
3/7/2018 10:35:26 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
PDD_Planning_Development
File Type
PDT
File Year
17
File Sequence Number
1
Application Name
CAPITAL HILL PUD
Document Type
Supplemental Materials
Document_Date
3/6/2018
External View
Yes
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
211
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
Appeal statement <br />Public comments prior to the hearing <br />Public comments during public hearing <br />Referral comments <br />Hearings Agenda and Staff Report <br />FACTS <br /> <br />The Planning <br /> subject site is located near the northwest corner of the intersection of <br />Howard Avenue and North Park Avenue. The site is currently undeveloped. The <br />site is a portion of Lot 41 of Pennington Acres Subdivision. The applicant is <br />proposing to construct 106 apartment units in 14 two-story buildings, configured <br />as a mixture of 4, 6, 8, and 12- <br />unit. The site is split zoned, with GO General Office and R-2 Medium Density <br />Residential. The area to be developed is located entirely in the GO zoned portion <br />of the site. The R-2 zoned portion of the site is almost entirely a Goal 5 protected <br />wetland and riparian area. This portion of the site will be left undeveloped. <br />Another portion of the site, adjacent to North Park is an unprotected wetland and <br />riparian area. Most of this area is also left undeveloped. <br />Decision 1-2. <br /> The site review was submitted along with an adjustment review application for the <br />proposed development. The Planning Director approved both the site review and the adjustment <br />1 <br />review. This appeal followed. <br />ANALYSIS <br />The appellant raises only one assignment of error: <br />Analysis\] <br />apartment complex * * *. The Planning Director erred by failing to require the <br />applicant to co <br /> <br />complex, the Planning Director and applicant must also take into consideration <br />Phase I of the development (the 40 single-family homes) as well as the likely <br />development of the three undeveloped residential lots (42, 43, and 44) and the <br /> <br /> <br />1 <br /> The adjustment review was not appealed. <br /> <br />Hearings Official Decision (SR 17-2) 2 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.