My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Public Testimony (Opposition)
>
OnTrack
>
PDT
>
2017
>
PDT 17-1
>
Public Testimony (Opposition)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/25/2018 9:08:26 AM
Creation date
3/7/2018 11:42:49 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
PDD_Planning_Development
File Type
PDT
File Year
17
File Sequence Number
1
Application Name
CAPITAL HILL PUD
Document Type
Public Testimony
Document_Date
3/7/2018
External View
Yes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
105
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
1 be possible." Record 54. Petitioners cite to nothing in the record indicating that that circumstance <br />2 is typical on other lands in the vicinity or subject to the HPCD. However, respondents cite us to <br />3 nothing in the record establishing the contrary. We agree with petitioners that the city's finding <br />4 under CDC 10.1530(A) is conclusory and inadequate. CDC 10.1530(A) requires at least a <br />5 general description of the "other properties in the same vicinity or land use district" and some <br />6 explanation for why the particular circumstances that apply to the subject site are atypical, unique or <br />7 unusual, compared to other properties in the same vicinity or district. That description and <br />8 explanation are missing. <br />9 This subassignment of error is sustained, in part. <br />10 B. CDC 10.1510(A) <br />11 CDC 10.1510(A) requires a showing that: <br />12 "The need for the variance does not result from prior actions of the applicant or <br />13 owner, or from personal circumstances of the applicant or owner, such as financial <br />14 circumstances." <br />15 The city's findings state: <br />16 "The proposed variance does not result from any prior actions of the applicant, nor <br />17 does it result from financial or other personal circumstances of the applicant. * * * <br />18 Due to the steep topography of the development site, connecting these cul-de-sacs <br />19 to other streets (thus eliminating the `dead end' nature of the streets) is impractical. <br />20 * * * these dead-end streets are the only means to access land that is less than 15% <br />21 slope." Record 53. <br />22 Petitioners argue that the city's findings fail to address the prior actions of the applicant in <br />23 developing earlier phases of the larger subdivision, which dictated the hnd use pattern for the <br />24 subject property. In addition, petitioners argue that the applicant was well aware of the <br />25 topographical constraints when it purchased the subject property, and that knowledge should be a <br />26 basis to deny a variance under CDC 10.1510(A). With respect to personal and financial <br />27 circumstances, petitioners contend that the variances essentially allow the applicant to develop 11 <br />Page 4 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.