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 consideration physical constraints such as steep topography. The findings of this <br />2 staff report indicate that the development, with dead-end streets in excess of 200 <br />3 feet, will have adequate public facilities service. Further the allowance of the <br />4 variance will permit the remainder of the development to meet the required minimum <br />5 density while providing lots that are comparable in size to the approved lots to the <br />6 north. <br />7 "Taken as a whole, the purposes of the [CDC] and the applicable policies of the <br />8 Community Development Plan are equally met or advanced by the variation from <br />9 the development requirement restricting land division to permanent dead-end streets <br />10 200 feet or less in length." Record 54. <br />11 As the above-quoted findings indicate, CDC 10.1510(D) is an inherently nebulous <br />12 standard, which may require balancing what could be a number of broad policy or purpose <br />13 statements. The gist of the city's finding of compliance with CDC 10.1510(D) is that the main <br />14 purpose of the 200-foot cul-de-sac length requirement is to ensure adequate public services, and <br />15 according to the staff report that purpose is equally met with the variance. Petitioners cite to <br />16 testimony from opponents that cul-de-sacs slow emergency response times, and that long, steep <br />17 road grades are dangerous. The challenged variances do not involve road grades, and there is <br />18 substantial evidence supporting the city's finding with respect to public services, including <br />19 emergency response times. Petitioners have not demonstrated that the 'city erred in finding <br />20 compliance with CDC 10.1510(D). <br />21 This subassignment of error is denied. <br />22 The first assignment of error is sustained, in part. <br />23 SECOND ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR <br />24 The city required secondary access to the subdivision, as necessary to approve the planned <br />25 unit development, and the applicant proposed SE Yellowhammer Road as secondary access.' As <br />2 The city's findings explain the necessity of the SE Yellowhammer Road access: <br />"Preclusion of the future connection to SE Yellowhammer Road will result in criteria <br />9.0710(A)(2)-(4) not being met. Further, the lack of connectivity to SE Yellowhammer Road will <br />result in a permanent dead-end street system in excess of 200 feet in length, thereby also not <br />complying with the standards of Section A5.402(F). A Major Variance has not been applied <br />Page 8 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.