My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Public Comments submitted at hearings official hearing (NRC 1)
>
OnTrack
>
PDT
>
2017
>
PDT 17-1
>
Public Comments submitted at hearings official hearing (NRC 1)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/12/2018 10:39:26 AM
Creation date
3/12/2018 10:38:33 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 Comments submitted at hearings official hearing
Document_Date
3/7/2018
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.
/
334
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
TheApplicationresponds:“SeeSitePlannoteregardingthepedestrianscalelighting.Specific <br />lightingplanscanbeevaluatedattimeofbuildingpermitsubmittal.” <br />The1/19/18SitePlanL2.0quotesfrom EC9.6725OutdoorLightingStandards(3) <br />Shielding: <br />“AlllightingwillmeetthestandardsinEC9.6725OutdoorLightingStandardstoinclude <br />butnotlimitedto:Shielding.Alllightingfixturessubjecttoalightingpermitshallbe <br />cutoffandadditionalshieldingshallberequired,asnecessary,todirectthelightwithin <br />theboundariesofthedevelopmentsite.” <br />However,thevarioussiteplansfortheproposedprojectdonotappeartoindicateanyuniform <br />outdoorlightingatall.Neitherthe8/22/17Applicationnorthe11/27/17AmendmentLetter <br />discussanyexteriorlightingdesignorstandardsfortheproposedPUD.Infact,onPage10of67 <br />ofthe8/22/17Application,underStreetandUtilityImprovementRequirements(Existingand <br />ProposedStreetLights),theApplicationindicates“None.” <br />Aproposeddevelopmentplanforasmanyas38unitsatthetopofCapitalHillwhere,atnight,it <br />isnothingshortofpitchblackdoesnotproposecommunitylightingofanykind?Howcanthis <br />be? <br />PerhapstheApplicantisattemptingtocircumventtheissueofstreetlightingbyclaimingthatthe <br />to-be-builtCupolaDr.isa“private”streetand,therefore,notsubjecttoEugene’sPublic <br />ImprovementDesignStandards? <br />However,althoughitisclassifiedasaprivatestreet,CupolaDr.istheonlystreetthatbi-sectsthe <br />community;itliterallyistheavenueuponwhichmostresidentswillrelyforsafeaccesstotheir <br />homes. <br />CapitalDrive,however,isclassifiedinthe8/22/17ApplicationonPage54of67asapublic <br />localstreet.Why,then,doestheApplicationnotevenaddressstreetlightingforCapitalDrive <br />andhowthatpotentiallightingcomplieswithEugene’sPublicImprovementDesignStandards?? <br />ItappearsthattheApplicationisrelyingonindividuallotownerstoprovidelightingforthe <br />entireproject.WhereisthelightingfortheproposedsidewalksthataretoborderCapitalDr.and <br />CupolaDr.?Iflightingfortheentirelengthofthesetwosidewalksisnotinstalledatthetimethe <br />sidewalksarebuilt,theywillberendereduselessafterdark.WhathappensduringDecember <br />whenitisdarkbeforemanyresidentsreturnfromworkorschool?Orduringthewintermonths <br />whenallroadsandsidewalksofteniceoverinthelateafternoon?Thissituationistreacherous, <br />atbest,forallpedestrians,runners,bicyclistsandanyonenotbehindthewheelofa“Humvee.” <br />Thisdangertopedestrianscausedbyacompletelackofanyproposedstreetlightsisespecially <br />pronouncedgiventhattheApplication(onPage12of67)toutsitselfascompliantwith EC <br />9.8300PurposeofPlannedUnitDevelopment(1)Plannedunitdevelopmentprovisionsare <br />intendedto(d)“encouragealternativeusetotheautomobile.”Themessagehereispromote <br />walkingorbiking.Further,theApplicationthroughoutdescribestheproposedprojectassafe <br />and,onPage67of67,postulates“thisproperty…willaddapresencethatprecludes…unlawful <br />117 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.