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
activitiesorotherwiseunwelcomeactivitiesinthisneighborhood.”Thiswouldclearlynotbethe <br />caseifnostreetlightswillbeinstalled. <br />Thelackoflightingwillalsogiveafalsesenseofsecurityforwildlifeandwillincreasethe <br />likelihoodof“carvs.deer”encounters,whichmostdefinitelydoesn’tpromotethewell-beingof <br />wildlifeorthesafetyofresidents. <br />Thelackofcommunitylightingisalsoadisasterfromauniformityofdesignstandpoint.Ifeach <br />individualhomeownerhastheoptiontochooselightingforthestreetandcommunitysidewalks <br />infrontoftheirresidence,thestreetviewatnightwillbearandomcollectionofbulbintensities <br />andcolors,lightingheightsanddesigncharacteristics.Thesearenotthecharacteristicsofaso- <br />called“elegant”or“thoughtful”design.PerhapsCC&Rswilladdressthisissue.Itisimpossible <br />tosay,becausealthoughtheCommitteehasquestionedtheCityseveraltimesaboutthelackof <br />CC&Rs,theApplicantandhisConsultanthaverefusedtocreatedraftCC&Rs. <br />Additionally,indiscussing EC9.6730PedestrianCirculationOn-Site,Section3Designof <br />On-SitePedestrianFacilities,forsubsections(b)through(d),theApplication’scomments <br />that“Compliancewiththiscriterionwillbeevaluatedattimeofbuildingpermitsubmittal.” <br />ThesethreecriteriadealwithconstructionofpedestrianpathsincompliancewiththeAmericans <br />withDisabilitiesAct;heightofpedestrianpathsadjacenttostreets;andmarkingofpedestrian <br />pathsforcrossingareas. <br />WhyistheApplicationunabletoaddressthesecriteriaatthistime?Thisisespecially <br />shortsightedgiventhattheApplicationboastsabouttheconstructionoftwosidewalks(along <br />CapitalDr.andCupolaDr.)aspartofsitedevelopmentplansthatensuresafetyforthe <br />community.Bydelayinganycompliancereviewforsidewalkconstructionuntilvertical <br />buildingplansaresubmitted,theApplicationimpliesthatcommunitysidewalkconstructionwill <br />be“piecemeal”andwillnotbecompleteduntilallhomesarebuilt.Ifthisisthecase,theseveral <br />yearsthatmayberequiredforcompletebuildoutoftheproposedPUDwillbeperilousforall <br />residentsandfortheentirecommunity. <br />Therefore,theApplicationisnotincompliancewithseveralsub-sectionswithinEC9.6730 <br />PedestrianCirculationOn-Site. <br />THEAPPLICATIONSHOULDBEDENIED. <br />#### <br />Criteria(10).ThePUDcomplieswith…thefollowing: <br />(f)EC9.6735PublicAccessRequired. <br />(1)Exceptasotherwiseprovidedinthislandusecode,nobuildingorstructureshallbe <br />erectedoralteredexceptonalotfrontingorabuttingonapublicstreetorhaving <br />accesstoapublicstreetoveraprivatestreetoreasementofrecordapprovedin <br />accordancewithprovisionscontainedinthislandusecode. <br />118 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.