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
EC9.6792(3)(c)(2):Iftheinfiltrationorfiltrationfacilityisnotsizedtotreatthe <br />stormwaterrunofffromtheadjoininglotsorparcelsatfullbuildout,alllotsor <br />parcelscreatedbythelanddivisionapplicationmustcomplywithEC9.6792(3)(d)- <br />(g)atthetimeofdevelopmentpermitapplication. <br />EC9.6792(3)(d)(2):Ifselectingoff-sitestormwaterqualitymanagementby <br />contributingtothepublicoff-sitestormwaterqualityfacilities,throughpaymentof <br />ahigherstormwatersystemdevelopmentchargeadoptedaspartoftheCity’s <br />systemdevelopmentchargemethodology,theapplicantshallsubmitareportthat <br />demonstratesthereisinsufficientlandareatoconstructanapprovedinfiltrationor <br />filtrationfacilitybysettingforththerequiredsizeofthesmallestinfiltrationor <br />filtrationfacilityneededforthedevelopment’simpervioussurfaceareaandasite <br />plandemonstratingthatanapprovedinfiltrationorfiltrationfacilitycannotbe <br />locatedonthedevelopmentsitewithoutreducingthesizeoftheproposed <br />developmentwhichisotherwiseconsistentwithallotherapplicablelotand <br />developmentstandards. <br />Theapplication’sSWPlanSection3.1(p.2of9)proposesnomechanicaltreatmentfor"afew <br />basinswherethenewimperviousareasaresmalleranddonotjustifythecostofinstalling <br />mechanicaltreatment."Smallerisarelativetermhavingnomeaninginthiscontext,and <br />thereforedoesnotconstituteajustificationfornotprovidingmechanicaltreatment.The <br />applicationattemptstojustifynotprovidingmechanicaltreatmentforsaidnewperviousareas <br />duetocosts,butcostsarenotproperlyidentifiedorquantifiedinthecodeasacceptable <br />justificationsforgrantingexceptions. <br />Theapplication’sSWPlanSection3.1.2(p.4of9)proposesnoadditionalfiltrationforafirst <br />basin(a)andaseconddischargelocation(b)duetothesteepslopesandthelackofspace <br />available.Theapplicationfailstoprovidesufficientdetail,costestimates,landrequirements, <br />andsiteplandetailsofapossiblefiltrationsystemtodemonstratethatanapprovedinfiltrationor <br />filtrationfacilitycannotbelocatedonthedevelopmentsitewithoutreducingthesizeofthe <br />proposeddevelopment. <br />SWPlan,Section3.1.2(a):Basin1isidentifiedas"thesouthernportionthatdrains <br />downfromthefirst(southern)highpointoftheroadway."Theflowfromthisbasinwill <br />notbefiltered"duetothesteepslopesandlackofspaceavailable." <br />SWPlan,Section3.1.2(b):"Theseconddischargelocationfromtheprivateroadwillbe <br />atthebottomofthegreenwaybetweenlots13and14".AccordingtotheSWPlan,this <br />dischargewillnotbefiltered. <br />SWPlan,Section3.1.2(c):"Thethirdandlastdischargelocationfromtheprivate <br />roadwaywillbethenorthernbasinthatcollectsrunoffwestofthesecond(northern)high <br />point....Noadditionalinfiltrationorfiltrationcanbeapplied." <br />SWPlan,Section3.3(p.7of9):"Thenorthernandsouthernbasinswillbetoosmallto <br />justifythecostofmechanicaltreatment." <br />126 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.