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
TheadjoiningpropertiesonCapitalDr.alongthe125linearfeetofgravelroadwaywillnotbe <br />abletoconnecttotheproposeddevelopment’sstreetsystem. <br />Seeadditionalcommentsregarding EC9.6505Improvements–Specifications(3)Streetsand <br />Alleys inthefinalsectionsofthisresponseDocument <br />#### <br />EC9.2760LotArea. <br />The8/22/17ApplicationstatesinthemiddleofPage59of67:“Lots5,14-19and20,22and23 <br />exceedthelotareamaximumof13,500sf.Inthiscase,thelotareamaximumisexceededto <br />preserveexistingnaturalfeaturesandhomes.”(Emphasisadded.) <br />TheCommitteepointsoutthatfromtheabove10largelotsindicatedbytheApplicationas <br />having“naturalfeatures&homes,”onlytwo,infact,dohaveexistinghomes.Additionally,Lot <br />4(a21,807SFlotwithanexisting2,811SFresidencenotated“existingbuildingtoremain”on <br />the1/19/18SitePlanL2.0)ismissingfromthelistof10largelotsonPage59of67ofthe <br />Application.The21,807SFLot4exceedstheCity’s13,500SFresidentialmaximumSFby <br />61%.Whyhasn’tthislotbeenincluded? <br />WhycannottheApplicantandhisConsultantgettheirfactsstraight?ThroughoutthisResponse <br />Document,theCommitteehaspointedoutinconsistencies,falsehoods,andcarelesspresentation <br />thatunderminestheintegrityandveracityoftheentireApplication. <br />The8/22/17Application,onPage59of67,proceedswith: <br />“Aspreviouslymentionedinthiswrittenstatement,certainlotswithinthePUDaregreater <br />thanthelotareamaximumprimarilytocreateandmaintainconservationzones.These <br />zoneswillberegulatedandmaintainedbytheHOAtoensurethenaturalareais <br />appropriatelypreserved.Theconservationareacomponentofthelotwillbeprotectedfrom <br />developmentandwillpreservetreesandvegetation,aswellasprovideaforestedbuffer <br />betweenthePUDandRibbonTrail.”(Emphasisadded.) <br />TheCommitteeagainremindsthereaderthatthelotsalongtheeasternedgeoftheproposed <br />projectdonotcontainextrasquarefootageto“createandmaintainconservationzones.”These <br />so-calledIndividualTaxLotPreservationAreashavebeentackedontotheindividuallotsto <br />increaselotpricestothebenefitoftheApplicant.Theseareascould(andshould)bepartofthe <br />HOA’sPreservationAreasotheirmanagementishandleddirectlybytheHOAandnotthrough <br />anintermediary,i.e.,theindividualowneroftheland. <br />The8/27/17Application,onPages59and60,furtherstates:“Thepreservationzonesforthelots <br />exceedingthemaximumlotsizecontainingpreservationzones\[sic\]areasfollows:” <br />(CommitteeNote:ThisisarepeatoftheinformationonPage50of67ofthe8/22/17 <br />Application.) <br />156 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.