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
“Eventhoughthesubjectpropertylineisfairlyclose(theCommitteemeasuresabout50 <br />feet,whichistooclose)totheRibbonTrail,theapplicanthaschosentorelyonthe <br />flexibilityofthePUDprocessandtoarrangeanddesignlotsinsuchawaythatthis <br />importantcommunityresourceisvisuallyprotectedandbufferedfromasmuchas <br />feasible.”(Emphasisadded.) <br />TheCommitteeagainrepliesthat,wereconservationforemostamongtheApplicant’sandhis <br />Consultant’sconcerns,thelotlinesforthesteepareasabuttingtheCitypropertyandtheRibbon <br />Trailwouldbesetbackfartherthantheyare.Additionally,theApplicationwouldaddressthe <br />all-importantquestionofthebulk&heightofpotentialhomesintheproposedproject,especially <br />thosebackingtowardtheRibbonTrail.However,theApplicationhas“swepttheseissuesunder <br />therug”asthoughtheyareunimportant. <br />TheCommitteerestatesitsconcernaboutthepossibleheightofhomesbackingtowardthe <br />RibbonTrail.Giventhesteepnessofthe13lotsontheeasternsideoftheprojectandthehigh <br />percentageoflotcoverageachievable,structurescouldbe40feettallandonly10feetapart(side <br />yardsetbackisonly5feet)andstillbewithincode.Homeswouldmostcertainlybeseenfrom <br />theRibbonTrailandwouldloomoveranddominatethehillside. <br />Further,theApplicantdidnot“choose”torelyonthePUDprocess;theApplicantandhis <br />Consultanthadnochoice.Seeaboveregarding EC9.4310Applicability wheretheApplication <br />states,“Thesiteiszoned/PD.Therefore,the/PDoverlayzoneappliesandthedevelopment <br />mustcomply withthePlannedUnitDevelopmentcriteriacontainedinEC9.8300–EC9.8335.” <br />(Emphasisadded.) <br />The8/22/17ApplicationonPage60of67states: <br />“Moreover,thedevelopmentrequestsflexibilityregardinglotcoveragestandardsto <br />ensuretheCity’shousingandinfillstrategiesareappropriatelyintegratedintothesite <br />design.Thisdecisionisalsobasedonfeedbackfromneighborsandcitystaff.” <br />TheCommitteerefersthereadertoprevioussectionswithinthisResponseDocumentwherewe <br />havecompletelydebunkedthishypothesis. <br />TheApplicationcontinues: <br />“Finally,therequestedflexibilityforlotfrontageisbasedonanumberofconcernsfrom <br />neighborsandCitystaff.Ifeachlotwasarrangedinsuchawayastohavefrontageon <br />CapitalDriveandCupolaDrive,manyunitsandvaluablenaturalareawouldbelost.” <br />(Emphasisadded.) <br />TheCommitteereiteratesitspositionthatmoreacceptablefrontageperlotcouldbeachievedif <br />fewerlotswereproposed.Discretionarytreesandvegetationin“valuablenaturalareas”within <br />lotlinesarealreadycompletelyatriskofremoval.Creatingfewerlots(bytheApplication’s <br />ownstandard)wouldimprovepreservationresults.ThefollowingisquotedfromPage12of67 <br />ofthe8/22/17Application:“Experiencetellsusthatwhendesigningonsteeppropertiesinthe <br />160 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.