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
Afterathoroughreviewofthe1/19/18SitePlanL6.0,theCommitteeestimatesthat13-15 <br />(46%-53%)ofthetotal28newresidencestobebuiltintheprojectwouldqualifyforatotal <br />heightof40feetatthebackofthestructure.Certainlyall13lotsfacingtheRibbonTrail <br />willqualify <br />Moreover,theCityallowsanadditional7feetforarchitecturalelementssuchasparapet <br />walls,towers,flagpoles,chimneys,smokestacksandskylightsifthestructure’smainroofis <br />at6:12steepness. <br />AstheCommitteehaspreviouslyemphasized,manyhouseswillbeabletoloomover <br />theCupolaDr.andtheRibbonTrail. <br />#### <br />4)LackofInformationRegardingDesignStandards. <br />OnPage35of67,the8/22/17Applicationstates: <br />“BulkandHeight <br />Therearenoproposedbuildingsforthisprojectasshown…TheCapitalHillCCRswill <br />provideguidelinesforthebulk,height,andscaleoftheproposedbuildings.Inaddition, <br />therewillbeadesignreviewteamthatwillreviewandapproveproposedplansensuring <br />thattheintentoftheCCRsismet.ItisprematuretobepreparingCCRs.Theseshould <br />implementfinalconditionsimposedontheapproval,ifany.” <br />(Emphasisadded.) <br />Atthisjuncture,theCommitteeagainexpressesitsgraveconcernaboutthelackofdraft <br />CC&Rsfortheproposeddevelopment.Itmaybetruethat,iftheTentativeApplicationwere <br />tobeapprovedwithconditions,someofthosefinalconditionswouldneedtobeincorporated <br />inthefinalversionoftheCC&Rs.However,adraftversionofCC&Rs,especiallyasthey <br />wouldpertaintorestrictionsregarding“bulk,heightandscaleoftheproposedbuildings”is <br />notatypicalforaproposedprojecttobelocatedinalocaleassensitiveasthatofthesubject <br />project.Atthispointintime,communitytrepidationaboutthebuildingdesigningeneral <br />andthedesignationofanHOA“designreviewteam”tocontroldesignarecompletely <br />unaddressed. <br />Communityconcernsinclude: <br />1)Willallhomeownersandcontractorsberequiredtosubmitplansforreview? <br />WhatwillthebasicCC&Rdesigncriteria(tobeimplementedbythedesign <br />reviewteam)consistof? <br />2)Willdesigncriteriaaddressissuessuchasbuildingcolor;buildingmaterials;roof <br />colorandmaterials;rooftopantennas;requiredgarages/carports;exterioraccents <br />liketurrets,balconies,gutters,etc.;accentlighting;requiredlandscapeminimums <br />&requiredtimingtocompletelandscape;landscapelighting;etc.? <br />41 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.