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
conditionsalreadyexistinginthearea.Theletteracknowledges"thecurvatureofthestreetand <br />sub-standardstreetwidthof18-feet.Fireapparatusareoftenapproximately10-feetinwidth <br />frommirrortomirror." <br />Aswillbemorefullyelaboratedrelatedto EC9.8320(6),theDeputyFireMarshalhasdescribed <br />thealternaterouteasbeing: <br />“SpringtoMadronaDr,toHighlandtoCrestadeRutaandtheportionofCapitalDr <br />whichwouldaccessthenewsubdivision...Thisroutewouldpotentiallygreatlyreduce <br />\[increase\]responsetime.” <br />Therearesectionsalongthatroutewhicharebelowstandardanddonotmeettheminimumstreet <br />widthrequirement,20feetinthiscase. <br />Furthermore,theSaberianReportadds(p.23of31): <br />“UnderSection3.5FireApparatusAccess,thereportcitesothersubstandardstreet <br />widthsasjustificationforthisdevelopmenttobeexempt.Ifthisnotfixednow,itwill <br />neverbefixed.FireMarshallmusthaveadequatemitigationandassurancesinorderto <br />signoffonsubstandardstreetwidths.” <br />TheApplicationclearlyfailstomeettherequirementssetforthin EC9.6870,EC9.6815(1)(a), <br />(d),and(e),andEC9.6815(2)(d).TheproposedPUDpresentsathreattothehealthand <br />safetyofthepublicthroughdeficientemergencyaccessandthecreationofdangerousconditions <br />forcyclists,runners,andpedestrians.Thelackofatruesecondaryemergencyaccesswillbe <br />discussedmorefullyunder EC9.8320(6). <br />TheCapitalHillPUDapplicationdoesnotsatisfyEC9.6870andthereforefailsCriterion5 <br />andshouldbedenied. <br />#### <br />EC9.8320(5)(b):Pedestrian,bicycleandtransitcirculation,includingrelated <br />facilities,asneededamongbuildingsandrelatedusesonthedevelopmentsite,as <br />wellastoadjacentandnearbyresidentialareas,transitstops,neighborhoodactivity <br />centers,officeparks,andindustrialparks,providedthecitymakesfindingsto <br />demonstrateconsistencywithconstitutionalrequirements.“Nearby”meansuses <br />within1/4milethatcanreasonablybeexpectedtobeusedbypedestrians,anduses <br />within2milesthatcanreasonablybeexpectedtobeusedbybicyclists. <br />TheApplicationstates(p.45of67): <br />"Theexistingroad,proposedprivatedrive,andproposedsidewalkswillmorethan <br />adequatelyconnectthedevelopmentsitetoallproposedbuildings,relateduseson-site, <br />andadjacentandnearbyresidentialneighborhoods." <br />65 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.