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
Followingmorethanninemonthsofitswork,theCHPUDResponseCommitteedetermined <br />thattheinitialconcernsstatedintheResolutionwerenotadequatelyaddressedbythe <br />Applicationanditssubsequentchanges.TheCommitteethenreportedtobothneighborhood <br />associationboardsandrequestedthattheytakeactiontorecommenddenialoftheCHPUD <br />TentativeApplicationandcommunicatethisdecisiontotheCityforinclusioninthepublic <br />record.TheFairmountNeighborsAssociationBoardintroducedtherecommendationto <br />denyfordiscussionandvoteattheirGeneralMeetingonDecember6,2017.Neighborhood <br />membersinattendancevotedfordenial(96yes,3no,3abstain).The17membersofthe <br />LaurelHillValleyCitizensBoardvotedunanimouslyfordenial.Bothneighborhood <br />associationssubmittedtheirletterstotheCityrecommendingdenialoftheproposed <br />CHPUDApplication(SeeAttachmentB,LetterstoDeny:LHVCDecember10,2017,FNA <br />December18,2017). <br />Clearly,neighborhoodconcernscontinuedtogrowthroughoutthisyear-longprocess.The <br />proposedCHPUDhasinstigatedstrongneighborhoodoppositionforitslocationand <br />impacts.KeyissuesremainthattheproposedCHPUDapplicationdoesnotadequately <br />address,giventhegeologicalandenvironmentalconditionsofthesite,especiallysuch <br />impactsas:thelargenumberoflots;theexcavationforroadandinfrastructure;theextensive <br />treeremoval;thedrainageandlandslidedanger;thesafetyformotorandnon-motorized <br />trafficduringandafterconstruction;and,morebroadly,theemergencyresponseinandout <br />ofthedevelopmentarea,aswellasinandoutofthelimited,non-standardstreetsofthe <br />adjacentneighborhood. <br />Withtheevidencesubmittedinthisreport,wesubstantiateourclearconclusionthatthe <br />Applicationfailstocomplywiththeprovisionsof EC9.8300PurposeofPlannedUnit <br />Development andtheCriteriaof EC9.8320TentativePlannedUnitDevelopmentApproval <br />Criteria–General.Applicationdoesnotaddress,resolve,ormitigatemanyofthedeleterious, <br />damaging,andirreversibleeffectsthatwouldresultfromapprovaloftheproposedCHPUD. <br />Theseimpactsareseriousenoughthatadecisionfor“approvingwithconditions”wouldnotbe <br />warranted,giventhemanyinstanceswherewefindthattheproposedCHPUDdoesnotcomply <br />withapplicablecodesoftheGeneralCriteriaandsubsidiarycodescontainedtherein.No <br />exceptionsoradjustmentswouldallowthisproposedPUDtomeetfullcompliancewithall <br />applicablecodes. <br />Therefore,theResponseCommitteerecommendsthattheCHPUDApplicationshouldbe <br />denied. <br />2.OrganizationandAnalyticalApproachforExaminingCHPUDApplication <br />TheCHPUDResponseCommitteeofthetwoNeighborhoodAssociationsissubmittingthis <br />comprehensivereportafterexhaustivelyanalyzingtheTentativeCHPUDApplication.Wehave <br />examinedtheconditionsoftheproposedsite,impactsonaffectedareasoftheneighborhoods, <br />andimpactswithinthelargercontextofthecityasawhole,becausetheSouthHillsridgelineisa <br />cherishedheritageenvironment. <br />2 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.