My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
1st Open Record Period: Public Testimony (3-7-18 to 3-19-18)
>
OnTrack
>
PDT
>
2017
>
PDT 17-1
>
1st Open Record Period: Public Testimony (3-7-18 to 3-19-18)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/20/2018 4:01:42 PM
Creation date
3/19/2018 4:05:44 PM
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 after hearings official hearing
Document_Date
3/19/2018
External View
Yes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
35
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
Questions and Responses regarding Scott Gillespie Testimony - Submitted by Paul Conte <br />What is the projected subclassification (based on ADT) of Capital Drive segments (a), (b), (c) and (d) <br />when the proposed PUD is fully developed and occupied? <br />Comment: It appears in his "analysis," Gillespie did not determine these important facts. From other <br />sources, I believe (a) and (b) would be Low Volume Residential. <br />8. RE: "The paving width [of Capital Drive] was designed to 18 feet from curb face to curb face." <br />Has Public Works verified that the entire paving width of Capital Drive actually at least 18 feet wide <br />from it's beginning to the furthest point where Capital Drive (last) is adjacent to some portion of the <br />proposed development site? If there are segments with a lesser width, what are their location(s) and <br />actual paving width(s)? <br />Comment: It appears in his "analysis," Gillespie did not determine these important facts. I don't <br />know of any complete survey of Capital Drive pavement width in the record. <br />9. RE: "A 2 foot wide sidewalk exists on the downhill side of the roadway ending at the intersection of <br />Alta Vista Ct." <br />Where is the other terminus of this sidewalk? <br />Comment: It appears in his "analysis," Gillespie did not determine this important fact. I don't know <br />of any complete survey of Capital Drive sidewalks in the record. <br />10. RE: "Parking is restricted on the uphill side of the roadway. Signage is present at what appears to be <br />standard spacing. Both curbs are painted yellow restricting parking on Capital Drive from the <br />intersection of Alta Vista Court through the 180 degree turn near the top of Capital Dr. <br />approximately 200 feet from the intersection of Cresta De Ruta. The 200 foot section from the end <br />of the 180 degree curve to Cresta De Ruta appears to have a faded yellow curb painted on the <br />downhill side of the road. Parking patterns in this section are less pronounced. Capital Drive from <br />Cresta De Ruta through the development site does not allow parking on either side of the roadway. <br />This is established by no parking signs on both sides of the road. Horizontal alignment, warning and <br />advisory speed signs are present where site distance is limited at the statutory speed (25 mph)." <br />This section is incomplete and unclear as to some of the extents. Please provide the current parking <br />restrictions, signage, curb painting, parking patterns and signage for each segment of Capital Drive. <br />Comment: Gillespie declined to identify the various extents, which are important to assessing the <br />capacity and safety over the entire length of Capital Drive. <br />11. RE: "The [applicant's] study goes above and beyond what is typically expected to justify an existing <br />local roadway. <br />What is "typically expected"? What 'justification" are you using as a reference point, i.e., to what <br />agency and purpose? <br />Comment: Gillespie provided no explanation; accordingly, his conclusory statements are neither <br />reliable nor probative. <br />12. RE: "Volumes and speed were well within expected standards for local streets." <br />What are the "expected standards"? What were the reported volumes and speeds? <br />Comment: Gillespie provided no explanation; accordingly, his conclusory statements are neither <br />reliable nor probative. <br />13. RE: "The engineer properly estimated trips impacts from the development site per ITE standards." <br />March 8, 2018 P a g e 15 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.