My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Additional Public Comments as of 3-23-18
>
OnTrack
>
PDT
>
2017
>
PDT 17-1
>
Additional Public Comments as of 3-23-18
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/23/2018 5:03:57 PM
Creation date
3/23/2018 5:03:48 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
Document_Date
3/23/2018
External View
Yes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
77
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
BROWN Daren M <br />From:Deborah Skell <deborahskella@icloud.com> <br />Sent:Thursday, March 15, 2018 8:13 AM <br />To:GIOELLO Nick R <br />Subject:Fwd: Capital Hill PUD <br />Please attach my letter to the public comments in the Capital Hill PUD file. Thank you in advance for sending <br />me a confirmation of your receiving my letter below. <br />Dear Mr Gioello, <br />As you are aware there is passionate opposition <br />to the Capital Hill PUD on many points. One <br />being the gross inaccuracies in the geotechnical <br />‘field testing’ results, where sandstone became <br />igneous rock, nothing short of a ‘miracle,’ and, <br />factually inaccurate. <br />Setting all of that aside, how can the Planning <br />Department consider approval of the project <br />when there is absolutely no remedy for the <br />width of Spring Street. That 18 -foot-fact <br />creates a physical bottle neck that cannot be <br />remedied other than by condemning property <br />and bulldozing homes to widen the the road. <br />Please stand away from this death trap of a <br />plan. No sprinkler system, or, five foot side <br />walks along the proposed loop will right the <br />harm proposed here. There is gross negligence <br />reflected in this proposed project. The pro- <br />ported rights of two individuals weighed in the <br />balance against the irreparable harm to <br />wildlife, neighbors, and environment. <br />1 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.