Additional Public Comments as of 3-23-18

Faris - Yes, especially in the winter and for those who are handicapped. Nate - That’s part of the issue when the developer claims that it is convenient. 14.Is the City going to eliminate parking on one side of the road along Spring Blvd or Capital Drive? (21:22) Eric - No. I imagine that residents would like to have the convenience of street parking. So there’s the “bonus” of having the parking there and the “bonus” of having the parked cars act as a traffic calming measure. People are going to go slower when cars are parked on Capital. But also, will they go slow because it’s too congested? As of now there are no plans to remove street parking. Even if it happens in the future, it wouldn’t be a part of this (approval) process. Paul - Some of the material claims that a road at 20 ft. meets city standards for two-way traffic and a road at 21 ft. meets city standards for two-way traffic with parking on one side at most, so how do you square continuing to allow parking with meeting the standard? The standards don’t allow parking. (22:57) Eric - At the time the road was constructed, it met city standards. If we were to go in today and construct a new road we wouldn’t build it the way that it was built, but it was acceptable at the time. Our local street standards became effective in 1999 or 2000 and there were lots and lots of roads in the city that were built before that that would be obsolete in that regard, but they still function. (23:33) Paul - That’s true, but how do you meet the criteria in sub (6) and sub (5)(b) that requires safe bicycle and pedestrian access? How do you square that with not having a road that meets current standards when that’s a requirement for the PUD to be allowed? So you have a changed condition and I don’t believe that there’s any law that says that because the street was in place, the PUD can be allowed with an unsafe access. I think that’s contradictory. It’s been determined that that’s not true. Your explanation would be fine if people were talking about conditions on Capital Drive, but they’re not. They’re talking about conditions that need to be met in order to have safe access to the PUD. If you’ve got some law, I think you should cite it. (24:32) Massoud - At the time the road was built, the standards were not required and there were no developments coming up with 50 or so units. (Actual maximum number of units is 37.) When you say parking allowed on one side to accommodate (the neighborhood) or as traffic calming for a street with a 12 to 14 foot width, I don’t think they mean that you need any additional traffic calming. It just functions poorly. Even if you have two cars going toward each other, one still has to pull to one side to allow the other to go by, assuming they can find a spot to do so. It’s a contradictory statement, as was pointed out. At the time of approval (of the street standards) there were no developments at the top of the hill. 15.(25:34) Who is responsible for damage to the road network by the heavy trucks? Eric - In general, the City. For specific damage relating to construction of the PUD – the contractor. It’s somewhat difficult to prove; you have to catch them in the act of damaging something to prove that they did it. Faris - But if it’s multiple construction vehicles, heavy logging trucks… Eric - Yes, that’s something that we consider in our pavement design. As you know, Capital Drive was repaved last year. We looked at the existing structure before we repaved it and then we did our reconstruction of it. Something that is considered is existing zoning and land uses along that corridor, so it’s designed to handle construction activity. Obviously it’s not designed for an excavator to tip over or some freak accident. Faris - So you reconstructed the roadbed so it can handle logging trucks? Eric - Yes. Massoud - Would there be a survey (assessment) of the road conditions before and after the PUD construction? Eric - No, that’s not something that we require.