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
<br />Recommendation 12. Prior to final plat approval, the applicant shall provide documentation <br />that EWEB has received a financial guarantee, ensuring water will be provided to each lot in the <br />plat. It is noted that EWEB currently accepts cash, bond, or an irrevocable letter of credit as <br />financial guarantees. <br /> <br />The Response Committee points out the following: <br /> <br />In response to this Staff recommendation, on March 6, 2018, the applicant provided an Owner <br />Commitment to Contribute to Cost of Water Infrastructure. The Response Committee feels that <br />this document is insufficient to comply with Recommendation 12 because a mere statement by <br />the applicant that they will conform to Condition #12, does not guarantee conformance thereto. <br /> <br />Further, the Applicants promise or statement regarding the proposed development is not an <br />adequate substitute for a condition of approval that is necessary to ensure compliance with <br />applicable approval criteria. <br /> <br />Basically, the document provided by the Applicant in a large 3/6/18 submission to the City is a <br />promise to guarantee not a guarantee itself. A promise regarding a proposed development, <br />(under Culligan vs. Washington County, LUBA No. 2008-038), is not an adequate substitute for <br />a condition of approval that is necessary to ensure compliance with applicable approval criteria. <br /> <br />The Response Committee is of the opinion that the pending Application for Tentative PUD <br />Approval and the supporting documentation are insufficient in this regard and do not comply <br />with EC 9.8300 (1) (a) and 9.8320 (7). <br /> <br />#### <br /> <br />10 (b) The PUD complies with EC 9.5600 through 9.6505 Public Improvement Standards <br /> <br />EC 9.6505 (3) Streets and Alleys <br /> <br />Prior to the Staff Report issuance on 2/28/18, the Application has maintained that no replacement <br />street trees will be planted. <br /> <br />On Page 44 of 62 of the 2/28/18 Staff Report, Staff addresses the need for the applicant to <br />comply with the standards in EC 9.6505 (that) require the developer to enter into an agreement <br />establishing installation and maintenance responsibilities for street trees in accordance with the <br />standards in EC 7.280 <br /> <br />The Response Committee requests confirmation that the Applicant will be required to <br />enter into an agreement establishing installation and maintenance responsibilities for street <br />trees in accordance with the standards in EC 7.280. <br /> <br />10 (e) The PUD complies with EC 9.6730 Pedestrian Circulation On-Site <br /> <br />Page 3 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.