My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Appeal Materials
>
OnTrack
>
PDT
>
2017
>
PDT 17-1
>
Appeal Materials
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/10/2018 4:01:03 PM
Creation date
5/9/2018 8:58:19 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
PDD_Planning_Development
File Type
PDT
File Year
17
File Sequence Number
1
Application Name
Capital Hill PUD
Document Type
Appeal Materials
Document_Date
5/7/2018
External View
Yes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
58
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
j) We have no indication (such as an "Authorization to Guaranty") that Mr. and Mrs. Dreyer <br />are authorized by Maestown, LLC to "bind" the limited liability company and to enter the <br />LLC into this "commitment." This type of authorization is common in financial <br />transactions involving a limited liability company. <br />k) We have no indication that Maestown, LLC is a valid limited liability company currently <br />in good standing in the state of Oregon and in compliance with all state requirements for <br />such an entity. <br />1) The signatures of the owners on the document could be that of anyone. The document is <br />not notarized. <br />Appeal Issue #24: The Hearings Official erred in the determination that adequate public <br />facilities and services are available to the site, in regard to the existing street system serving the <br />PUD. The errors are listed below. <br />1. The Hearings Official relied on statements in the Staff report that are without support in the <br />document cited. She states (p. 56): "The city traffic analysis concludes that there are adequate <br />public facilities and services are available to the site. Specifically, the city traffic analysis relies <br />and explains that the volumes and speed along Capital Drive and Spring Boulevard were within <br />expected standards for local streets. " <br />The city traffic analysis discussed roadway conditions on Capital Drive and Spring Boulevard, <br />and reviewed the applicant's traffic safety and street connectivity study, as revised 8/8/17. <br />Appendix C of that study shows that speed data was collected at two locations only (#1 on <br />Capital Drive north of Cresta de Ruta and #2 on Capital Drive east and uphill toward the site <br />from the existing intersection at Alta Vista Court). The first is immediately abutting the <br />proposed PUD, close to the terminus of Capital Drive, and the second is just beyond a hair-pin <br />turn. A tube counter placed two years earlier "on Capital Drive south and uphill toward the site <br />from the existing intersection at Spring Boulevard" collected traffic volume data only. As such, <br />the speed data is insufficient to support the statement that "the volumes and speed along Capital <br />Drive and Spring Boulevard were within expected standards for local streets. " <br />Regarding the review of the Applicant's traffic study by Mr. Saberian (on behalf of the Response <br />Committee), the Hearing Official states (p.59): "the review does not provide engineering <br />evidence that the street system is not functioning adequately. " The Hearings Official disregarded <br />the evidence presented by the Response Committee demonstrating the inadequacy of the current <br />roadway system available to the site, as follows: <br />• Engineering evidence provided by Scott Gillespie, PE (December 8, 2017, Attachment F <br />Staff Report): Describing both Capital Drive and Spring Boulevard, he states "The paving <br />width was designed to 18 feet from curb face to curb face." <br />25 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.