My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
LUBA Decision
>
OnTrack
>
PDT
>
2017
>
PDT 17-1
>
LUBA Decision
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/22/2018 4:01:46 PM
Creation date
11/21/2018 1:47:36 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
PDD_Planning_Development
File Type
PDT
File Year
17
File Sequence Number
1
Application Name
CAPITAL HILL PUD
Document Type
Appeal Decision
Document_Date
11/21/2018
External View
Yes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
46
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
1 encompassing the eastern portion of the property where no roads should be built <br />2 and where residential construction should be subject to special consideration. <br />3 Consequently, the site plan was revised to eliminate a private road in the <br />4 vicinity of the two identified landslide areas. Among other recommendations, <br />5 the Geotechnical Investigation recommended that within the "exclusion area" <br />6 specific building foundation plans "should be reviewed on a case by case basis <br />7 by qualified professionals prior to design and construction." Record 4758. As <br />8 discussed below, the hearings official and planning commission ultimately <br />9 found compliance with EC 9.8320(6) and EC 9.9630(3)(c), but based on the <br />10 recommendation of the city public works department also imposed Condition of <br />11 Approval 10, which requires that any application to construct public <br />12 improvements or for a building permit include a geotechnical analysis by a <br />13 certified engineer. We quote Condition of Approval 10, as modified by the <br />14 planning commission, below. <br />15 The Neighbors' geotechnical consultant criticized the Geotechnical <br />16 Investigation on a number of grounds, including the number and location of the <br />17 test pits, arguing that the test pits were concentrated on the gentler slopes near <br />18 the ridgeline and not located on the steeper portions of the property, or near the <br />19 two identified slide areas. The consultant argued that the Geotechnical <br />20 Investigation was therefore incomplete and essentially recommended deferring <br />21 site-specific analysis to the building permit stage. For these reasons among <br />22 others the geotechnical consultant argued that the Geotechnical Investigation <br />Page 34 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.