My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Final Order (2)
>
OnTrack
>
PDT
>
2017
>
PDT 17-1
>
Final Order (2)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/16/2019 4:00:51 PM
Creation date
8/14/2019 2:41:14 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
PDD_Planning_Development
File Type
PDT
File Year
17
File Sequence Number
1
Application Name
Capital Hill PUD
Document Type
Final Order
Document_Date
8/13/2019
External View
Yes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
18
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
LUBA Final Opinion and Order dated November 20, 2018, LUBA Nos. 2018-074 and <br />2018-080, slip op at 38. <br />LUBA Final Opinion and Order dated November 20, 2018, LUBA Nos. 2018-074 and <br />2018-080, slip op at 39. <br />The apparent lack of evidence on this point [off-site impacts] may be the reason <br />that the planning commission felt compelled to modify Condition of Approval 10, <br />to require that all public improvements and building permits include a site- <br />specific geotechnical analysis that addresses, among other things, "potential off- <br />site impacts." <br />LUBA Final Opinion and Order dated November 20, 2018, LUBA Nos. 2018-074 and <br />2018-080, slip op at 39-40. <br />In the present case, however, the apparent lack of specific evidence and findings <br />in the present record regarding off-site impacts suggests that the modification to <br />Condition of Approval 10 was intended to overcome evidentiary insufficiencies in <br />determining compliance with EC 9.8320(6) and 9.9630(3)(c). <br />LUBA Final Opinion and Order dated November 20, 2018, LUBA Nos. 2018-074 and <br />2018-080, slip op at 40. <br />Planning Commission's Determination <br />For the reasons articulated above, the Planning Commission finds that the application complies <br />with EC 9.8320(6) and the South Hills Study's specific recommendations for development <br />standards related to review of on-site and off-site impact of the development. However, based <br />on the understanding that this area is geologically-sensitive, and for the reasons outlined <br />below, the Planning Commission also imposes the following Condition of Approval #110: <br />A geotechnical analysis from a certified engineer, with specific recommendations for <br />design and construction standards, shall be provided with any applications for Privately <br />Engineered Public Improvement (PEPI) permits, as well as building permits and site <br />development permits for the initial construction of infrastructure, and residences on <br />individual lots. The development proposed with each permit shall adhere to the <br />recommended standards for design and construction as contained in the applicant's <br />geotechnical analyses dated February 6, 2017 and May 14, 2019. <br />City Public Works staff has opined that the current industry practice is for a site-specific <br />Final Order: Capital Hill PUD (PDT 17-1) Remand Page 13 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.