My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Public Comments submitted at hearings official hearing (NRC 1)
>
OnTrack
>
PDT
>
2017
>
PDT 17-1
>
Public Comments submitted at hearings official hearing (NRC 1)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/12/2018 10:39:26 AM
Creation date
3/12/2018 10:38:33 AM
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 submitted at hearings official hearing
Document_Date
3/7/2018
External View
Yes
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
334
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
9.8320TentativePlannedUnitDevelopmentApprovalCriteria–General <br />\[Weunderstandthat EC9.8300PurposeofPlannedUnitDevelopment isnotpartofthe <br />Criteriaforthedecision-makingprocessoftheHearingsOfficial.However,becausethe <br />Applicationproffersclaimsandevidenceunderthissectionofthecodeandalsolocatesitunder <br />EC9.8320(10)(k),wewilltreat EC9.8300 and EC9.4300Purposeof/PDPlannedUnit <br />DevelopmentOverlayZone underthatCriterion 10(k).Weincludecross-referencesto EC <br />9.8300 whererelevanttoourdiscussionsbelowin EC9.8320.\] <br />(1)ThePUDisconsistentwithapplicableadoptedpoliciesoftheMetroPlan <br />ApplicationbeginsitscommentsontheMetroPlanbydiscussingdatafordensityofdwelling <br />unitsperacrewithoutacknowledgingthattheproposedCHPUDsiteisconstrainedbyatperhaps <br />30%beingunbuildableduetosteepslopesandlandslidehazardareas\[seeourmorerealistic <br />recalculationsoflotdensity EC9.8320(8),(10)\]. <br />Thesiteisroughly13.6acresconsistingofadispersedmixoffiveexistingtaxlots,threeof <br />whicharelistedashavinglegaldwellings(p.5of67).Perhapsaboutonethirdoftheacreage <br />containswoodedareaswithsteep,unbuildableslopes.Applicationproposesthattheseareasbe <br />“dedicatedtoopenspace”and“conservation”or“preservation”as“areas”or“zones”; <br />however,Applicationcannotagreeontheexactamount,asitisvariouslystatedas:“over30%” <br />(p.15),“approximately33%(onethird)”(p.22),“over33%”(p.33,p.62),“almost1/3”(p. <br />36),“atleast1/3”(p.37),“athird”(p.57,p.58),“approximately30%.”(p.66). <br />EventhoughApplicationcannotpresentaclearandobjectivefacthere,itsassertionofproposing <br />alowerdensitythanallowableisactuallytheresultofsiteconstraints.Asaresult,Application <br />proposesadenseirregularclusteringoflotstomaximizeeconomicprofitbymaximizingthe <br />numberproposedunitsthatcouldbesqueezedintothebuildableareasofthetotalsite.Proposing <br />asmuchclustereddensityaspossiblecannotbeconsidered“effectivelydesignedinfill”\[See <br />EC9.9320(1)PolicyA.10\]. <br />Additionally,Applicationmakesovergeneralizedandunsupportedclaimsaboutitscluster <br />densitygoal: <br />“Byrealizingthisgoal,thecommunitywillbenefitfrom\[1\]moreefficientenergyuse;\[2\] <br />preservationofthemaximumamountofproductiveagriculturalland;\[3\]useofvacant <br />leftoverparcelswhereutilitiesarealreadyinplace,and\[4\]moreefficient,lesscostly <br />provisionofutilitiesandservicestonewareas”(p.20of67) <br />Thereisnocredible,objectiveevidenceofferedorcouldbefoundtosupportanyofthese <br />misleadingclaims.Numbersone,three,andfourareallerroneousandinvalid.Asearlyas <br />September12,2017,aninitialReferralCommentfromEugeneWaterandElectricBoard <br />(EWEB)stated:“Existingwaterinfrastructureintheareaisinsufficienttoservetheproposed <br />development.”EWEB’sfinalletter(January15,2018)requiresa“RestrictiveCovenant”tobe <br />issued“makingdevelopmentcontingentonthenewinfrastructurebeingfundedandoperational.” <br />Anewpumpingstationisrequiredtoremedytheinsufficientcapacitytoachieveneeded <br />5 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.