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
Applicationinsiststhroughoutitsentireproposal–withoutanyfactsorelaboration–thatthe <br />proposedCHPUDwillprovidehousingthatcouldbepurchasedorbuiltbypeopleatallincome <br />levels;onthispage,itstates:“opportunityforresidentsofvaryingeconomicabilitiestoaccessa <br />neighborhoodthatmayhavepreviouslybeeninaccessible”(p.57of67).Aswehavestressed <br />whereverweencounteredit,thisclaimisdemonstrablyfalseandmisleading.Householdsoflow, <br />moderate,andevenmiddleincome(whetherfixedorvariable)couldnotaffordtobuyproposed <br />CHPUDlotsandbuildorbuyhousing(givenApplicant’sstatementthattheywillnotbuild <br />housing,thusabsentanycostdata).Forthefactualevidencewepresent,seeabove EC9.8320 <br />(1)PolicyA.17,A.20. <br />(5)Enhancetheopportunitytoachievehigherdensities. <br />ThisCodeitemseemstobevaguelywordedbythedrafters.Wetakeitasrelatedtothedesign <br />conceptofclustering,whichwehavebeenaddressingthroughoutourreportasakeyissuefor <br />thepurposeofPUDdevelopment.Wehavestressedthatmerelyproposingthetightestclustering <br />possibledoesnotconstituteeffectivequalitydesign.FortheproposedCHPUD,aswehave <br />repeatedlystated,theconstraintsofthesite,withatleast30%unbuildable,hasledtopoordesign <br />choicesforlotlayout.However,densitycalculations–evenwhenusingtotalallowablegross <br />acreage–turnouttobeunderthemaximumallowableforthelocationwithintheSouthHills <br />Studyspecifications.ThusApplicationdoesnot“enhance”–intermsofthedefinitionsof <br />“increase”and“improve”–justbecauseitproposeslowerthanaMetroPlanaverage(p.20of <br />67);rather,itfailstoofferaneffectivesiteplanthatimprovesthewayaclusteredsitedesign <br />wouldachieveahigherdensity. <br />(6)Preservenaturalresourceareas. <br />Here,aselsewhere,Applicationclaimsthat: <br />“Athirdofthesiteisdedicatedtoopenspaceandthepreservationofsignificanttrees <br />andvegetation.…Ifthedevelopmentwas\[sic\]tobuildatthemaximumallowable <br />density,itwouldcomeatthedetrimentofpreservingtrees,wildlifecorridors,and <br />vegetation”(p,57of67). <br />Aswestateaboveunder(5),thesitecannotbebuiltouttomaximumallowabledensity,sothisis <br />notagenerouscontributionfromtheApplicant,butarealityofsteepslopesleadingtothedense, <br />poorlydesignedclusteringofthelotplan.BecausenoCCRs,HOAregulations,anddeed <br />restrictionsareproposed,anyApplicationclaimsforpreservationaremere“aspirations”(p.30 <br />of67)andwishfulthinking.Moreover,under(5),proposedwildlifecorridorsarenotmaintained <br />butinterruptedbypossibleandproposedfencingbetweenlotsandalongtheboundarywiththe <br />RibbonTrail\[Seeabove(9.8320(1)PolicyE.2,(2),(3),(4),(8),(10)\]. <br />GiventheApplication’sovergeneralizedanderroneousclaimsdiscussedabove,itdoesnot <br />satisfyEC9.4300Purposeofa/PDPUDOverlayZoneandshouldberejected. <br />#### <br />141 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.