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
Moreover,thereisnobasisforthehypotheticalassertionsthatremainingtrees,futuretrees,and <br />landscapingwill“thriveandmature,”justasthereisnoguaranteethatmoretreeswillbe <br />planted,sincelotswillbesoldtoindividualsandnoCCRsordesignstipulationsareproposedin <br />thisApplication.Thus,evenfewertreesmaybetheresult,aslotownerscutmoretreesfor <br />footprintsoftheirindividualhousesanddriveways.A“forestedlookofthesite”after <br />developmentisnotanequivalenttopreservingandenhancingthesiteforlessdevelopmentthan <br />proposed. <br />The“preservation”and“conservation”areasrepeatedlydiscussedintheApplicationareset <br />asidesbynecessityduetounbuildablesteepslopesaveragingapproximately40%.Thesurprising <br />claimthattheproposedCHPUDafterdevelopment–replacingmatureforesttreeswithnewlittle <br />saplingsandlandscaping–“willcreateahabitatthatisappropriateandtypicalofanurban <br />infillproject”thatwill“thrive,”isapromisethatcannotbeassured(p.14of67).Italsorequires <br />furtherdiscussionrelatedtourbaninfillandtheUGB\[insection(e)below;alsoseeabove EC <br />9.8320(1)PolicyA.10\]. <br />Consequently,theapplicationfailstocomplywith(1)(d)forpreservationandenhancing <br />existingnaturalresources. <br />(e)Clusteringofresidentialdwellingstoachieveenergyandresource <br />conservationwhilealsoachievingtheplanneddensityforthesite. <br />Applicationstates(p.14of67):“Theclusteringofresidentiallots(andeventuallystructures) <br />…isanexcellentexampleofthesharingofservicesandfacilities.” <br />Thisappearstobearestatementofapplication’scommentsunder(a)above,whichwehave <br />addressedaserroneousandnowcontradictedbyEWEB’sReferralLetter.TheproposedCHPUD <br />willnotconserveservices,butdoexactlytheoppositeofwhatitclaims:itwouldbe“requiring <br />anextensionofthoseservices”(p.16of67),becausetheexistingservicesandfacilitiesare <br />inadequatetomeettheneedsoftheCHPUD’s“planneddensity.”\[SeeReferralCommentfrom <br />EWEBregardingwaterserviceunder(1)(a)above.\] <br />Astotheissueofclustering,thepicturesandplansthattheApplicationpresents(pp.15,17)are <br />notrepresentativeoftheproposedCHPUDsite.Theyareunpersuasiveexamplesbecause <br />mattersofopenspaceindevelopmentsonflatgroundarenotrelevanttothewaydevelopmentof <br />lotsandroadsmustbedesignedinsteephillsideareas,suchastheproposedCHPUD.Also,since <br />nobuildingsareproposedandnovisualrepresentationsareprovided,itcannotbedetermined <br />whatthescale,bulk,andheightofanystructureswouldbeorhowtheywouldlook. <br />Applicationcontinues(p.16of67):“Resourcesarenotjusttrees.Thesentence\[incriterion <br />(1)(e)\]usestheword‘resources’withoutthequalifier‘natural.’Resourcescanalsobe:” <br />Whatfollowsisalistofsixitems,mostofwhichareovergeneralized,unsupported,ornot <br />relevanttothecodebeingdiscussed.Foroneexample,“Theenergyrequiredtoimplementthe <br />projectclose-inratherthanfartheraway”seemspuzzlingandmeaningless.Doesthisreferto <br />145 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.