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
Considerapplication’sclaim:“Thereisnoknownlimittoemergencyvehicleaccesscurrently” <br />(p.47),statedunder EC9.8320(6)inrelationtotheCHPUDsite.Wecontinuetowonderwhy <br />theapplicationignoresactual,objectiveoff-siteimpactsthataffecttheproposedCHPUD.The <br />developmentdoesnotexistinisolation,butisconnectedbylimitedaccesstotheworldbeyond. <br />Thus,theproposedCHPUDwouldnotonlyseverelyimpacttrafficsafetyandemergency <br />servicesforthecurrentneighborhoodhouseholds,butalsowouldputatriskresidentsofthe <br />proposeddevelopmentitself. <br />Off-siteImpactsonParkingandStreetConnectivity <br />UnderthisCriterion11,ApplicationmakesclaimsaboutparkingwithintheproposedCHPUD <br />areathathavenobasisinfactbecausenoplansforunitsorCCRstodescribethemareincluded. <br />Thus,“homeswilllikelybedesignedwith2-cargaragesandanassociateddriveway”cannotbe <br />takenasaguarantee.NeithercantheApplicationsupportitsassertion“thatcarswillnot <br />spilloverintotheneighboringstreets.Theadditionalparkingprovidedwithinthedevelopment <br />helpsmitigateanypotentialoff-siteimpacts”(p.61,emphasisadded).Asnotedabove,thereis <br />noproposedoverflowparkingareaandspacealongtheproposedprivateroadwillbeseverely <br />limitedduetodenseclusteringandreducedfrontages\[SeeaboveIntroductionand EC9.8320 <br />(5)\]. <br />Finally,inamostegregiousandmisleadingstatement,Applicationclaims: <br />“thisdevelopmentterminatesatHendricksPark,wherethereisnothroughconnection.In <br />otherwords,thisdevelopmentisadeadend.Therewillbenocut-throughmotorvehicle <br />trafficandallmotorvehicletrafficwillbelocal.Potentialimpactsthatmayariseasaresult <br />ofthisdevelopmentaremitigatedthroughthedead-endstreet”(pp.61-62). <br />Thisisclearlyfalseonallaccountsbysimplylookingattheproposedprivateroadplan.Itisa <br />loopwitheachendintersectingalongthetravelwayofCapitalDr.Thereisnosecondary <br />connectiontoanotherlocalstreet.Wehavepointedoutthedangerofthisdesignthroughout\[See <br />aboveIntroductionand EC9.8320(5),(6)\].Thus,theproposedprivateroadisnotadeadend; <br />CapitalDr.isthedeadendatthetrailentrancetoHendricksParkwhichisnorthofthe <br />intersectionswiththeproposedprivateroad. <br />However,thelast125feetofCapitalDr.isnotproposedtobepaved,resultinginconstructionof <br />anon-conforminggravelroadwayvulnerabletoweather,wearfromusage,andestablishingan <br />unsafeconditionforthepublicaswellasresidentsofproposedlots#1and#2,whichrequire <br />accessfromthissegment. <br />JusttheoppositetoApplication’sassertions,theproposedprivateroadwouldbecomean <br />“attractivenuisance”stimulatingmoretrafficasanewrouteforthecuriouswalkers,bikers,and <br />evenvehicledriverswhowouldexploreandevenaddittotheirexerciseroutes.Theonlyway <br />theproposedCHPUDcouldcontrolvisitorsandsightseerswouldbeasagatedcommunitywith <br />lockinggatesorpersonnelinagatehouse.Nooff-siteimpactscanbemitigated,asasserted,due <br />toadead-endstreet. <br />170 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.