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
•itwouldnotprovide“afullrangeof…cost”–aswehaverepeatedlydescribed,the <br />proposedPUDwouldincontrovertiblybeforthewealthy,becauselow,moderate,andeven <br />mostmiddleincomefamiliescouldnotaffordtofinancepurchaseofalot,constructionofa <br />house,andmeetannualnecessaryexpensesformortgage,taxes,maintenance,etc.–plusnow <br />apossibleassessmentfromabout$30,000to$100,000perlotfortherequirednewEWEB <br />pumpingstationandrelatedwaterinfrastructure. <br />•itwouldnotprovide“afullrangeof…location”–buyerscouldchooseamonglots,but <br />allarelocatedinthesameclusteredarrangement,onaprivateroadthatloopsbacktoCapital <br />Dr.,presentinglimitedandpotentiallydangeroustrafficandsafetyconditions,withno <br />proximitytoservices,employment,ortransportationnetworks. <br />Consequently,theApplicationdoesnotprovidesufficientcredibleevidencetoconformto <br />themultiplerequirementsofCriterionEC9.8320(1)PolicyA.17andshouldbedenied. <br />PolicyA.20Encouragehomeownershipofallhousingtypes,particularlyfor <br />lowincomehouseholds. <br />This PolicyA.20 issimilartoelementsof PolicyA.17 butwiththeemphasison“lowincome <br />households.”Theapplicationdoesnotevenbothertoprovideanydiscussionunderthis <br />criterion,butsimplyreferences EC9.8300(1)(c)\[Seeourdiscussionbelowunder EC9.8320 <br />(10)(k),p.127\].WehaverefutedApplication’sclaimsatthatpoint,aswellasabovein Policy <br />A.10 and PolicyA.17.TheproposalfortheCHPUDdoesnotincludewhatisuniversally <br />understoodandacceptedas“affordablehousing”forthoseindividualsandfamiliesatlow, <br />middle,andlimitedincomelevels.Rather,theproposalisforhousingaffordablebythewealthy <br />withcashand/orahighcreditrating. <br />BecausetheproposedCHPUDdoesnotoffera“fullrange”of“allhousingtypes”(asper <br />PolicyA.17),itdoesnottargetorencourage“lowincomehouseholds.”Theycouldnotafford <br />tobuyintotheproposeddevelopment. <br />ApplicationallegesthattheproposedCHPUD“willofferarangeofhousingtypes/building <br />sizes”(p.14of67).Howevertheplanoffersonlytwonewlots(arecentchangefromthe <br />originalfilingofonelot),eachwithanoptionforeitheronesingle,ortwoorthreeattached <br />singlefamilyunits.Thetwo-lotoptionrepresents6%oftotal34proposedlots.Ifbothwerebuilt <br />withthreeunits,theywouldrepresent11%ofthemaximumproposed38units.Thesenumbers <br />showthattheproposalishardlya“range”or“variety.”Alltherestofthe32lotswouldbe <br />single-familydetachedconstruction.Regardlessofthenumberoflevelsorsquarefootageof <br />single-familydetachedhouses,theyareallofonetype–nota“variety.” <br />ApplicationclaimsrepeatedlythattheproposedPUDwouldprovidea“variety”ofhousingfor <br />allincomelevels.However,costforlotsandutilityservicescouldwellbeover$200,000.Each <br />ownerwouldthenhavetobuildacustomhome.Thus,totalcostswouldeasilyexceed$600,000, <br />orevenmorethantwicethe$377,000averagepriceforathreebedroomhomein2017(See <br />above,PolicyA.17). <br />15 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.