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
EnergyElement <br />PolicyJ.8Commercial,residential,andrecreationallandusesshallbe <br />integratedtothegreatestextentpossible,balancedwithallplanningpoliciesto <br />reducetraveldistances,… <br />Applicationstates(p.22of67):“Theproposeddevelopmentisonaninfilllot,whichreduces <br />traveldistanceswhencomparedtoadevelopmentofthesametypeproposedfurtheroutsidethe <br />urbancore.”Thissentencereflectsthekindofover-generalizedassertions–lackingsupporting <br />evidenceandcriticalthinking–thatareprevalentintheApplication.Aswehavediscussed <br />aboveandwillbelow,theproposedCHPUDsiteisnotconvenientlylocatednearcommercial, <br />educational,employment,andtransportation.Itselevationandthesteepnarrowroadways <br />connectingittothevalleyfloorwouldpresentsevereimpactsthatcouldnotbeminimizedor <br />mitigatedfortravelandemergencyresponse.Factorsoftime,ease,obstacles,andsafetyare <br />amongtheconsiderationsfortravelroutesanddistances.Wehavepresentedthedata\[See EC <br />9.8320(1)PolicyA.11,(5),(11)and EC9.8300(1)(b)under EC9.8320(10)(k)\]. <br />However,thereisnowaytocompare“traveldistances”relatedtotheproposedCHPUDwith <br />hypotheticaldevelopments“outsidetheurbancore”ortheUGB.Suchotherproposed <br />residentialdevelopmentsmaywellbenexttoorcontiguouswithrelatedcommercialand <br />recreationalsites.Applicationdoesnotofferaspecificexampletoanswerthequestion: <br />comparedtowhat? <br />Similarly,theApplication’sclaim(p.22of67)thattheproposedCHPUD“integratesresidential <br />andrecreationallandtothegreatestdegreepossible”isnotjusthyperbolebutmisleading.Just <br />becausethesiteisadjacenttoHendricksParkandtheRibbonTraildoesnotmakethese <br />recreationalsitesmoreaccessiblefortheproposedCHPUDresidents.Giventhetopographyand <br />proposedfencingandprivateownership,accessotherthanwhatnowexistsforthepublicwould <br />berestrictedandhazardous\[see EC9.8320(3)p.32,and(8)p.86\]. <br />Consequently,theApplicationdoesnotmeetCriterionEC9.8320(1)PolicyJ.8andshould <br />bedenied. <br />Throughoutitsstatement,theApplicationdoesnotsatisfyanyofthepresentedsectionsof <br />Criterion9.8320(1),“applicableadoptedpoliciesoftheMetroPlan,”andthusshouldbe <br />denied. <br />#### <br />17 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.