Infact,theCommitteecalculatesthatactualallowablebuildingcoverageonLots8through19 <br />willrangefromapproximately62%toover115%!Theaverageallowablelotcoverageforthese <br />12lotswillbealmost90%! <br />Clearly,theApplicantandhisConsultanthaveoverlookedthispotentialdisaster. <br />Exacerbatingthissituationisthefactthatalmostalloftheselotsarecontiguousandlocatedonly <br />ontheeastsideofCupolaDr.ViewedfromCupolaDrive,thesehomescouldbenothingshort <br />ofbehemoths.MinimumsetbackrequirementsindicatedinthisSection10(k)wouldprovidea <br />veryminimalbufferbetweentheseenormoushomes.Theirmasscouldstilloverpowerthe <br />neighborhood.Additionally,theviewfromtheRibbonTrailuphilltothesehomes,whichcould <br />total40+feethighonsteeperlots(theselotsareallverysteep),wouldbevisuallydisturbingand <br />anirreversibleenvironmentaldisaster.Seediscussionhereinregarding BuildingHeight- <br />SectionEC9.8320Criterion(3)andtheabovediscussiononpossiblebuildingheight. <br />TheCommitteestronglyrequeststhattheApplicantandhisConsultantberequiredto“re-visit” <br />theroutineuseofstandardcodelotcoverage,minimumbuildingsetbacksandbuildingheight <br />parameterstoaddressthispotentialandirreversibleneighborhoodcatastrophe. <br />SeealsodiscussionbelowregardingApplication’srequesttoincreaseallowablesitecoveragefor <br />twolotsto65%(Lots16andLot17,iftheownerchoosestobuild3unitsthereon). <br />Whatelseemanatesfromattachingtheseso-calledIndividualPreservationAreastoindividual <br />lots?Owninga“pieceofthewilderness”mayappealtosomefinanciallystronglotbuyers.Lot <br />salespricesbasedonmarketablesquarefootagewillgreatlyincrease. <br />Also,Homeowners’Associationdueswilllikelydecreasebecausethecostofliabilityinsurance <br />forthis90,620SFofland(2.08acres)willbeshiftedfromtheHOAtoindividuallotowners <br />withdeeppockets.Thiswillbeagoodsalespitchforthebalanceofthelots. <br />Environmentally,theabilityoftheHOAtocontroltheuseandmaintenanceoftheseso-called <br />IndividualPreservationareasisunknown.Aspreviouslymentioned,theApplicantandhis <br />ConsultanthavepushedbackontheCity’sandtheCommittee’srequestfordraftCC&Rs. <br />ThecommunityatlargeiscompletelyinthedarkastohowtheHOAwillbeabletocontrol <br />thesewoodlands,ifatall.Thisisextremelyalarminginthattheywillencompassalmost20%of <br />theproposedproject’sareaandthe“optics”fromtheRibbonTrailcouldforeverberuined. <br />2)Application’sRequestfor65%LotCoverageforLots16&17ifTheLotOwnerChoses <br />toBuild3Units: <br />Therequestisnotwellthoughtoutandisnotbaseduponanyanalysisoftheactualdataforthese <br />twolots.TheCommitteehascompletedthefollowinganalysis.Seebelowandsummaryin <br />commentsregarding EC9.8300PurposeofPlannedUnitDevelopmen tinwhichthe <br />Applicationrequests“flexibility”throughthePUDpurposestatementre:EC9.2750Lot <br />Coverage.AlsoseeCommittee’scommentsaboveregarding EC9.8320TentativePlanned <br />UnitDevelopmentApprovalCriteria–General,Criterion3. <br />132 <br /> <br />