AlthoughtheCommitteestronglydisagreeswithmanystatementsonPage58of67ofthe <br />8/22/17Application,atthisjuncture,theonlystatementrequiringaCommitteeresponseisthe <br />Application’srequestthat“iftheownerchoosestobuildmorethan1unitonlots16&17,thelot <br />coveragestandardsbeincreasedto65%.” <br />AspreviouslydemonstratedinthisResponseDocument,thisrequestisnotpredicatedonfact. <br />The50%allowablelotcoverageforR-1willbebasedontheentiresquarefootageofthelot <br />includingtheso-calledIndividualTaxLotPreservationAreas.Refertothedatabelow <br />(summarizedfromapreviousdiscussionofLotCoverageinCriterion3andtheinitialportions <br />ofCriterion10(k)inthisResponseDocument). <br />Lot16.Lot16isa27,598SFlotwithapprox.16,168SFofnetbuildableland.Atthestandard <br />50%coverage(basedontheentire27,598SFlotsize),approximately13,799SFoflotcouldbe <br />coveredbythebuilding’sfootprint.Thisequatesto85%ofthebuildableportionofthelot.At <br />therequested65%coverage,thebuilding’sfootprintcouldcover17,939SF,whichis111%of <br />the16,168SFbuildableportionofthelot.Thistypeofcoverageisnonsensical. <br />AsimilarsituationexistsforLot17,asfollows: <br />Lot17.Lot17isa31,131SFlotwithapprox.13,389SFofnetbuildableland.Atthestandard <br />50%coverage(basedontheentire31,131SFlotsize),approximately15,566SFoflotcouldbe <br />coveredbythebuilding’sfootprint.Thisalreadyequatestoalmost116%ofthebuildable <br />portionofthelot.Thesituationgetsevenworseattherequested65%coverage.At65% <br />coverage,thebuilding’sfootprintcouldcover20,235SF,whichis151%ofthe13,389SF <br />buildableportionofthelot.Again,therequested65%coveragedoesnotmakesense. <br />WhyhastheApplicationmadethisrequest?ThecommitteecanonlysurmisethattheApplicant <br />andhisConsultanthavenotdonetheirduediligence. <br />TheCommitteerepeatsitspositionthatallowing65%buildingcoverageforLots16and17 <br />(evenifthelotownerdesirestobuildthreeunits)isnonsensical. <br />Therequestforincreasedlotcoverageforthesetwolotsshouldbedenied. <br />#### <br />EC9.2760LotFrontage. <br />The8/22/17Applicationlistsall34lotsonPage50and51of67andindicatestheninelotsout <br />ofcompliancewiththeCity’sLotFrontageMinimums.OnPage50and51,theApplication <br />doesnotincludeanydiscussionoflotfrontages;however,itdoesrequest“flexibilitythrough <br />PUDpurposestatement”withinthetable.OnlyonPage59of67under EC9.2760Lot <br />Frontage doestheApplicationprovideanarrativeonitsrequestfor“flexibilitythroughthePUD <br />purposestatement.” <br />150 <br /> <br />