Lot3290+feetonCupolaDrive <br />Lot33Nofrontage(requestingflexibilitythroughPUDpurposestatement) <br />(Exist.3unitapt.tobeconvertedtosinglefamilyattached) <br />Lot34115+ftonCupolaDr.”(Exist.3unitapt.tobeconvertedtosinglefam.attached) <br />OfnoteisthattheApplicationisaskingfor“flexibility”forlotfrontageminimumson 9ofthe <br />34lots(26%oflots).Thisratioappearshighforaproposedprojectcharacterizedbythe <br />Applicationas“athoughtfulandsensitivedesign.”Alsonotableinthislistofninenon- <br />conforminglotsisthefactthateight oftheninelots(89%)arecompletelynon-conforming; <br />theydonothaveanystreetfrontageatall. <br />ThesearesubstantialvariancesoutsidetheCity’slotfrontagerequirements.Missingfromthe <br />8/22/17Applicationanditsentire67-pagenarrativeisthelotplacementbackgroundinformation <br />foundintheinitialFebruary6,2017GeotechnicalInvestigationbyBranchEngineering.Figure <br />1attachedtothe2/6/17Branchreportindicatestheoriginalproposedsiteplan(dated4/22/16 <br />and9/30/16)forthesubjectdevelopment.(SeeAttachmentsWandX) <br />Thisoriginalsiteplanindicatesthattheproposedprivatestreet(nowcalledCupolaDr.)wasto <br />split,witha“leg”ofthenewstreetrunningnorth/southtomeetCapitalDriveatthe“hairpin” <br />turn.Giventhisoriginalplan,onlythreeofthe(then)36proposedlots(8%)wouldhavelacked <br />streetfrontage. <br />Subsequenttothecreationoftheaboveindicatedsiteplan,anareaofhighlandslidepotential <br />wasidentifiedinthemiddleofthethendesignatedeasternroutefortheproposedprivatedrive. <br />Unwillingtogiveupmuchinthewayof“lotcount”becauseofthisalarmingsituation,the <br />originalrouteoftheprivatedrive(anditsaccompanyingmoreacceptablelotfrontages)was <br />scrappedinfavoroftheproposedcurrentcontrivedrouting.The8/22/17Application,onPage <br />32of67,merelycharacterizesthisroutingas“commonsense”becauseofanexistingdirttrack <br />usedbytheApplicantforaccesstotheproperty. <br />ImportantNote:Thisareaofhighlandslidepotentialisalsothedrivingforcebehindthe <br />bizarreconfigurationoftheso-calledCommonPreservationAreaAwithitspeculiarrectangular <br />appendagebetweenLots17and18.Thisisthelocationofhighlandslidepotentialandisnot <br />suitableforroadsorstructures. <br />Thereisverylittle,ifany,discussioninthe8/27/17Applicationofthisareaofhighlandslide <br />potentialandtheimpactitspresencehashadonthedesignoftheproposedproject.Furthermore, <br />theAreaSlopeHazardMapattachedtoBranchEngineering’s5/30/17LetterAddendumtothe <br />original2/6/17GeotechnicalInvestigationshowsthatALLOFLots18and19(includingtheso- <br />called“buildable”portionsshownonthe1/19/18SitePlan)arewithinArea3(“High– <br />LandslideLikely”)andwithinthe“slashed”areanotatedas“NoBuild.”Again,another <br />Applicationdiscrepancy. <br />AtwhatpointwilltheApplicantandhisConsultantberequiredtodisclosethispotentially <br />dangeroussituationtothepublic?Ifnotnow,when?Hopefullybeforelotsaresoldandlot <br />ownersfacesubstantialgeotechnicalexpensestoprotectthefoundationsoftheirhomes. <br />152 <br /> <br />