Response Committee research. <br />Response Committee analysis. <br />Pages 30 of 67 of the 8/22/17 <br />written by Gunnar Schlieder. <br />March 2018 Geotechnical <br />Response Committee and <br />Study commissioned by <br />1/19/18 Site Plan L 2.01/19/18 Site Plan L 2.01/19/18 Site Plan L 2.0 <br />Source <br />Two <br />Application. <br />coverage, the increased coverage would be, for Lot 16, 111% of the buildable lot portion. For Lot This access easement as indicated on Site Plan L 2.0 is 28 feet wide with a Lot <br /> 4 is 21,807 SF & contains an existing 2,811 SF residence that is not mentioned here. Site plan notates "Existing building to remain." No exception for lot size is Application states <br /> that the CC&Rs "will" refer to the character of the individual homes." No CC&Rs The entirety of Lots 18 & The average slope of the land for the proposed "new construction" portion <br /> of the project (excluding Lots 4, 20, 23, 24, 33 & The actual scale of this <br />19 (including the buildable portions) are in this <br /> At 65% <br />17, 65% of the lot would cover 151% of the <br />Area Slope Hazard Map is 1 inch = 500 feet. <br /> On Page 30, the <br />are not yet drafted, so this question is <br />buildable portion. This is impossible. <br />Misleading/Inaccurate Information. <br />Inaccurate/Missing Information. <br />Issue <br />34) is approximately 22%. <br />ever requested for Lot 4. <br />Misleading Information: <br />Inaccurate Information:Inaccurate Information:Inaccurate Information:Inaccurate Information: <br />20 foot paving width. <br />CAPITAL HILL PUD - INCONSISTENCIES OF APPLICATION ( August 22, 2017 Application and Supporting Materials) <br />"No Build" zone. <br />unanswered. <br />Page 9 of 11 <br />On Page 58 of 67, the Application requests 65% coverage if On Page 59 of 67 (middle) when the Application revisits its the 13,500 SF maximum , the Application does not mention On Page <br /> 62 (upper), the Application states that "The CC&Rs Dreyer (Area Slope Hazard Map) indicates a "No Build" zone <br />and the lots that exceed <br />Dreyer characterizes the land for the proposed project as <br />easement with a "12-foot paving width" connects Capital <br />Branch Engineering Letter to Thomas Dreyer) indicates a <br />The Area Slope Hazard Map (Attachment to the 5/30/17 <br />On Page 59 of 67 (top) indicates that a "20 foot" access Page 3 of 3 of the Branch Engineering Letter to Thomas Page 2 of 3 of the Branch Engineering Letter to Thomas <br />(not yet developed) "may" provide some control over <br />"relatively flat topography , with a slope =< 25%..." <br />the buyer of Lots 16 and/or 17 opt to build a 3 unit <br />(due to landslide danger) is black slash marks. <br />EC 9.2750 Lot Area <br />Item <br />scale of "1 inch = 1000 feet." <br />Drive to Lots 5, 6, 8, and 9. <br />building size, color, \[etc.\]" <br />discussion of <br />apartment. <br />Lot 4. <br />Letter Dated Letter Dated <br />Page 58 of 67Page 59 of 67Page 59 of 67Page 62 of 67 <br />Hazard Map <br />3/5/2018 <br />Engineering Engineering Engineering <br />Page 3 of 3 Page 2 of 3 <br />Area Slope <br />Source <br />One <br />Branch Branch Branch <br />5/30/175/30/17 <br />58595962 <br />No. <br />51525354555657 <br /> <br />