<br />7. Page 17 of the Staff Report (bottom) discusses the sufficiency of on street guest parking on <br />both Capital Drive and Cupola Drive. <br /> <br />The Response Committee is extremely concerned with the parking situation for the proposed <br />PUD. No actual guest parking, other than on street, is proposed. Were guest parking spaces <br />provided, they would be required to be screened by landscaping. By omitting guest parking <br />areas, the Applicant reduces costs and increases profits as more square footage of land is <br />dedicated to lot development. <br /> <br />One of the most egregious environmental ramifications from the proposed PUD will be the <br />number of cars parked in driveways (again, the Response Committee mentions no <br />CC&Rshow many are allowed?) and along Capital Drive and Cupola Drive. The <br />Committee estimates that on a nice summer weekend afternoon, easily visible parked cars <br />The visual impact of these cars adjacent to Hendricks Park <br />could exceed one hundred. <br />and the Ribbon Trail will be disastrous. <br /> <br /> <br />#### <br /> <br />Below are Response Committee Comments on Recommended Conditions of Approval <br />(shown on Pages 59 through 62 Not Already Addressed in this Letter: <br /> <br />Recommendation 2. Notes #8 on Sheet L 3.0. Documentation of justification for the removal of <br />missing from the language. Why has City approval now been eliminated from this step? <br /> <br />Recommendation 2. Notes #8 on Sheet L 3.0. Language has been added stating that <br /> <br />The Application states that the private preservation areas are under the management of the HOA. <br />Placing the responsibility of replacing trees with individual lot owners means that, in many <br />cases, trees will likely never be replaced. This is problematic. Once again, the missing CC&Rs <br />could clarify. <br /> <br />Recommendation 7. This condition requires the placement of a n <br />states <br />B, C, and D, no above ground structure that requires a building permit; no impacts to preserved <br />trees; and no grading activity s (Emphasis added.) <br /> <br /> <br />The Response committee points out two issues that have been overlooked in Recommendation 7: <br /> <br />Plan L 6.0 without grading? The area of Tract C, especially, will be severely damaged by the <br />regrettable plan to remove the large tree(s) on the Tract. <br /> <br /> <br />Page 8 <br /> <br />