PC 071206 - Laserfiche WebLink

Chairperson Arkin further inquired if there aze any retaining walls on the project and, if so, if they aze retaining walls that aze necessazy for the stability of the homes or just azchitectural retaining walls for landscaping. Ms. Mundie replied that there will be some retaining walls and that where there aze supposed to be retaining walls, the length and height of the retaining walls aze limited under the design guidelines. She added that the retaining walls that aze planned aze primarily for stability purposes. In response to Chairperson Arkin's inquiry regazding the height of the retaining walls, Ms. Mundie replied that she believes the design guidelines provide for five-foot tall retaining walls. Chairperson Arkin noted that if the walls were for stability, they should be part of the infrastructure of the project rather than the design guidelines. Ms. Mundie replied that they were but that it is important that the design guidelines weigh in on how lazge the walls aze because otherwise, it would be possible to build a project that had a lot of very lazge retaining walls, and that would be an unattractive feature of a project. Chairperson Arkin stated that given that concept, he believed the number of retaining walls should be determined before the project was approved and not determined as a design guideline that will come house by house, and that there ought to be a map that shows where all the retaining walls aze going to be on the project. Ms. Mundie stated that the strategy behind the site plan was to try to put the buildings on the most stable portions of the site. The idea was always to minimize the amount of cut-and-fill that would be needed and the amount of stabilization effort that would be involved. Therefore, if retaining walls aze needed in certain situations, their dimensions would be limited. And if a retaining wall exceeded those dimensions, that would mean that was a site that could not be built on. It becomes a constraint on development. Commissioner O'Connor inquired how many of the 51 lot in the preferred plan would have had a grade of more than 25 percent before the cut for the pad of the house. Ms. Mundie replied that she did not have the answer at this time but that it is something that could be reseazched.. Those sites on the 51-lot alternative are on lazger lots, and, therefore, the building will be a smaller proportion of the total lot size. Some of those lots could possible have rather steeper slopes because it would be easier to avoid those slopes on a lazger lot. Commissioner O'Connor indicated that he was more interested in the pad that the house would sit on rather than if the lot had steeper slopes. He inquired if grading had to occur to take away the 25 percent slope in order to place a house on the building pad. Ms. Mundie replied that she would inquire into that. Commissioner Fox noted that at the top of page 140, it indicates that the consultants relied upon the Berlogar report to determine stability and that the Verona Fault was one mile away. She inquired is the consultants relied on the Berlogaz report or if there was another consultant that they also used. Ms. Mundie replied that she would ask Baseline Environmental Consulting to respond in part to that question. She pointed out that while Mr. Berlogaz is a property owner in 17