Laserfiche WebLink
66 <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr inquired if triple glazing on the windows facing the <br /> street would help mitigate the noise if the wall were lowered by <br /> two feet. <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift stated that the developer would have to meet the <br /> City and State standards of 45 decibels for the interior of the <br /> units through insulation and glazing, regardless of the height of <br /> the soundwall. <br /> <br /> Ms. Scribner noted that the units have no side yard access. <br /> She inquired if the owners would have to go through the house to <br /> dispose of debris from the back yard. <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift said yes. He indicated that the developer is <br /> required to do all the landscaping chores in the rear yard, <br /> including the insulation of the irrigation system and the planting <br /> of the trees in back yards. He added that it was not unusual for <br /> townhouses to have no side yard access. <br /> <br /> Mr. Tarver commented that he felt that additional work needed <br /> to be done on the layout and the design. He suggested that the <br /> applicant also consider the possibility of having affordable units <br /> in the development. <br /> <br /> Ms. Scribner inquired if any consideration was given to <br /> including some low- and moderate-income units in the project. <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift replied that Staff briefly explored the possibility <br /> with the applicant. He explained that it is the Council's policy <br /> to have the developer build affordable units in exchange for an <br /> increase in density or a modification of land use from Commercial <br /> to High Density Residential, which was not the case for this <br /> project. He added that the site is difficult to develop and <br /> already has two existing units on it. He indicated that Staff is <br /> satisfied with the project as it stands, with no moderate-income <br /> units. <br /> <br /> Ms. Scribner commented that turning the driveway away from the <br /> street for Units 26 and 27 is a better solution than altering the <br /> driveway for Unit 1, which still seems to impact Old Santa Rita <br /> Road. She added that the original application, which sites the <br /> recreation area where Units 26 and 27 are now located, appears to <br /> be more practical. <br /> <br /> Mr. Alborzi stated that that original plan was denied by both <br /> the Design Review Board and the Planning Commission. <br /> <br /> Mr. Mercer inquired if the driveway is wider on the original <br /> plan than it is on the revised plan. <br /> <br /> - 16 - <br /> 3-5-91 <br /> <br /> <br />