CCMIN112090 - Laserfiche WebLink

117 to 23-foot high berm between the project and 1-580, on top of which a six-foot masonry soundwall would be built, which would be covered by trees. The back fences would be made of wrought iron rather than of wood to provide the backyards with a view of the creek and the Ridgelands. He concluded that the program recommended by the Staff Report would not be feasible economically because it would raise the price of the living area per family. He requested Council to approve both the General Plan Amendment and the PUD. Mr. Mercer commented that no mention was made of a recreational area for the residents. He stated that a tot lot and open grass area should be developed on the flat area within the project near Dublin Canyon Road. He added that the ridge between the project site and Canyon Meadows needed more landscaping to screen Canyon Meadows from the freeway. Mr. Hirst replied that those could be done without any major economic impact on the project. He then addressed the some of the Conditions of Approval: (1) With regard to Condition No. 5 that single-story houses be built on Lots 16 and 17, he stated there there is no place to build a model for a single-story home, and the developers do not want to have five models for a 40-lot project. He pointed out that from a marketing standpoint, two-story homes should be built on the two largest lots in the site. Furthermore, 27% of the units would be front-to-back splits, which would give a streetscape view appearance of being single-story homes; and (2) With respect to staff's recommendation under Condition No. 11 to have a 3-to-1 slope bank ratio behind Lots 21, 22 and 23, he stated that the City's Subdivision Ordinance requires only a 2-to-1 slope ratio and that a 3-to-1 ratio would eliminate two lots with no corresponding off-set in value. He proposed that the slope be built according to the requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance unless the soils report indicates unstable soil, in which case the developers would use a 3-to-1 slope ratio. Ms. Mohr stated that the Staff Report indicated that a retaining wall would be built if a 2-to-1 ratio was used. She asked Mr. Hirst if the wall could be built of material that would look natural by the creek. Mr. Hirst replied that it could be done. In connection with Condition No. 18, Mr. Hirst requested that the amount of the project's pro-rata contribution be specified. He also inquired what the basis for this contribution would be. Mr. Mercer referred the question to staff. - 19 - 11-20-90