02-14-2005 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

#05-3081 Sloncbay Lofts February 10. 2005 I*agc3 Review of Current Proposal A. General Building Location and Design Chaimcs (Compared to 2002 Approvals) The current proposal by applicant’s architect Bruce Ixhrcr includes many of the elements of a plan reviewed by the Planning Commission in October 2004, but also incoiporates a numberof design revisions that were suggested during the October review and the more recent January review. Note that: 1) Building Length. Bui and Massing . The original approval was for two buildings connected only by the underground parking level, with a lemice level providing significant separation between the two buildings. The current plan connects the two wings above ground. What originally ap(rearcd as two separated perpendicular buildings will now appear as a single L-shaped building. To address the Planning Commission ’s comments about reducing the perceived building height and massing, the applicant has redesigned the building as follows: a) the profileoftlie soutlieni facade has been reduced to two levels at the west and east ends, varying peak heights have been added to break up the length, and vertical porcli/deck bumpouts are incorporated to provide an additional measure of visual relief; and b) the south wing has been shortened by 48 feet, reducing the project from 62 units to 57 units; the entire building has shi fled slightly westward on the site but still leaving a 118' setback to die Public Works site, which is much better than the 80' originally approved. Total building length parallel to Kelley Parkway is now 327'. Planning Commission has concluded that the above elements, plus the facade asymmetry and the variety of stone vs. stucco panel faces are sufficient to reduce the visual massing. 2) Building Height. Higliest building peak height, at elev. 107r,isslightlyhiglicrthanthc 106? peak originally approved in 2002, due in pail to the use of 9' ceilings and in part to site drainage considerations that required the lowest lloor elevation be raised 3 feet. rhecuiTcnt plan’s highest individual peak is 3 feet lower than thecontiiuious peak reviewed in October. 1 he plan tioes meet the 38' height limit established in the onginal approval, measured from the high side final grade to the average ol the highest gable, fhe 12/12 roof pitches give the building a residential character and reduce the blockincss oftlie originally approved building. Planning Commission concluded that the height as proposed is acceptable. 3) Parking. The garage level now hasasinglecntrance/exit point, at the cast end of the building. A lower- level party room, patio, and hot tub room have been incoipoi ated at the interior comer of the garage level, reducing the nuniberorintcriorparkingstalls. Requned parking reduces to 112 stalls(2.0 stalls per unit required x 56 units excluding the guest unit), of which 82 arc provided in the underground parking, 23 are in the outside dedicated parking lot, and 7 arc in the adjacent street parallel parking, for a total of 112 stalls. While the City liiigineer has recommended that a second garage access be added, the Fire Marshal has indicated there is no code requirement for a second entrance.