Laserfiche WebLink
Application Submitted: December 22, 2004 <br />Incomplete Luttcr: January 4, 2005 <br />Application romplctc: Januar)’ 10,2005 <br />60-l)ay Review Expiration (Site Plan ): March 11, 2005 <br />120 Day Review Kxpiratinii (.Siiliilivision): May 20,2005 <br />To: <br />rrom: <br />Date: <br />Subject: <br />Chair Ralin & Planning Conmiission Members <br />Ron Moorsc, City Administrator <br />Mike Gaffron, Planning I^irector^^jj^^. <br />Jamiai*y 28, 2005 <br />^05-3081 “Stonebay Lofts** - Outlot 1*, STONLBAY (“2670 Kelley Parkway”) <br />- Public Hearing: Continuation: Review revised site and building plans <br />List of Exhibits <br />A - Revised Plans (4 Sheets) - Full size and 11x17 <br />B - Memo and Selected Exhibits of l-i3-05 <br />The applicant has revised the proposed building by reducing it from 62 units to 57 units, by eliminating <br />the west 48'. 1 his provides for a much shorter building frontage, and leaves a greater setback to Public <br />Works, which staff feels is a plus. <br />Required parking reduces to 112 stalls (excluding the guest unit), of which 82 arc provided in the <br />underground parking, 23 are in the outside dedicated parking lot, and 7 arc in the adjacent street <br />parallel parking, for a total of 112 stalls. <br />The grading plan may need some additional refinement, and the Fire Marshal is reviewing the need for <br />access doors, additional sidewalks, etc. However, in general, the revised plans appear to be <br />responsive to many of the concerns noted by the Plaiuiing Commission on January 18. <br />Issues for Consideration <br />Flanning Conunission should review the site plan to identify any specific concerns you believe need to <br />be addressed with the site plan. As a minimum. Planning Commission slunild address the following: <br />1. Acceptability of building design, materials, length, ht.^ tc. <br />2. Signage, building lighting. <br />3. Acceptability of laiul.scapc plan. <br />4. Any other issues of interest or concern. <br />Staff Rcconinicndatioii <br />im.'inninj’ Commission coiicimic.s lli.il llic proposed silc plan and Iniilding plans arc acceptable then a <br />i ccoinmcndation Cor approval would be in order, siibjeel lo any conditions you leel are tippropriatc. If <br />I'lanninc, Commission concludes that one or more of llie above lojiics rei|uircs fnrllicr consideiatioii <br />then lablnii; may be appropriate. Provide the ai.plicani with clear <lircclion icjtardmB any cliaimes von <br />conclude arc nccc.ssary. ^ ^ '