02-14-2005 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

#05-3081 Stoncbay Lorti January 13,2005 Page 4 The current proposal is for a single L-sliaped building, in virtually the same footprint as llic originally pro|X)scd garage level, but filing in the open terrace space with building. Tlie applicants note that thi.s allows for laiger individual units and provides spaces for certain amenities not provided in the original concept. These include a partyroom/hottub/cxercise room at the rear of the garage level; an undefined common space and a party room at the southeast comer of the first floor level; and an undefined common space (individual storage? mechanical?) above that of the first floor. The lobby is located along the south facade, 100' from the east end of the building. The proposed 62 individual dwelling units range from 1400 sf to 1700 sf in area. The proposed building will have a visual fiont (south) facade of376'and an cast facade of about 240'. The soutliciist outside comer is angled to parallel the angled street lot line, with a setback ofaboul 18* from the adjacent street. The overall building is proposed in approximately the same location with generally the same setbacks as originally approved. Plamiing Commission should discuss the pluses and minuses of the one-building proposal as compared to the two separated buildings, in temis of amenities gained or lost, visual impact, etc. Site Circulation^ Parking . While the exterior parking layout and circulation is generally as originally approved, access to the garages has been sigiuficantly revised. Rather than an entrance/exit at each end, the garage will now have a single entrance/exit at the soutlieast comer of the bu i Iding, accessing directly to Cascade Lane. The City Engineer has recommended that a second garage access be developed. The Orono Fire Marshal has been asked to comment on this, and we expect to have his conunents before the meeting. The exterior front parking lot ranges from 3 to 5 feet above street level, with a 3:1 landscaped slope between the street sidewalk and the parking area. Tlie frant parking lot is one-way, with angled stalls, and meets the required 20’ lot line setback. 'file City has a parking requirement of 2.0 stalls per unit. The plan layout shows a total of 78 standard and 4 HC accessible stalls in the garage level; and 2 1 standard and 2 accessible stalls in the defined parking area on site. Adding tb- 7 paral lei stalls directly abutting the site on Kelley Parkway, the total is 112 stalls or 1.81 per unit, rather tlian the 2.1 indicated on the plans, 'fhe City requirement is 2.0 stalls per unit, or a total of 122; the plan appears to be 10 stalls short. Applicant must define where an adctitiuiial 10 .Ntalfs can be foiiiid. Sla/Twill not support a variance to the minimum parking requirement. I