02-14-2005 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

#05-3081 Stoiicbay LoRs January 13,2005 Pages Foundation Gradinjg. Retaining Walls, The applicants have proposed to grade 3:1 or flatter slopes along tlic nortli wall of the west wing and Uic northerly 3 sides of the north wing, rather than using retaining walls per prior plans. This will involve some filling within the 26' wetland setback where no fill is normally allowed, and filling within the MCWD’s 35' buffer; however, there is no fill proposed in tlie wetltind itscl f. The building footprint and balconies will not encroach either Orono ’s setback or MCWD’s buffer. This filling was anticipated during the earlier PUD approvals, and is acceptable subject to returning it to a vegetated state after construction is completed. Priorplans for this site have prop' retaining walls lo provide fora building perimeter sidewalk and individual unit direct access to grade. The current proposal will not provide access to grade from the first story balconies. Retaining walls arc proposed in the area of the garage entrance. I'he City Engineer notes that some of these walls will exceed 4' in height, and a separate engineered design and detail must be provided by the applicant. The proposed 3' wide sidewalk along the west and north sides of the west wing does not appear to be completely compatible with the gr ading plan. It is on a 3:1 slope at the rear o f the bui Iding and may require a section of 1' retaining wall to maintain slopes no greater than 3:1. At the west end of the building, proposed grading must be changed so that the sidewalk docs not function as a drainageway. Building Height Original Approval. The Lofts building was originally granted a var iance to the 30' RF UD height limit, allowing a 3 8'defined height. The building height as originally reviewed by staff used an estimated garage floor level of 1019' and a peak roof elevation at approximately 1066' I. The original PUD approval grants a height variance for tliis plan for a defined height of 3 8' measur ed fronr “fiiral average grade at liiglr side ”. Because this is a Rl^UD, and due to the topograpliic issues with the iirleirl to revise grade over much of the site, the height variance was deeirred appropriate. New Proposal . The current proposal has a variety ofroof peak elevations, with the highest peak, at the center of the west wing, labeled on lire plan at an assuirred 41'7" above the first floor. This translates to a peak height of 1 071.3' (altliougb the plan scales to nearly 1074'), or approximately 5-7' higher than the original approvals. 'Phis is due to two apparent factors - the addition of at least 3' in height due to increasiirg unit ceiling heights fronr 8' to 9', aird lire need to have a nriniiniim garage floor elevation of 1 020' as a rcsiiU of final grading/slonrrvvater systcirr overHow parameters for lire development. 1 ‘roiir stafTsperspective, the faclois that have resulted in the overall height incr ease arc not unreasonable, and iir (he case of lire 1020' garage level, not avoidable. This accounts for perhaps 4' of the 5-7'. The applicants have provided a varied transition ofpeak heights with peak height reductions at the west and cast ends of the west wiirg, as was suggested by Planning Commission to the prior applicants.