Laserfiche WebLink
A|}pllcalion Siibmiticil: December 22, 2004 <br />Incomplete Leltrr: Jiiiiiary4 2005 <br />Application Complete: Jaiiuar>' 10, 2005 <br />60-Day KcvicwKxpinillon (Site INan): March II. 200S-Extended OH 2-1 S-OSIoS-IO-OS FEB 2 8 2005 <br />120 Day Review Kx|ilratlon (Subdivision): May 20,2005 <br />CITY Oh OhCJiv J <br />REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION <br />Date: February 24,2005 <br />Item No.: Cjj <br />Department Approval: <br />Name: Michael P. Gaffron <br />Title: Planning Direclor <br />Administrator Approval:Agenda Section: <br />Zoning <br />Item Description: «05-3081 ‘•Slonebay LoOs” - Outlol E, STONEBAY (**2670 Kelley Parkway ”) <br />1) RPUD Amendment / Site Plan & Building Plan Approval <br />2) Final Plat Approval <br />Application Status: This item was tabled at your February 14 meeting pending submittal of revised <br />plans that accomplish the following two Council dircctivcs/goals: <br />1. Provide all required parking on the site, with at least 90% within the building. <br />2. Add a second elevator. <br />Applicant has submitted revised building & parking plans, and data supporting the use of a single <br />elevator. <br />List or Exhibits <br />A - Revised Submittals: <br />A1 - Revised Plan Set <br />A2 - Elevator Distance Analysis; Unit Layouts; Parking Analysis <br />B - Notice of Council Action 2-15-05 <br />C - Memo and Exhibits of 2-10-05 <br />Discussion <br />Elevator. The new plans show a single elevator relocated to the interior hallway comer, which places its <br />doors 240' from the most westerly dwelling unit.s and 190' fitim the most northei ly units. Ncillicr tlic zoning <br />code nor the building or lire codes would require a second elevator for this building. Council’s request for <br />a second elevator for the building is therefore in the realm ofa ‘quality of life’ question. Adiling a second <br />elevator and rcticsigning the unit layout to optimize the distance to elevator for the greatest number of units, <br />would at best result in all units being within 11 O'of an elevator. In the current I-elevator proj)osal, about <br />halfofthe unit.s are within 1 lO’ofthc elevator; 39 of56 arc within 150'ofit. The larger, more desirable <br />end units are most distant from the elevator. In the parking level, end stalls would be 200 ’ and 260' from <br />the elevator. <br />The cost factor is a concern of the applicant, as adding a second elevator adds a|)prox imatcly $ 1,000 per <br />unit to the cost ofthe buililing. Council should consider whether the value gained by adding a second <br />elevator is worth the additional cost that will accrue to each unit.