02-28-2005 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

^05-3081 Sloiicbay Lofts February 10, 200S Page 3 Review of Current Proposal A. General Building Locintion and Design Chanucs (Compared to 2002 Approvals) The current proposal by applicant's architect Bruce Lehrer includes many of the elements of a plan reviewed by tlie Planning Commission in October 2004, but also incoiporates a number of design revisions that were suggested during the October review and the more recent January review. Note that: 1) Building Lx:nuth. Bid and Massinu . The original approval was for two buildings connected only by the undcrgrouiul parking level, with a tcnace level providing signi ficant separation between the two buildings, 'niecuncnt plan connects the two wings aboveground. What originally appeared as two separated pcr}Jcndicular buildings will now appear as a single L-shaped building. To addre.ss the Planning Commission ’s comments about reducing the perceived budding height and massing, the applicant has redesigned the building as follows: a) the profi le of the southern facade has been reduced to two levels at th' west and cast ends, varying peak heights liavc been added to break up the length, and vertical porcli/dcck 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 shifted slightly westward on the site but still Icavinga 118' setback to the 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 iisymmctry and the variety of stone vs. stucco panel faces are sufficient to reduce the visual massing. 2) Buildiiu’ I leiuht. I liahest building peak height, at elev. 1071', is sliglitlyhiglicr than the 1067 peak originally approved in 2002, due in part to the use of 9’ ceilings and in part to site drainage considerations that required the lowest floor elevation be raised 3 feet. I he current plan’s highest individual peak is 3 feet lower than the continuous peak reviewed in October. The plan does meet the 38' height limit established in the original ivproval, measured from the liigh side final grade lo the average of the highest galrle. The 12/12 roof pitches give the building a residential character iuidraluce the blockine-ssofthe originally approved building. PhuiningCommission concluded tliat the height as proposed is acceptable. I) Parking. The garage level now has a single entrance/c.xit point, at the cast end of the building. A lower- level party room, patio, and hot tub axun have been incorporated at the interior comer of the garage level, reducing the number ofinterior parking stalls. Required parking reduces to 112 stalls (2.0 stalls per unit required x 56 units excluding the guest unit), of which 82 are provided in the underground parking, 23 are in the outside dedicated parking lot, and 7 are in the adjacent street parallel par king, for a total of 112 stalls. While the City I-ngineer has recommended that a second garage access be added, the Fire Marshal has indicated there is iu> coile requirement for a .second entrance.