Laserfiche WebLink
#0S-30SI Stoncbay Lofli <br />February 10.2005 <br />Pace 4 <br />4) Building Materials. The soutli- and cast-facing building facades are depicted in Plan Sheet A-2, <br />showing 40-60% coverage by two types of textured cultured stone (applicant to confirm that <br />the south facade porch bumpouts are a different stone than the remainder of the buiiding <br />stone - applicant to have samples available for the meeting) with the balance to be of fiber <br />cement stucco panel siding (James Handi products). Soffit, fascia and trim will be maintenance free <br />pre-finished metal, shingles will be commercial grade iisphalt shadow line (Planning Commission <br />and staff s expectation is that these will be the laminated, raiscti textured shadow h.,c, not the <br />painted shadow line) and windows arc proposed as pre-finished metal clad wootl 'single hung’ (my <br />assumption is that these arc easements or sliders) divided and shaped as shown on Sheet A-2. <br />Applicant is awareofthe City’spast issues with the post-approval design changes that went on <br />with the Stonebay 2-story townliomcs. The City’s expectation and requirement will be to <br />include all o^thc detail elements as sliown on the renderings luwl elevation views, in tlic final building <br />constmetion. <br />Vi.siial niements. The architectural renderings show basically two window styles used througliout <br />the building - a larger picture window system with angled upper comers, and single, double or triple <br />windows with a vertically divided upper half. These window elements add to the character and <br />visual acceptability of the design. The main entrance features pillars and a hal f-moon feature. <br />Gable ends each appear to include a louvered panel feature. 'I'he variation in design elements, such <br />as bump-outs, ofTset gables, varied levels ofstone versus siding, along the length of the building <br />should help to decrease the perception of length. <br />>) houpdation Grading. RetainiiiR Walls. The applicants have proposed to grade 3:1 or fiattcrslopcs <br />along the north wal I of tlic west wing and the northerly 3 sides of the north wing, rather than using <br />retaining walls per priorplans.Tliis will involve somefillingwithin the 26'wctland setback wi.c'e <br />no fill is nomially allowed, and filling within the MCWD’s buffer; however, there is no fill <br />proposed in the wetland it.self llic building footprint and balconies will not aicroach eillier Orono ’s <br />setback or MCWD’s bufler. 'I’his filling was anticipated during the earlier PUD approvals, and is <br />accep'able subject to returning it to a vegetated state after constmetion is completed. <br />Prior plans for this site have proposed retaining walls to provide for a building perimeter sidewalk <br />and individual unit direct access to grade. The current proposal will not provide access to grade <br />from the first story balconies. <br />Retai ning wal Is arc proposed in the area of the garage entrance. Tlic City Fiigincer notes that if <br />any of these walls end up exceeding 4’ in height, and a separate engineered ilesign and detail will <br />be reipiired. <br />6) l^cstrianCirculafio n. 7 he site has been provided with sidewalks as necessjiry to provide for fire <br />safety and to allow easy pedestrian access to the Kelley Parkway sidewalks. Tlie sidewalks on ­ <br />site will have to be maintained in all seasons forfire safety purposes.