Laserfiche WebLink
^0S-30H1 Slondiay Lofts <br />January 13,2005 <br />Pn|*c 5 <br />Foiindiilioii OradiiiK. Rclainine Wnlls. The applicants have proposed to grade 3:1 or flatter slojjes along <br />the north wall of the west wing and tlie northerly 3 sides of the north wing, ratlicr than using retaining walls <br />per prior plans. This will involve .some filling within the 26' wetland .setback where no fill is normally <br />allowed, and filling within the MCWD’s 35'buffer; however, there is no fill proposed in tlic wetland itself. <br />3 liebuilding footprintand balconies will not encroach eithcrOrono ’s setback or MCWD’s buffer. 'I bis <br />filling was anticipated during the earlier PUD approvals, and is acceptable subject to returning it to a <br />vegetated state afler construction Is completed. Prior plans for this site have proposed retaining walls to <br />provide forabiiilding perimeter sidewalk and individual unitdirect acce.ss to grade. The current projiosal <br />will not provide access to grade from the first story balconies. <br />Retaining walls are proposed in the area of the garage entrance. I'he City Engineer notes that some of <br />these walls will exceed 4' in height, and a separate engineered design and detail must be provirled by the <br />applicant. <br />The proposed 3' wide sidewalk along the west and north sides of the west wing does not appear to be <br />completely compatible with the grading plan. It is on a 3; I slope at Uie rear of the building and may require <br />a section of r retaining wall to maintain slopes no greater than 3:1. At the west end of the building, <br />proposed grading nuis( be changed so that the sidewalk docs not function as a drainageway. <br />Building Height <br />Original Approval. The Lofts building was originally granted a variance to the 30' RPUD height limit, <br />allowinga 38' defined tieight. The building lieight as originally reviewed by staff u.scd an estimated garage <br />floor level of 1019' and a peak roof elevation at approximately 1066'+. The original PUD approval grants <br />a height variance for tliis plan for a defined hciglit of 38' measured fiom "final average grade at higli side”. <br />Hecause tliis is a R1 ‘U1 ), and due to the topograpliic issues with the intent to revise grade over much of the <br />site, the height variance was deemed ap|iro|)riatc. <br />N<LW. Proposal. The current proposal has a variety of roof peak elevations, with the highest peak, at the <br />center of the west wing, labeled on tiie plan at an assumed 41 '7" above the first floor. This translates to <br />a peak height of 1071.3' (although the plan scales to nearly 1 074'), or approximately 5-7' higher than <br />llic original approvaLs. 'Ihis is due to two apparent fiictors - the addition of at least 3' in height due to <br />increasing unit ceiling heights from 8' to 9', and tlie need to have a minimum garage fl(H)r elevation of 1 020' <br />as a result of final grading/stormwatcr system overflow parameters for tlic development. <br />luom staff s pers|)cctivc, the factore that have resulted in the overall height ii.erease are not uni ca.sonable, <br />and in the case of the 1020 ’ garage level, not avoidable. 'Phis aceounts for perhaps 4' of the 5-7'. The <br />applicant.s have providerl a varied transition of peak heights with peak height reductions at the west and <br />east ends of the west wing, as was suggested by Plamiing Commission to the prior applicants.