10-18-2004 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

104006} SiMtbay LoRt Ociobcr IS. 2004 Page 4 Tlie building is proposed in approximately the same location as onginally approved; however, the original appioval required an 80* setback at the west end (facing the Public Works site) with an allowance for protruding decks at 72'. The new plan indicates the \isual west end of the bui Iding at 74' from the lot line, with decks for the end units incorporated into the building (See Sheets C2.1 and A-3) Planning Commisuon should consider whether this revision meets the original intent ofmaintaining separation between the Lofts building and the Public Works si’e. Site Circulation . Access to the garages, and the exterior parking layxnit, remain as originally approved. The exterior front parking lot ranges from 3 to 6 feet above street level, with a 3 :1 landscaped slope betw ecu the street sidewalk and the parking area. Tlic g.n age entrances are for tw e way trafTic, w hilc the pai king lot is one-way, w itli angled stalls. northerly 3 sides of the nonh w ing It appears that most of the individual walls will not exceed 4‘, although in some areas there arc three tiers of w all totaling as much as 10’ in height as view cd from the cast or northeast. Tlic City Engineer has indicated that for any wall or wall swein exceeding 4‘ in lit Iglit, a scpar.itc engineering design and detail must be submitted for approval. Tliese walls aie nccessar>' to acconunodate walkout access and an exterior perimeter sidewalk These walls as depicted do not appear to encroach into tlic required 26' wetland setback, I at do result in some fill within the 26' setback zone. This filling was anticipated during the earlier PUD approvals, and is acceptable subject to returning it to a vegetated st.*\;c after w all construction is completed. UuUding Height Original Approval. The Lofts building was originally granted a variance to the 30 ’ RPUD height limit, allowing a 38' defined height. Tlic building height as originally rcxicxvcd by staff used an estimated garage floor level of 1019* and a peak roof elevation at approximately 1066'The .ipplicant has submitted a comparison sheet depicting the south elevations of the preliminarily approved plan and tlic current proposal. While this comparison sheet sliow cd an old garage floor ele\ ation of 1016.S', it docs generally match the original approval with a peak elevation of1066.8'. The onginal PUD approval grants a height variance for this plan for a defined height of 38' measured from “final average grade at high side". Because this is a RPUD, and due to the topographic issues w ith the intent to revise grade over much of the site, the height variance was deemed appropriate. New Proposal. The new proposal has a majority of tlie overall roof peak at an elevation of 1074.4', or oboiit 7.6 feet higher than the original approval. This is dn* to two apparent factors • the addition of 3* in height due to! creasing ceiling heights from 8' to 9*. and the need to have a minimum garage floor elevation of1020^ as a result of final gradingf'stoim water system overflow parameters fix the devclopmenL