10-18-2004 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

•04>3062 Stoacbay L«fts Oclobtr IS, 2004 PagtS The turret at the southeast comer will have a peak height of 1084.4 ’, or about 62 ’ above the centerline of Kelley Parkway at tliat comer. Applicants have suggested that grading 3' higher against the soutli facade sliould make up the diflcrcnce, althougli the site grading plans do not clearly indicate this is proposed. With the front parking lot at 926 ’-928’ and the first floor elevation at 931’, there is at least a 3*5’ elevation diflcience to make up betweai the parking lot and the front wall of the building, in a horizontal distance of 10' behind the sidewalk. The bottom line is tliat if the front grade is left at approximately 1029* and the homes each have a 2-3* stairway drop for their walkout doors, the defined height based on using "final average grade at high side** and the “average height of the highest gable" (which is 1068.8* based on the primary roof system and ignoring the tun^t and the other peaks that jut above the main peak) will be 39.8', but if the front grade is brought up V \»it Vtowthe first floor elevation, i c. up to 1030.5 ’, then the defined height w ill be(1068 8- 1030.5»38.3 ’ j.: .»i;pror,imatcly meeting the numerical variance previously approved. From staC. • ^rutX to.ivc, the 7.6 ’ increase in peak heiglit is partially unavoidable due to sue siomiwatcr management c Ktshits, but partially avoidable due to the applicant not initially designing to meet markr deman J:>. Est •: .ihinv a front grade at 1031', or 8'-9’ higher than the road at a point 80 back from the road, seems somewh „ontrived, but perhaps not unexpected given the higli watcrlablcs, minimum stonnwater elevations, and the design that includes three stories plus underground parking. Planning Commission should determine whether the visual impacts of the added heiglit are positively or negatively affected by the increased length of the building. Also consider whether the location within the development and the other uses proposed along Kelley Parkway have an effect on the visual impact of this building. If Plamiing Commission concludes for some reason that the peak heiglit increase of 7.6 ’ is unacceptable, this should be discussed with the developer to detennine what measures can be taken to reduce the height or its impacts. a Bunding Materials Facade. Tlie building facades arc intended to include 40-50®/ o coverage by cultured stone, three difrcrcni styles and shades on various elements of die building (sample boards will be available at the meeting); with the balaiKe to be of fiber cement siding (‘Hardy-board’ t>p). Soffi., fascia and trim will be maintenance free pre-finished metal, shingles will be commercial grade asphalt, and windows are proposed as pre- Cnished metal clad ‘single hung* (my assumption is that these arc casements or sliders). Viatial Rlementi. The architectural renderings provided show 4-pane and 6-pane divided windows Ifaraui^xMit the building, »vith certain building elements using more or fewa panes. These divided windows, the gable end details, half-moon w indows in certain areas, etc. all add to the visual acceptability of the