10-18-2004 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

0O4-3M2 Siontitay Lofts Octob«r IS. 2004 PtftO building, and substitution or exclusion of these feattires would likely reduce the quality of appearance. It should be made clear to the applicants that the City’s expectation and requirement will be to include iD of the detail elements as shown on the renderings and elevation views, in the final building construction. Landscaping, Lighting, Signage, Parking, etc. Landscape Plan . Planning Conunission should review the landscape plan. Preliminary review by staff indicates substantial plantings of trees and shrubs, although the colored architectural rendering docs not match the tree locations as depicted on Sheet L2.1 . Tlic City’s landscaping consultant will be asked to comment. In general, the 37,000 s.f. building requires I deciduous tree per 1,000 s.f. footprint, or 37 such trees. Applicants propose 6 ash, S maple and 13 quaking aspen, plus 4 spruce and 18 ornamental trees (which count 2-1 toward the overstory requirement); doing the math, the total of 37 is met. The building would also require 123 slirubs as a minimum; this standard is more than met, with approximately 600 shrubs shown on the plan. tJ^ting. The developa sliould be asked to describe all outside lighting proposed for this building other tlian the typical street lights, and provide a lighting plan sheet for such lighting. Signage. TIic developa should indicate any identification signage intended for the building. Some site traffic signage is noted on Sheet C2.1; the City Engineer has called out the need for a variety of additional signs (See City Engineer ’s Comment Letter). Parking Requirement . The City has a parking requirement for 2.0 stalls per unit. Staff finds that the plan sets provided indicate a total of 9 1 standard and 2 HC accessible stalls in the garage level; and 2 1 standard and 2 accessible stalls in the defined parking area on site. Adding the 7 parallel stalls directly abutting the site on Kelley Parkvs'ay, the total is 123 stall or 1.98 per unit, rather Uian the 2.1 indicated on the plans The City requiremau is 2.0 stalls per unit; the plan appears to be one short, so applicant sliould define where an additional stall can be found, probably inside the building. Proposed exterior parking meets the required 20* lot line setback. Imncmous Surface Coverage . Impervious surface coverage in the RPUD District is limited to 50%. While Sheet C2.1 indicates the Lofts site has 52.7% imperx ious area, the Stoncbayprojcct in its entirety has an impervious area well below the 50% Umit, so this is not an issue in staffs opinion. Engiaeer*i CoronieaU Please review the City Engineer ’s comments. Exhibit C