Laserfiche WebLink
i <br /> I <br /> i - #OS-3081 Stonebay Lofts <br /> ; Januury 13,2005 <br /> Page 5 <br /> Fouudation Gradin�,Retaining Walls.The applicants have proposed to grade 3:1 or flatter slopes along <br /> the north wall ofthe west wuig and the northerly 3 sides of the north wing,rather than using retainuig walls <br /> per prior plans.This will involve some filling within the 26'wetland setback where no fill is normally <br /> allowed,aud filling within the MCWD's 35'buffer;liowever,there is no fill proposed in the wetland itself: <br /> The buildulg footprint and balconies will not encroach either Orono's setback or MCWD's buffer.Tlus <br /> filling was anticipated duriiig the earlier PUD approvals,and is acceptable subj ect to rehinling it to a <br /> vegetated state after construction is completed.Priorplans for tlus site have proposed retauung walls to <br /> provide far a building perimeter sidewalk and iiidividual Luut direct access to grade. The current proposal <br /> will not provide access to grade from the first story Ualcoiues. <br /> Retaining walls are proposed in the area of the garage entrance. The City Engineer notes that some of <br /> these walls will exceed 4'in height,and a separate engineered design and detail must be provided by the <br /> applicant. <br /> T11e proposed 3'wide sidewalk along the west and north sides of the west wing does not appear to be <br /> conipletely compatible with the grad'uig plan. It is on a 3:1 slope at the rear of the building and mayrequire <br /> a section of 1'retaining wall to inaintain slopes no greater than 3:1. At the west end of the building, <br /> proposed grading must be changed so that the sidewalk does not fiuiction as a drainageway. <br /> Building Height <br /> Original Approval.The Lofts building was originally granted a variance to tlie 30'Rl'UD height limit, <br /> allowing a 3 8'defined height. The building height as origuially reviewed by staffused an estunated garage <br /> floor level of 1019'and a peak roof elevation at approxunately 1066'+. The original PUD approval grauts <br /> a height variauce for tlus pla�1 for a defuied height of 3 8'meast�red from"fuial average grade at lugh side". <br /> Because this is a RPUD,and due to the topograpluc issues with the uZtent to revise grade over much of the <br /> site, the heiglit variance was deemed appropriate. <br /> New 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 the plau at an assumed 41'7"above ihe first floor. This translates to <br /> a peak Izeight of 1071.3'(although the plazi scales to nearly 1074'),or approximately 5-7'higher than <br /> the original app rovals. Tliis is due to two apparent factors-the addition of at least 3'in height due to <br /> increasing tuut ceiluig heights froin 8'to 9',and the need to have a muunitun garage floor elevation of 1020' <br /> as a result of final g�ading/stonnwater system overflow parameters for the developinent. <br /> From staff's perspective,the factors that have resulted in the overall height increase are not unreasonable, <br /> and in the case of the 1020'garage level,not avoidable.This accounts for perliaps 4'of the 5-7'. The <br /> applicants have provided a varied transition ofpealc heights with peak height reductions at the west and <br /> east eiids of the west wing, as was suggested by Plaiuiing Conunission to the priar applicaiits. <br />