| Date |
Text |
| 2020-10-01 20:37:48 | FAILED |
| | |
| | PROVIDE WRITTEN RESPONSES TO COMMENTS. |
| | |
| | 1) THE MINOR PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT FOR THIS |
| | PROJECT IS NOT APPROVED. THOSE COMMENTS NEED TO BE |
| | ADDRESSED AND THE MINOR AMENDMENT APPROVED BY THE |
| | PLANNING DIVISION AND THE FINAL APPROVAL REFLECTED ON |
| | THE PLANS WITH THIS PERMIT PRIOR TO ZONING GRANTING |
| | APPROVAL. |
| | |
| | 2) SHEETS A114 AND A115 SHOW THE BUILDING ENCROACHING |
| | OUTSIDE OF THE NORTH SETBACK LINE AT THE TENANT STORAGE |
| | AND FIRE PUMP ROOMS AND YOGA ROOM AND GYM. SHEET A-001 |
| | CLEARLY SHOWS THIS DIMENSION AT 34 FEET 5.75 INCHES, |
| | WHICH VIOLATES THE REQUIRED SETBACK OF 34 FEET 10 |
| | INCHES. |
| | |
| | 3) THE ELEVATION DRAWINGS NEED TO INCLUDE THE SETBACK |
| | DIMENSIONS TO THE SOUTH AND WEST (REAR) PROPERTY LINES. |
| | |
| | A. THE WEST (REAR) SETBACK SHOWN ON THE ELEVATION |
| | DRAWINGS WITH THE MINOR AMENDMENT AND THIS PERMIT ARE |
| | NOT THE SAME AS THE DIMENSION SHOWN ON THE CIVIL AND |
| | SITE PLANS. ALL PLANS NEED TO SHOW THE SAME, ACCURATE, |
| | COMPLIANT SETBACK DIMENSION. |
| | |
| | B. THE EAST ELEVATION DRAWING SHOWS SOMETHING, MOST |
| | LIKELY THE LOUVERED METAL SCREEN ON THE NORTH FACADE, |
| | EXTENDING INTO THE REQUIRED 34 FOOT 10 INCH SETBACK, |
| | WHICH IS NOT PERMITTED UNLESS IT IS PURELY A STRUCTURAL |
| | INTRUSION, WHICH MEANS IT IS NOT PERMITTED TO BE |
| | SUPPORTED ON THE GROUND OR ON A LOWER WALL (RETAINING, |
| | KNEE OR OTHERWISE). SECTION DRAWING 2 A-502 AND SHEETS |
| | S-102 AND S-721 AS WELL AS OTHER PLANS SHOW THAT THE |
| | BOTTOM OF THE LOUVER RESTS ON THE GROUND, WHICH MEANS |
| | IT ENCROACHES INTO THE SETBACK. CHECK THE DIRECTION |
| | LABEL ON SECTION DRAWING 2 A-502 AS THIS IS LOOKING |
| | WEST, NOT EAST. |
| | |
| | C. THE WESTERN ELEVATIONS SHOW THE LOUVER FOR THE |
| | MECHANICAL ROOM EXTENDING INTO THE REQUIRED SETBACK. |
| | PARTIAL WALL SECTION 1 A-527 SHOWS THE BOTTOM OF THE |
| | LOUVER RESTING ON THE GROUND, WHICH IS NOT PERMITTED AS |
| | A STRUCTURAL INTRUSION, BUT IS A SETBACK VIOLATION. THE |
| | LOUVER AT THIS LOCATION ALSO INVALIDATES THE STRUCTURAL |
| | INTRUSION OF THE ROOF ASSEMBLY. |
| | |
| | D. WHY DOES THE WEST ELEVATION SHOW A DIMENSION LINE |
| | WITH OF 37 FEET 4 INCHES FOR THE NORTH PROPERTY LINE? |
| | THE DIMENSION LINE NEEDS TO SHOW THE CLOSEST POINT TO |
| | THE PROPERTY LINE. |
| | |
| | 4) THE ROOF PLAN SHOWS A SECTION OF THE ROOF BEING |
| | RAISED TO 305 FEET 7 INCH NGVD (TOP OF STAIR TOWER?), |
| | YET THIS IS NOT REFLECTED ON THE ELEVATION DRAWINGS. |
| | |
| | 5) THE WEST ELEVATION SHOWS SOME TAG LINES THAT DO NOT |
| | SEEM TO BE CORRECT (RETAINING WALL AND 42 INCH HIGH |
| | GUARDRAIL). |
| | |
| | 6) EXPLAIN WHY THE MECHANICAL ROOF AREA ON THE WESTERN |
| | PORTION OF THE SITE IS SHOWN AT 23 FEET 9 INCHES NGVD, |
| | YET THE DIMENSION LINE FOR THE ELEVATED LOBBY IS AT 24 |
| | FEET NGVD AND YET IS LOWER THEN ANY OF THE ELEVATION |
| | TAGS ON THE SITE PLAN. CORRECT THE DISCREPANCY AMONG |
| | THE PLANS. PLEASE REMEMBER THAT THESE FLAT AREAS ARE |
| | NOT TO EXCEED 24 FEET NGVD. |
| | |
| | 7) THE ARRIVAL COURT COVER ON THE PERMIT SUBMITTED |
| | ELEVATIONS DOES NOT MATCH THE ONES ON THE MINOR |
| | AMENDMENT. |
| | |
| | 8) PROVIDE THE DETAILS FOR THE GROUND LEVEL SOUTH |
| | ELEVATION FACADE. THE CURRENTLY APPROVED PLANS SHOW A |
| | DECORATIVE TILE SCORED PATTERN. A DECORATIVE PATTERN IS |
| | REQUIRED. ADDITIONALLY, NOT ALL OF THE EXHAUST LOUVERS |
| | ARE SHOWN. EX. THE GENERATOR. |
| | |
| | 9) THE SHOP DRAWINGS FOR THE SHROUDS/HOODS FOR THE |
| | EXTERIOR OF THE GARAGE WERE TO BE PROVIDED AT A LATER |
| | DATE ON THE ORIGINAL PERMIT APPROVAL, WHICH WAS |
| | APPROVED A YEAR AGO. THESE SHOP DRAWINGS HAVE NOT BEEN |
| | SUBMITTED FOR ZONING REVIEW TO VERIFY THAT THEY COMPLY |
| | WITH THE INTENT OF NOT VENTING EXHAUST ONTO THE |
| | RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY TO THE SOUTH AS OUTLINED IN THE |
| | PLANNED DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL. ZONING WILL NOT PASS |
| | THESE REVISIONS AND PLACE AN INSPECTION HOLD ONTO THE |
| | PROPERTY UNTIL THEY ARE SUBMITTED, REVIEWED AND |
| | APPROVED BY ZONING. |
| | |
| | 10) THE ENLARGED WEST ELEVATION DRAWINGS SHOW THE WALL |
| | ALONG THE WESTERN PROPERTY LINE WHICH HAS BEEN SHOWN AS |
| | REMOVED ON THE SITE AND CIVIL PLANS. |
| | |
| | 11) PARKING - THE BUILDING REQUIRES 181 PARKING SPACES. |
| | THE DATA TABLE SHOWS THAT 183 ARE PROVIDED (THIS |
| | EXCLUDES THE 11 REQUIRED PUBLIC PARKING SPACES ALONG |
| | ARKONA CT), WHICH IS NOT CORRECT AS PROVIDED BELOW. |
| | |
| | A. THE ON-STREET PARKING LINE ON SHEET A114 UNDER |
| | PARKING REQUIRED INCORRECTLY STATES THAT THE ORIGINAL |
| | MODERN APPROVAL HAD 13 ON-STREET PARKING SPACES. ONLY |
| | 11 PARALLEL PARKING SPACES WERE REQUIRED TO BE PROVIDED |
| | FOR PUBLIC USE AS PART OF THAT APPROVAL, SO ONLY 11 |
| | NEED TO BE MAINTAINED FOR PUBLIC USE AS PART OF THE |
| | CURRENT PROJECT. THE 2 ADDITIONAL PARALLEL PARKING |
| | SPACES THAT ARE PROVIDED MAY COUNT TOWARD MEETING THE |
| | LA CLARA PARKING REQUIREMENT AND BE MARKED AS LA CLARA |
| | PARKING ONLY. PLEASE REVISE ACCORDINGLY. |
| | |
| | B. BASEMENT PARKING SPACE 51(C) ON SHEET A113 DOES NOT |
| | HAVE THE REQUIRED 24 FOOT BACK-UP AND MAY NOT BE |
| | COUNTED AS A PARKING SPACE. THIS LOCATION MAY NOT BE |
| | INCLUDED AS A PARKING SPACE ON THE PLANS OR THE DATA |
| | TABLE. IT MAY BE DESIGNATED AS A VALET ONLY LOCATION. |
| | |
| | C. PARKING SPACES 58(C) AND 59(C) ON THE GROUND FLOOR |
| | PLAN (SHEET A114) ARE INCORRECTLY SHOWN AS HAVING A 30 |
| | DEGREE ANGLE. THESE ARE 60 DEGREE SPACES AND THUS |
| | REQUIRE AN 18 FOOT DRIVE AISLE, WHICH IS NOT PROVIDED. |
| | ADDITIONALLY, SPACE 9(C) DOES NOT APPEAR TO HAVE AN 18 |
| | FOOT WIDE DRIVE AISLE BEHIND IT DUE TO THE EXTENT OF |
| | SPACE 59(C). THIS RESULTS IN 3 ADDITIONAL PARKING |
| | SPACES NOT MEETING CODE AND NOT BEING ABLE TO BE USED |
| | TO MEET THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS. |
| | |
| | D. THE PARKING COUNT NOTE ON SHEET A114 SHOULD |
| | SPECIALLY BREAK OUT THE 4 PARKING SPACES THAT ARE ON |
| | THE ARRIVAL COURT AS PART OF THE 113 PARKING SPACE |
| | TOTAL. IT IS CONFUSING AS WRITTEN. |
| | |
| | E. PLEASE EXPLAIN WHY THERE IS A TURN AROUND SPACE AT |
| | THE ARRIVAL COURT. BASED ON THE TRAFFIC PATTERN, THERE |
| | IS NO NEED FOR ANYONE TO TURN AROUND. THIS COULD |
| | POSSIBLY BE REVISED INTO A PARKING SPOT OR TWO (MAY |
| | NEED TO BE COMPACT) TO MAKE UP FOR THE LOST SPOTS IN |
| | THE BASEMENT. |
| | |
| | F. WITH THE FOUR PARKING SPACES THAT MUST BE REMOVED |
| | FROM THE PARKING COUNT (BASEMENT 51, GROUND FLOOR 9, 58 |
| | AND 59), THE SITE ONLY PROVIDES 179, NOT THE REQUIRED |
| | 181 PARKING SPACES (EXCLUDING THE REQUIRED 11 ON-STREET |
| | PUBLIC PARKING SPACES). |
| | |
| | G. DUE TO THE TRASH TRUCK TURNING MOVEMENT, PARKING |
| | SPACES 1 - 4 ON SHEET A114 MUST BE LABELED AS EMPLOYEE |
| | PARKING. THESE SPACES MUST BE ABLE TO BE USED FOR |
| | MANEUVERING DURING LOADING IN/OUT. |
| | |
| | 12) SHEET A-110 NEEDS TO PROVIDE THE HEIGHTS TO THE TOP |
| | OF THE MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT TO VERIFY THAT IT DOES NOT |
| | EXCEED THE HEIGHT LIMITATION. |
| | |
| | CONTACT ERIC SCHNEIDER @ (561) 822-1446 |
| | [email protected] |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
