| Date |
Text |
| 2016-10-14 16:21:21 | 1. SITE IS WITHIN A HISTORIC DISTRICT AND AS SUCH |
| | APPROVAL FROM THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD IS |
| | REQUIRED. IN ADDITION, AND DUE TO PROPOSED UTILIZATION |
| | OF THE TDR INCENTIVE PROGRAM, THE SITE REQUIRES |
| | APPROVAL FROM THE DOWNTOWN ACTION COMMITTEE (SPECIAL |
| | REVIEW STANDARDS). |
| | 2. DONE- SETBACK ON ROSEMARY AVENUE SHALL BE MEASURED |
| | FROM THE BACK OF THE PLANTER CURB. |
| | 3. DONE- PAVERS ON ROSEMARY AVENUE SHALL MATCH EXISTING |
| | PAVERS IN COLOR, PATTERN, TEXTURE ETC. |
| | 4. DONE- FIRST FLOOR ALONG ROSEMARY AVENUE COMPLIES |
| | WITH THE MINIMUM 228.8 RETAIL REQUIREMENT. HOWEVER, |
| | STAFF RECOMMENDS THE RELOCATION OF THE FITNESS CENTER |
| | AND THE USE OF THE PROMINENT CORNER SPACE FOR THE LOBBY |
| | ENTRANCE OR COMMERCIAL SPACE (OFFICES ALLOWED- RETAIL |
| | ALLOWED BUT NOT REQUIRED). |
| | 5. NOT SATISFIED. PLEASE EXPLAIN THE GARBAGE COLLECTION |
| | OPERATION. WHAT TYPE OF CONTAINER/PICK UP IS PROPOSED? |
| | - 1ST REVIEW: PLEASE INDICATE HOW IS THE GARBAGE |
| | PICK-UP OPERATION (CIRCULATION, STAGING, PRIVATE OR |
| | PUBLIC). |
| | 6. PARTIALLY SATISFIED - PLEASE INDICATE THE RAMP SLOPE |
| | IN PERCENTAGE AND IN ALL RAMPS PROPOSED WITHIN THE |
| | GARAGE - 1ST REVIEW: PLEASE INDICATE THE PARKING RAMP |
| | PROPOSED SLOPE (SEC 94-111 (Q)(2) - NON-PARKING RAMP |
| | SLOPE HIGHER THAN 14% REQUIRES A BREAK-OVER |
| | TRANSITION). |
| | 7. DONE- DEAD-END PARKING REQUIRES A TURN-AROUND SPACE. |
| | 8. NOT SATISFIED - PLEASE PROVIDE ALL THE FLOOR LEVELS |
| | ABOVE THE 7TH STORY AS IT SEEMS FOR THE INFORMATION |
| | PROVIDED IN THE FACADES THE UPPER LEVEL ARE ALL |
| | DIFFERENT AND STEP BACK FROM CLEMATIS AS THEY GO |
| | HIGHER. - 1ST REVIEW: FACADES AND RENDERING FACING |
| | NORTH ARE NOT CONSISTENT WITH FLOOR PLANS (CANTILEVER |
| | CONDITION AND STEP BACK CONDITIONS) |
| | 9. DONE- DATURA ELEVATION DOES NOT SHOW THE GARAGE |
| | ENTRANCE. |
| | 10. PARTIALLY SATISFIED- SHEET A2.01 STILL SHOWS |
| | SETBACK ON CLEMATIS AT 52'.- 1ST REVIEW: ALONG CLEMATIS |
| | STREET A 56' CONDITIONAL SETBACK IS REQUIRED ABOVE THE |
| | 2ND FLOOR. PROPOSAL SEEMS TO BE AT 52' ONLY. PLEASE |
| | INCLUDE DIMENSION FROM THE BACK OF THE EXISTING CURB. |
| | 11. DONE- PLEASE PROVIDE AUTO TURN FOR THE LOADING |
| | AREAS. |
| | 12. - DONE- SITE PLAN SHOWS THE ALLEY OPENING (WALL TO |
| | WALL) TO BE AROUND 26' WHILE ELEVATION SHOWS THE ALLEY |
| | OPENING AT 34' IN WIDTH. |
| | 13. NOT SATISFIED- PLEASE LOOK AT DEFINITION OF PLANAR |
| | BREAK, TABLE IV-4 AND FIGURE IV-21 TO CONFIRM |
| | COMPLIANCE. FOR COMPLIANCE WITH TRANSPARENCY PLEASE |
| | SHOW DIAGRAMS ON ELEVATIONS WITH TRANSPARENCY AREAS.- |
| | 1ST REVIEW: PLEASE PROVIDE INFORMATION TO CONFIRM |
| | COMPLIANCE WITH THE PLANAR BREAK REGULATIONS, AND |
| | TRANSPARENCY. |
| | 14. NOT SATISFIED- DUE TO THE HISTORIC NATURE OF THE |
| | EXISTING BUILDINGS ON CLEMATIS STREET THE TERRACE WILL |
| | NOT BE PERMITTED ON THE ROOF OF HISTORIC BUILDINGS. THE |
| | REQUIRED AREA SHALL BE RELOCATED TO THE ROOF TOP |
| | GARDEN. - 1ST REVIEW:THE SETBACK REQUIRED ABOVE THE 2ND |
| | STORY, AND PROVIDED IN THIS PROJECT ABOVE THE 1ST STORY |
| | SHALL BE DESIGNED AS A TERRACE (20% OF THE CWD-CD |
| | SITE). |
| | 15. DONE- PLEASE DOCUMENT ALL THE EXISTING CONDITIONS |
| | FOR THE ADJACENT PROPERTY ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE |
| | SUBJECT PARCEL, AND IDENTIFY ANY POSSIBLE CONFLICTS AND |
| | IMPACTS. |
| | 16. DONE - AN AERIAL AND UDNERGROUND EASEMENT WILL BE |
| | PROVIDED. PROJECT LEGAL TEAM TO WORK WITH THE CITY ON |
| | DRAFT AGREEMENT AND APPROVAL OF EASEMENT.- 1ST REVIEW: |
| | PROPOSAL TO EXPAND THE BUILDING OVER THE ALLEY SHALL BE |
| | DISCUSSED FURTHER. INITIAL OPTIONS ARE 1. ABANDONING |
| | THE ALLEY BUT REQUIRE AN ACCESS AND UTILITY EASEMENT; |
| | OR 2. AIR RIGHT EASEMENT AND UNDERGROUND EASEMENT. |
| | 17. DONE- PLEASE INDICATE THE CONDITIONS OF THE |
| | SIDEWALK ON DATURA STREET EAST OF THE PROJECT AND HOW |
| | IT WILL TRANSITION TO THE NEW HARDSCAPE. |
| | 18. DONE- PLEASE INDICATE INFORMATION ON SITE PLAN |
| | REFLECTING EXISTING CONDITIONS- 1ST REVIEW:PLEASE |
| | INDICATE IF ANY ON-STREET PARKING IS GOING TO BE |
| | REMOVED. |
| | 19. PLEASE SPECIFY THE PLANTING DETAIL FOR THE PROPOSED |
| | OAKS ALONG DATURA STREET CONSIDERING THE UNDERGROUND |
| | PARKING IS BEING PROPOSED UNDER THE EXISTING SIDEWALK. |
| | ARE THE PROPOSED TREES VIABLE? |
| | |
| | ADDITIONAL COMMENTS ON SUBMITTAL PACKAGE: |
| | 19. NOT SATISFIED - SURVEY SHALL INCLUDE THE SQURE |
| | FOOTAGE OF NORTH AND SOUTH PARCELS SEPARATELY. IT SHALL |
| | ALSO INCLUDE SIDEWALK DIMENSIONS AND DISTANCE FROM BACK |
| | OF CURB TO PROPERTY LINE. - 1ST REVIEW: DATA ON SURVEY |
| | SHOWS TOTAL PARCEL AREA AS 43,584 OR 1.23 ACRE. PLEASE |
| | CORRECT NUMBER AND PROVIDE SQUARE FOOTAGE FOR THE GROUP |
| | OF PROPERTIES DESIGNATED CWD-CD AND CWD-10 SEPARATELY. |
| | SURVEY SHALL INCLUDE MEASUREMENTS OF THE EXISTING |
| | SIDEWALKS, AND ROW INCLUDING SIDEWALK ACROSS THE |
| | STREET. |
| | 20. DONE- PLEASE ADJUST THE LOT SIZE AREAS TO BE |
| | CONSISTENT IN ALL THE DRAWINGS BASED ON THE SURVEY |
| | INFORMATION. |
| | 21. PARTIALLY SATISFIED- PLEASE INDICATE THE TWO |
| | PROPERTY LINES ON DATURA IN SHEET A2.01.- 1ST REVIEW: |
| | PLEASE INCLUDE PROPERTY LINES AND SETBACK LINES IN ALL |
| | FLOOR PLANS AND ELEVATIONS. |
| | 22. DONE- SHEET A1.02 DOES NOT SEEM TO BE ACCURATE |
| | (ACCESS RAMP NOT SHOWN). |
| | 23. PARTIALLY SATISFIED- PLEASE PROVIDE RENDERINGS |
| | WITHIN THE REAL CONTEXT, HOW IS THE PROJECT INSERTED ON |
| | THE SITE AND HOW IT WILL IMPACT THE PERCEPTION FROM THE |
| | STREET. THE SUBMITTED RENDERINGS ARE GOOD TO PROVIDE A |
| | VISUAL OF THE ENTIRE BUILDING, BUT ARE NOT ACCURATELY |
| | REFLECTING THE SCALE OF THE BUILDING IN RELATION TO THE |
| | STREET AND THE ADJACENT BUILDING (ROSEMAY SECTION). |
| | TAHT TYPE OF RENDERINGS ARE IMPORTANT FOR THE SPECIAL |
| | REVIEW APPROVAL- 1ST REVIEW: THE INTENTIONRENDERING IN |
| | SHEET R0-02 IS NOT ACCURATE IN THE PLACEMENT OF THE |
| | SURROUNDING BUILDINGS. ALL RENDERINGS SHALL ACCURATELY |
| | REFLECT THE EXISTING CONDITIONS OF THE SURROUNDING |
| | AREA. |
| | 24. NOT SATISFIED- SUBMITTED ELEVATIONS ARE BLACK AND |
| | WHITE. - 1ST REVIEW: PLEASE INCLUDE NORTH AND EAST |
| | COLORED ELEVATIONS. PLEASE INDICATE SCALE ON ALL |
| | ELEVATIONS. |
| | 25. NOT SATISFIED.- 1ST REVIEW: FOR THE DAC SPECIAL |
| | REVIEW FLOOR PLANS AND ELEVATIONS SHALL BE MORE |
| | DETAILED INDICATING LOCATION OF WINDOWS, BUILDING |
| | ENTRANCES AND BALCONIES. FACADE SHALL INCLUDE A CALL |
| | OUT FOR PROPOSED MATERIALS AND IMAGES OF THE PROPOSED |
| | MATERIALS. A MATERIAL BOARD WILL BE REQUIRED FOR THE |
| | HEARING. |
| | 26. NOT SATISFIED - 1ST REVIEW: FOR DAC, COMPLIANCE |
| | WITH SPECIAL REVIEW STANDARDS SHALL BE DEMONSTRATED. |
| | 27. PLEASE PROVIDE ELECTRONIC DRAWINGS (DXF OR CADD) TO |
| | ALLOW THE MEASUREMENT OF THE FAR AREA INDICATED IN |
| | SHEET A0.06. |
| | 28. PLEASE ENSURE ALL THE DRAWINGS ARE PRINTED AT SCALE |
| | (SHEET A1.01 IS NOT AT SCALE). STAFF WAS NOT ABLE TO |
| | VERIFY ANY DIMENSION ON SUBMITTED DRAWINGS. |
| | 29. PLEASE CORRECT FAR CALCULATION IN SHEET A1.01AND |
| | A0.01. ADDITIONAL FAR PERMITTED ON CWD-10/12 IS ONLY |
| | 14,780SF. ADJUST TOTAL ALLOWED. |
| | |
| | SPECIAL REVIEW COMMENTS: |
| | 1. THE TREATMENT AND SCALE OF THE 1ST FLOOR ALONG |
| | ROSEMAY AVE DOES NOT RELATE TO THE SCALE OF ROSEMARY |
| | AVE, OR THE ADJACENT BUILDINGS. THE PROPOSED LARGE |
| | AWNINGS ARE NOT APPROPRIATE FOR THE HISTORIC DISTRICT. |
| | 2. THE SCALE OF THE 1ST FLOOR SHALL BE LOWERED. |
| | |
| | COMMENTS FROM CITY'S HISTORIC PRESERVATION PLANNER: |
| | AFTER PRELIMINARILY REVIEWING THE PROPOSED PROJECT I |
| | OFFER THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS: |
| | |
| | 1. ADDITION/NEW CONSTRUCTION IN HISTORIC DISTRICT |
| | REQUIRES APPROVAL BY THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD. |
| | 2. PLANS ARE NOT DETAILED ENOUGH TO UNDERSTAND |
| | REHABILITATION EFFORTS ON EXISTING HISTORIC STRUCTURES, |
| | PLEASE PROVIDE CLARIFICATION. |
| | 3. PROPOSED ADDITION DOES NOT COMPLY WITH SECTION |
| | 94-49, SPECIFICALLY; |
| | SETTING, ORIENTATION AND SETBACKS IS NOT COMPATIBLE |
| | WITH DISTRICT UTILIZING INVERSE STEPPING OF BUILDING AS |
| | PROPOSED |
| | PROPORTION OF OPENINGS ARE NOT VISUALLY COMPATIBLE WITH |
| | SURROUNDING BUILDINGS |
| | RHYTHM OF SOLIDS TO VOIDS IS NOT VISUALLY COMPATIBLE |
| | AND |
| | THE SIZE, SCALE, MASS AND VOLUME OVERWHELMS THE |
| | EXISTING STRUCTURES. |
| | 2. DETAILED PLANS OF SHORING/SUPPORT SHALL BE SUBMITTED |
| | PRIOR TO PERMITTING TO ENSURE NO DAMAGE OCCURS |
| |
Print |
