| Date |
Text |
| 2017-02-01 12:01:19 | ADDITONAL COMMENTS FOR DAC SPECIAL REVIEW: |
| | 1. STAFF RECOMMENDS THE BUILDING ENTRANCE TO THE |
| | RESIDENTIAL USE SHALL HAVE SOME ARCHITECTURAL TREATMENT |
| | THAT DIFFERENCIATES THE CORNER FROM THE RETAIL PORTION |
| | OF THE BUILDING. |
| | 2. STAFF IS RECOMMENDING THE ALLEY OPENING TO BE |
| | REDUCED FROM THE PROPOSED 26'-6" TO 22'. THE DOWNTOWN |
| | ALLEYS ARE ENVISIONED AS SHARED ROADS AND DO NOT NEED A |
| | SEPARATE SIDEWALK. |
| | 3. PLEASE PROVIDE WINDOWS ON THE TWO RETAIL WALLS |
| | FACING THE ALLEY. |
| | 4. PLEASE LOOK AT THE OPTION TO TAKE THE GLASS BREAK |
| | PROPOSED ALL THE WAY DOWN AND RECESS IT THE NECESSARY |
| | AMOUNT TO COMPLY WITH THE PLANAR BREAK REQUIREMENTS ON |
| | THE DATURA ELEVATION. PLEASE JUSTIFY THE VARIANCE |
| | REQUEST IF NEEDED. |
| | 5. PLEASE PROPOSE SOME OPTIONS TO MAKE THE ALLEY |
| | CIRCULATION MORE ATTRACTIVE FOR PEDESTRIANS AND |
| | MINIMIZE THE NEGATIVE IMPACT OF THE GARAGE OVER THE |
| | ALLEY. SUGGEST HOW THE PAVERS ON ROSEMARY ARE GOING TO |
| | TRANSITION INTO THE ALLEY MATERIAL. STAFF SUFFEST THE |
| | ALLEY MATERIAL SHALL BE ENHANCED BEYOND SIMPLE ASPHALT |
| | COAT. |
| | 6. PLEASE PROVIDE INFORMATION TO CONFIRM COMPLIANCE |
| | WITH BLANK WALL REGULATION ON THE EAST FACADE. |
| | TREATMENT OF THE GARAGE WALL FACING EAST. |
| | 7. STAFF RECOMMENDS THE STAGGERED SETBACK ON THE UPPER |
| | LEVELS OF THE CLEMATIS ELEVATION (ABOVE PODIUM) TO BE |
| | LARGER, MINIMIZING THE IMPACT OF THE 12 STORY BUILDING |
| | ON THE HISTORIC DISTRICT. |
| | 8. STAFF RECOMMENDS THE BRICK FACADE TO PROJECT BELOW |
| | THE MINIMUM CELARANCE REQUIRED FOR THE ALLEY TO |
| | ACCOMPLISH A BETTER PEDESTRIAN SCALE FOR THE 1ST FLOOR |
| | OF THE BUILDING. EXACT DIMENSION TO BE DETERMINED WITH |
| | ENGINEERING TOENSURE CLEARANCE FOR TRUCKS ENTERING THE |
| | ALLEY IS PROVIDED. |
| | 9. AWNINGS ON DATURA SHALL REFLECT THE SMALLER SIZE |
| | ALREDY INCLUDED IN THE ROSEMARY ELEVATIONS. |
| | 10. ARE THE ROUND COLUMNS ON THE FIRST FLOOR FREE |
| | STANDING SEPARATED FROM THE GLASS STOREFRONT? |
| | RENDERINGS SEEM TO INDICATE THAT, BUT FLOOR PLANS ARE |
| | NOT. |
| | |
| | |
| | 1. TDR APPROVAL STILL NEEDED. HPB APPROVAL DONE-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 CONFIRM FINAL DECISION ON |
| | ALLOWING THE DUMPSTER TO BE ROLLED OUT TO THE ALLEY FOR |
| | PICK UP- 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. DONE-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. DONE -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. DONE-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. DONE-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. DONE - 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. DONE - 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. DONE- 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. DONE- 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. DONE- PLEASE PROVIDE ELECTRONIC DRAWINGS (DXF OR |
| | CADD) TO ALLOW THE MEASUREMENT OF THE FAR AREA |
| | INDICATED IN SHEET A0.06. |
| | 28. DONE - 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. DONE- 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. PARTIALLY SATISFIED- 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. PARTIALLY SATISFIED- THE SCALE OF THE 1ST FLOOR |
| | SHALL BE LOWERED. |
| | |
| | HPB APPROVAL CONDITIONS SHALL BE INCORPORATED - |
| | 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 |
