| Date |
Text |
| 2019-12-12 14:15:41 | 1. SATSIFIED. |
| | 2. SATSIFIED. |
| | 3. PARTIALLY SATSIFIED. EXISTING STREET LIGHT POLES |
| | SHALL BE REPLACED WITH THE CITY APPROVED LIGHT POLE, |
| | PER CITY ENGINEERING REQUIREMENTS. |
| | PLEASE INCLUDE SIMILAR LIGHT POLES ON THE RENDERINGS. |
| | 4. NOT SATSIFIED. PLEASE PROVIDE PHOTOMETRICS FOR THE |
| | SITE AND ROW MEETING REQUIREMENT OF SECTION 94-113(B). |
| | PLEASE INCLUDE LIGHT POLE DETAILS FOR BOTH INTERNAL AND |
| | ROW LIGHT POLES. |
| | 5. PARTIALLY SATSIFIED. SIDEWALK MUST BE AT GRADE |
| | INCLUDING ACROSS PARKING INGRESS/EGRESS AREAS. IT |
| | APPEARS THERE ARE ISSUES AT THE GARAGE ENTRANCES THAT |
| | REQUIRE CURBING AND STAIRS. THIS WILL NEED TO BE |
| | ADJUSTED TO KEEP THE GRADE LEVEL. |
| | THE DESIGN OF THE CURB CUT OFF OF TRINITY PLACE INTO |
| | THE PARKING GARAGE DOES NOT ALLOW FOR CONTINUOUS |
| | PEDESTRIAN TRAVEL. PLEASE REMOVE CURBING AS NECESSARY |
| | TO PERMIT FOR CONTINUOUS PATH OF TRAVEL FROM THE |
| | WESTERN BOUNDARY ALONG TRINITY PLACE. PLEASE REFLECT |
| | DESIGN WITH THE LANDSCAPE PLAN, WHICH CURRENTLY DOES |
| | NOT MATCH THE SITE PLAN. |
| | 6. SATSIFIED. |
| | 7. SATSIFIED. |
| | 8. SATSIFIED. |
| | 9. SATSIFIED. |
| | 10. SATSIFIED. |
| | 11. SATSIFIED. |
| | 12. SATSIFIED. |
| | 13. SATSIFIED. |
| | 14. SATSIFIED. |
| | 15. ONGOING. PLEASE SHOW PROPOSED LOCATION OF BACKFLOW |
| | PREVENTER AND TRANSFORMER AND OTHER ABOVE GROUND |
| | UTILITIES. PLEASE NOTE, LOCATION OF THESE UTILITIES |
| | SHALL REQUIRE COORDINATION WITH ENGINEERING, PUBLIC |
| | UTILITIES, AND PLANNING AND ZONING TO ENSURE LOCATION |
| | THAT DOES NOT IMPEDE THE PUBLIC REALM AND THAT ALL |
| | UTILITIES ARE PROPERLY SCREENED. |
| | SEE NEW COMMENT # 77 |
| | 16. SATSIFIED. |
| | 17. SATSIFIED. |
| | 18. SATSIFIED. |
| | 19. SATSIFIED. |
| | 20. PARTIALLY SATSIFIED. PLEASE PROVIDE A SEPARATE |
| | SHEET INDICATING THE LOCATION OF ACTIVE USE AND |
| | PERCENTAGE ALONG THE FACADES. STAFF CAN PROVIDE AN |
| | EXAMPLE. |
| | SEE NEW COMMENT #62 |
| | 21. PARTIALLY SATSIFIED. PLEASE PROVIDE A SEPARATE |
| | SHEET INDICATING THE LOCATION OF REQUIRED TRANSPARENCY |
| | PERCENTAGE ALONG THE FACADES. TRANSPARENCY IS DEFINED |
| | IN SECTION 94-109. STAFF CAN PROVIDE AN EXAMPLE. |
| | SEE NEW COMMENT # 62 |
| | |
| | 22. SATSIFIED. |
| | 23. PARTIALLY SATSIFIED. PLEASE PROVIDE A SEPARATE |
| | SHEET INDICATING THE REQUIRED PLANAR BREAKS FOR TABLE |
| | IV-4 ALONG THE FACADES. STAFF CAN PROVIDE AN EXAMPLE. |
| | THE INDICATED PLANAR BREAK ALONG THE NORTH FA?ADE ON |
| | LEVEL 4 MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS, BUT THE DIMENSIONS |
| | APPEAR TO BE LABELED INCORRECTLY (93? 1 1?8? SECTION |
| | SHOULD BE SPLIT INTO TWO SECTIONS BASED ON ILLUSTRATED |
| | BREAK). PLEASE AMEND |
| | 24. PARTIALLY SATSIFIED. PLEASE PROVIDE A SEPARATE |
| | SHEET INDICATING THE REQUIRED HORIZONTAL PROJECTIONS |
| | FOR TABLE IV-4 ALONG THE FACADES. STAFF CAN PROVIDE AN |
| | EXAMPLE. |
| | SEE NEW COMMENT # 53 |
| | 25. PARTIALLY SATSIFIED. THE CALCULATION FOR REQUIRED |
| | PARKING FOR MICRO-UNITS, STANDARD UNITS, AND |
| | RETAIL/COMMERCIAL ARE INCORRECT. THE PERMITTED PARKING |
| | FOR MICROUNITS IS 102 SPACES FOR UNITS AND 10 SPACES |
| | FOR GUESTS FOR A TOTAL OF 112 SPACES (ADJUST IN |
| | REQUIRED COLUMN). THE PERMITTED PARKING FOR STANDARD |
| | SPACES IS MIN. 14 AND MAX. 28 PLUS 1 SPACE FOR GUEST |
| | FOR A TOTAL OF 29 SPACES. THE PERMITTED PARKING FOR |
| | RETAIL IS MIN. 12 AND MAX. 24 (ROUNDED DOWN). PLEASE |
| | AMEND ACCORDINGLY AND NOTE THAT ANY PARKING SPACES |
| | ABOVE MAXIMUM PARKING SHALL COUNT TOWARDS FAR. THE |
| | NUMBER OF SPACES ARE ONLY ROUNDED UP IF DECIMAL POINT |
| | IS EQUAL TO OR ABOVE 0.5. |
| | SEE NEW COMMENT # 78 & 79 |
| | 26. SATSIFIED. |
| | 27. SATSIFIED. |
| | 28. PARTIALLY SATSIFIED. PLEASE INDICATE THE LOCATION |
| | OF THE BIKE SHARE STATION ON THE SITE PLAN. EFFORTS CAN |
| | BE COORDINATED WITH THE CITY?S CURRENT BIKE SHARE |
| | PROGRAM. THE TOTAL NUMBER OF DOCKS REQUIRED WILL BE |
| | DETERMINED BY THE PROXIMITY OF OTHER BIKE SHARING |
| | STATIONS ALREADY INSTALLED WITHIN 500 FEET FROM THE |
| | SUBJECT PROJECT. |
| | FROM CONVERSATIONS WITH APPLICANT, IT APPEARS THAT THE |
| | BIKE SHARE STATION MAY BE RELOCATED. THE BEST LOCATION |
| | IN TERMS OF CONVENIENCE IS OLIVE AVENUE. STAFF IS |
| | DISCUSSING INTERNALLY AND WITH THE BIKE SHARE COMPANY |
| | ON THE NUMBER OF RACKS NEEDED AT THIS LOCATION, THE |
| | SIZE NEEDED AND THE BEST LOCATION. CONVERSATION TO BE |
| | CONTINUED |
| | |
| | 29. SATSIFIED. |
| | 30. PARTIALLY SATSIFIED. PER SECTION 94-106(8A), THE |
| | REQUIRED BICYCLE PARKING FOR THE RESIDENTIAL |
| | MICRO-UNITS SHALL BE 0.5 BICYCLE PARKING SPACES PER |
| | MICRO-UNIT, WHICH WOULD BE 102 SPACES FOR THIS PROJECT. |
| | PLEASE REVISE ACCORDINGLY. THIS SHALL REQUIRE A COVERED |
| | AND ENCLOSED BICYCLE STORAGE AREA. |
| | PLEASE SHOW THE PROPOSED LOCATION AND LAYOUT OF THE |
| | INTERIOR BICYCLE SPACES WITHIN THE PARKING GARAGE. |
| | 31. PARTIALLY SATSIFIED. THE CALCULATION FOR REQUIRED |
| | CAR SHARE IS INCORRECT. THE CALCULATION SHALL BE A |
| | RATIO OF ONE CAR SHARE SPACE PER EVERY 13 UNITS, |
| | REDUCED BY ONE CAR SHARE SPACE PER EVERY 13 ON-SITE |
| | MICRO-UNIT PARKING SPACES PROVIDED. THIS WOULD RESULT |
| | IN 8 CAR SHARE SPACES. PLEASE PROVIDE 2 SPACES ON SITE, |
| | AND HAVE THE REMAINING 6 TO BE SAVED FOR CAR SHARE FOR |
| | A FUTURE DATE BASED ON THE REQUIREMENTS OF 94-106(8A). |
| | PLEASE AMEND TO SHOW THE REQUIRED 2 SPACES PLUS 6 |
| | RESERVED SPACES (WHICH CAN BE USED FOR GUEST PARKING |
| | NOW) IN THE PROJECT DATA TABLE AND SHOW LOCATION OF CAR |
| | SHARE SPACES ON THE SITE PLANS. APPLICANT SHALL |
| | COORDINATE WITH CAR SHARE PROVIDER WITH THE ASSISTANCE |
| | OF THE CITY. |
| | TWO SPACES SHOULD BE RESERVED FOR CAR SHARE SPACES, NOT |
| | ?FUTURE CAR SHARE?. |
| | 32. SATSIFIED. |
| | 33. SATSIFIED. |
| | 34. PARTIALLY SATSIFIED. PLEASE COORDINATE TRASH PICKUP |
| | AND REMOVAL WITH PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT. HOW WOULD |
| | PICKUP WORK FOR THE PROPOSED LOCATION OF THE ENCLOSURE? |
| | PLEASE COORDINATE WITH MATT HEJAZI. 561-822-2045 |
| | [email protected] |
| | THERE IS A LIGHT POLE PROPOSED WITHIN THE COMPACTOR |
| | HOLDING ZONE, PLEASE ADJUST. |
| | 35. PARTIALLY SATSIFIED. IS THERE ACCESS TO THE RETAIL |
| | FROM THE PARKING GARAGE? HOW WILL ACCESS WORK? PLEASE |
| | LABEL PARKING SPACES FOR RETAIL ON THE SITE PLAN. |
| | THERE ARE RETAIL PARKING SPACES PROPOSED BEYOND THE |
| | ACCESS GATE. WOULD THESE BE RESERVED FOR THOSE WITH |
| | ACCESS? MAY NEED TO BE REVISED |
| | 36. PARTIALLY SATSIFIED. PUBLIC BICYCLE PARKING SHALL |
| | BE PROVIDED AT ONE SPACE PER 100 FEET OF STREET |
| | FRONTAGE. THIS WOULD BE THE TOTAL OF ALL THREE STREET |
| | FRONTAGES FOR A TOTAL OF 6 BICYCLE SPACES (SECTION |
| | 93-113) |
| | THE PROPOSED LOCATION INTERFERES WITH THE PEDESTRIAN |
| | PATHWAY ALONG OLIVE AVENUE. PLEASE ADJUST TO A LOCATION |
| | OUT OF THE DIRECT PATH OF TRAVEL, PERHAPS WITHIN THE |
| | PLAZA AREA ADJACENT TO THE STRUCTURE. ALTERNATIVELY, |
| | BICYCLE RACKS CAN BE DISPERSED AROUND THE PROJECT. |
| | 37. SATSIFIED. |
| | 38. SATSIFIED. |
| | 39. PARTIALLY SATSIFIED. PLEASE PROVIDE SPECIFIC |
| | ARCHITECTURAL DETAIL INCLUDING ALL MATERIALS AND |
| | INCLUDE REFERENCE IMAGES. STAFF HAS CONCERN OVER THE |
| | MATERIAL FOR THE GARAGE SCREENING AND NEEDS TO SEE MORE |
| | DETAIL OF THE SPACING OF THE FEATURES, PROPOSED |
| | MATERIAL, ETC. |
| | SEE NEW COMMENT # 55 |
| | 40. PARTIALLY SATSIFIED. PLEASE CONSIDER ARCHITECTURAL |
| | FEATURES OTHER THAN GARAGE SCREENING ON THE PARKING |
| | GARAGE FA?ADE TO BETTER BLEND THE OBVIOUS FACADE OF |
| | PARKING GARAGE SCREENING AS SEEN FROM THE PUBLIC VIEW, |
| | ESPECIALLY FROM OLIVE AVENUE AND TRINITY PLACE, WHILE |
| | KEEPING THE MASSING DIFFERENT INTACT. |
| | SEE NEW COMMENT # 55 |
| | 41. SATSIFIED. |
| | 42. PARTIALLY SATSIFIED. THE PARKING GARAGE RAMPS SHALL |
| | BE COVERED WITH ARCHITECTURAL TREATMENT. BLANK WALLS |
| | ARE NOT PERMITTED PER SECTION 94-109. NON-ACTIVE USES |
| | SHALL BE TREATED WITH ARCHITECTURAL TREATMENT PER TABLE |
| | IV-4. |
| | SEE NEW COMMENT # 55 |
| | 43. SATSIFIED. |
| | 44. PARTIALLY SATSIFIED. PLEASE EXTEND ARCHITECTURAL |
| | TREATMENT ALONG THE FA?ADE AREA ADJACENT TO THE PARKING |
| | GARAGE ALONG OLIVE STREET TO ALLEVIATE THE BLANK WALL. |
| | SEE NEW COMMENT # 55 |
| | 45. ONGOING. PLEASE NOTE, PER RESOLUTION 211-17, |
| | PROJECTS WITH RESIDENTIAL MICRO-UNITS SHALL CONTRIBUTE |
| | A TROLLEY FEE AT $10 PER MICRO-UNIT PER MONTH. |
| | 46. SATISFIED. |
| | 47. SATISFIED. |
| | 48. PARTIALLY SATISFIED. PLEASE SUBMIT STREET LEVEL |
| | RENDERINGS WITH RESUBMITTAL |
| | PLEASE INCLUDE THE CORRECT LIGHT POLE DESIGN, REMOVE |
| | THE LARGE TREE IF NOT BEING RELOCATED AND REPLACE WITH |
| | IMAGE OF PROPOSED TREE AT PLANTING HEIGHT. PLEASE |
| | ILLUSTRATE THE LANDSCAPE AT PLANTING HEIGHT. |
| | |
| | |
| | NEW COMMENTS DECEMBER 11, 2019: |
| | 49. PLEASE UPDATE THE RENDERING IF THE OAK TREE IS NOT |
| | BEING RELOCATED. |
| | 50. PLEASE PROVIDE ADDITIONAL MATERIAL INFORMATION AND |
| | DETAIL ON THE PROPOSED ?BAMBOO? GARAGE SCREENING, |
| | INCLUDING PROPOSED SPACING. THE RENDERING SHOWS LARGER |
| | SPACING BETWEEN THE ?BAMBOO? PARKING GARAGE SCREENING |
| | ALONG THE EAST FA?ADE, WITHIN THE PUBLIC PLAZA AREA. IS |
| | THE SPACING DIFFERENT HERE THAN ELSEWHERE? |
| | 51. PLEASE CLARIFY WHY THE BAMBOO SCREENING IS |
| | ILLUSTRATED IN BLACK AND WHITE COLOR ON SHEET A4-01 OF |
| | COLOR ELEVATIONS ? DIFFERENT THAN RENDERING |
| | 52. PLEASE INDICATE WHAT MATERIAL WILL BE BEHIND THE |
| | BAMBOO SCREENING (IF ANY) |
| | 53. PER TABLE IV-4: FA?ADE ARTICULATION REQUIREMENTS, |
| | AT THE GROUND FLOOR, HORIZONTAL PROJECTS THAT HAVE A |
| | MINIMUM CUMULATIVE HORIZONTAL LENGTH OF 50% OF THE |
| | BUILDING FRONTAGE SHALL BE PROVIDED (NOT INCLUDING |
| | RECESSED PROJECTIONS FROM REQUIRED SETBACKS). IT |
| | APPEARS THAT THE EAST ELEVATION MAY NOT MEET THIS |
| | REQUIREMENT. PLEASE INCLUDE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION OR |
| | INCLUDE ADDITIONAL HORIZONTAL ELEMENTS ALONG THIS |
| | FA?ADE AS NECESSARY. |
| | 54. PLEASE PROVIDE ADDITIONAL ARCHITECTURAL MATERIAL |
| | DETAIL |
| | 55. STAFF OVERALL FEELS THAT THERE IS A NEED FOR |
| | ADDITIONAL ARCHITECTURAL FENESTRATION AND TREATMENT |
| | ALONG THE NORTH, SOUTH AND WEST FA?ADE. ALTHOUGH SOME |
| | PORTIONS ARE INTERIOR LOT LINES, THE FACADES ARE BEHIND |
| | PARKING LOTS AND THE FA?ADE IS HIGHLY VISIBLE FROM THE |
| | STREET. LANDSCAPE MATERIAL AND PAINT CANNOT BE |
| | CONSIDERED AS TREATMENT FOR COVERING BLANK WALLS. THE |
| | TREATMENT ALONG THE NORTH PORTION OF THE EAST FA?ADE |
| | (THE PORTION WITH THE MESH GARAGE SCREENING) HAS |
| | ACCOMPLISHED THE CONTINUATION OF THE FEATURES |
| | THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE FA?ADE, EFFICIENTLY BLENDING THE |
| | PORTION OF THE PARKING GARAGE INTO THE RESIDENTIAL |
| | UNITS IN THE UPPER FLOORS (GARAGE OPENINGS SAME SIZE AS |
| | WINDOWS ON UPPER FLOORS). THE PORTIONS OF PARKING |
| | GARAGE ALONG THE OTHER FACADES HAS DIFFERENT PATTERN |
| | THAN THE UPPER FLOORS, AND DOES NOT TREAT THE PARKING |
| | GARAGE PORTION AS EFFICIENTLY. PLEASE CONSIDER THE |
| | PATTERN OF PARKING GARAGE SCREENING OPENINGS AND |
| | CONSIDER INCLUSION OF ADDITIONAL ARCHITECTURAL |
| | TREATMENT ALONG NON-ACTIVE USES AND FENESTRATION ALONG |
| | ACTIVE USES (SEE TABLE IV-4). CAN OTHER MATERIAL |
| | BESIDES STUCCO BE USED ALONG FACADES? |
| | 56. PLEASE PROVIDE MORE INFORMATION ON THE PROPOSED |
| | PARKING GARAGE MESH SCREENING INCLUDING THE DISTANCE |
| | SEPARATION BETWEEN THE MESH FRAMES. IS THERE AN |
| | ALTERNATIVE SCREENING THAT CAN BE USED THAT BETTER |
| | SERVES AS FAUX WINDOWS OR CONTINUATION? |
| | 57. THE GATE ALONG THE EAST ELEVATION TO THE AMENITY |
| | DECK CANNOT SWING OUT INTO THE SIDEWALK PEDESTRIAN PATH |
| | OF TRAVEL. PLEASE SET THE GATE BACK SO THE DOOR DOES |
| | NOT SWING DIRECTLY INTO THE SIDEWALK. |
| | 58. THE ENTRANCES TO THE RETAIL AREAS ON THE OLIVE |
| | AVENUE FRONTAGE WILL NEED TO BE RECESSED TO PREVENT THE |
| | DOORS FROM OPENING DIRECTLY ONTO THE SIDEWALK. |
| | 59. PLEASE PROVIDE SCREENING FOR THE ROOF MOUNTED |
| | MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT. PLEASE MAKE NOTE ON THE PLANS |
| | THAT THE ELEVATOR SHAFTS AND ALL PROJECTING OBJECTS ON |
| | THE ROOF WILL NEED TO BE PAINTED TO MATCH THE BUILDING |
| | FA?ADE COLORS OR OTHERWISE PROPERLY SCREENED. |
| | 60. PLEASE NOTE THAT PARKING GARAGES ENTRANCES SHALL BE |
| | REQUIRED TO BE TREATED (WALLS AND CEILINGS) TO A DEPTH |
| | OF AT LEAST 20 FEET. |
| | 61. THE PORTION OF THE GROUND FLOOR OPEN SPACE THAT IS |
| | BEING COUNTED TOWARDS THE REQUIRED PERCENTAGE OF |
| | PRIVATE OPEN SPACE MUST BE TREATED AS A SPECIFIC TYPE |
| | OF PUBLIC OPEN SPACE THAT IS PERMITTED IN THIS ZONING |
| | DISTRICT (SEE TABLE IV-6), NOT AS A SEMI-PUBLIC OPEN |
| | SPACE. SPECIFIC DETAILS ON THE PUBLIC OPEN SPACE TYPE |
| | MUST BE INCLUDED (SEE TABLE IV-7). |
| | 62. PLEASE REMOVE THE STAIRWAY ALONG THE NORTH FA?ADE |
| | FROM THE CALCULATION FOR ACTIVE USE AND TRANSPARENCY AS |
| | IT DOES NOT COUNT TOWARDS ACTIVE USE. PLEASE UPDATE |
| | ACTIVE USE CALCULATION IN DATA TABLES TO REFLECT |
| | 63. THE TRENCH DRAIN AT THE PARKING GARAGE ENTRANCE OFF |
| | TRINITY PLACE IS ILLUSTRATED WITH A DIFFERENT DIMENSION |
| | ON THE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS AND CIVIL PLANS. PLEASE |
| | CLARIFY. |
| | 64. PLEASE AMEND THE TRUNCATED DOME AND ADA RAMP AT THE |
| | PEDESTRIAN CROSSING SOUTH ACROSS TRINITY PLACE AND |
| | TANGLEWOOD COURT TO PROVIDE STRAIGHT ACCESS ACROSS |
| | TRINITY AND OLIVE STREET. |
| | 65. THERE ARE ISSUES WITH THE PROPOSED LIGHT POLE |
| | LOCATIONS (WITHIN PARKING SPACES, TRASH COMPACTOR |
| | HOLDING SPACE, SAME LOCATION AS TREES, FIRE HYDRANT, |
| | ETC.). PLEASE RELOCATE APPROPRIATELY |
| | 66. PLEASE UPDATE THE ARCHITECTURAL SHEET A1-01 TO |
| | MATCH THE UPDATED SITE PLAN DATA |
| | 67. PLEASE REMOVE THE REFERENCE FOR THE TRASH CHUTE |
| | FROM THE ROOF ON SHEET A1-09 |
| | 68. THERE ARE NOTES ON SHEET C2.00 FOR EXISTING TREE |
| | GRATES TO REMAIN. PLEASE NOTE THAT THESE WILL NEED TO |
| | BE EVALUATED INDIVIDUALLY FOR THEIR EXISTING CONDITION |
| | AND MAY NEED TO BE REPLACED ? CONVERSATION WITH |
| | PLANNING AND LANDSCAPE PLANNER WILL BE REQUIRED TO |
| | DETERMINE CONDITION |
| | 69. PLEASE INCLUDE AN ADDITIONAL 1 FOOT OF SPACE NEXT |
| | TO ANY WALLS OR PHYSICAL OBSTRUCTION ADJACENT TO |
| | PARKING SPACES (SECTION 94-111(C)(1). |
| | 70. PLEASE MAKE NOTE ON THE PLANS THAT ANY WALL MOUNTED |
| | FDC OR OTHER UTILITIES SHALL BE PAINTED TO MATCH THE |
| | BUILDING FA?ADE COLOR |
| | 71. A SPECIFIC BICYCLE RACK DETAIL WILL NEED TO BE |
| | PROVIDED PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT APPROVAL, PLEASE |
| | PROVIDE WHEN CHOSEN |
| | 72. THE BICYCLE RACK LOCATIONS SHOWN ON THE LANDSCAPE |
| | PLAN DO NOT MATCH THE SITE PLAN. PLEASE AMEND |
| | 73. HAS FENCING OR OTHER METHODS BEEN CONSIDERED FOR |
| | THE LANDSCAPE AREA ALONG THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE FROM |
| | TANGLEWOOD COURT? WHAT ARE THE SECURITY MEASURES |
| | PROPOSED FOR THIS AREA, AS IT COULD PROVIDE SPACE FOR |
| | LOITERING? |
| | 74. STAFF RECOMMENDS INCORPORATING ANTI SKATEBOARD |
| | BARRIERS ON THE SEATS IN THE OPEN SPACE- MAKE NOTES ON |
| | THE PLANS IF ADDING |
| | 75. PLEASE PROVIDE CONTEXTUAL ELEVATIONS |
| | 76. PLEASE EVALUATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO INCORPORATE THE |
| | BACKFLOW PREVENTER INTO FOUNDATION LANDSCAPE BED, |
| | CLOSER TO THE BUILDING. ALTERNATIVELY, ANY SOLUTION |
| | WHICH ALLOWS IT TO BE SCREENED ON AT LEAST THREE SIDES |
| | BY LANDSCAPE. PLEASE INDICATE PROPOSED SCREENING ON |
| | LANDSCAPE PLANS. |
| | 77. THE CALCULATION FOR MAXIMUM STANDARD PARKING SPACES |
| | FOR THE MICRO-UNITS SHOULD BE 98 SPACES (ONLY CALCULATE |
| | USING NUMBER OF MICRO UNITS). PLEASE AMEND |
| | 78. THE NUMBER OF MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM STANDARD PARKING |
| | SPACES FOR RETAIL, RESTAURANT OR COMMERCIAL SHOULD BE |
| | 17 AND 35 PLEASE AMEND |
| | 79. THE NUMBER OF REQUIRED MICROUNIT BICYCLE PARKING |
| | SPACES IS ONLY PER MICROUNIT, NOT STANDARD UNIT, |
| | RESULTING IN A REQUIREMENT OF 98 SPACES. THE STANDARD |
| | UNITS ALSO REQUIRE BICYCLES AT 1 RACK PER EVERY 15 |
| | REQUIRED PARKING SPACES (1 SPACE). PLEASE PROVIDE A |
| | SEPARATE ROW IN THE DATA TABLE FOR 98 REQUIRED BICYCLE |
| | RACKS FOR MICROUNITS AND 1 REQUIRED FOR STANDARD UNITS. |
| | THIS IS IN ADDITION TO THE REQUIRED FOR COMMERCIAL |
| | BICYCLE PARKING. |
| | 80. PLEASE CONSIDER AN ADDITIONAL TREE AT THE PROJECT?S |
| | SOUTHEAST CORNER, ALONG TRINITY PLACE NEAR THE CROSSING |
| | TO PROVIDE SHADE FOR PEDESTRIANS WAITING AT THE |
| | CROSSWALK |
| | 81. PLEASE ADD AN ADDITIONAL TREE IN A TREE GRATE |
| | ADJACENT TO THE SOUTHERNMOST PARALLEL PARKING SPACE |
| | ALONG OLIVE AVENUE |
| | 82. THERE APPEARS TO BE SOME ELEVATED FEATURES ALONG |
| | THE SIDEWALK BETWEEN THE ELEVATOR LOBBY ENTRANCE AND |
| | THE STAIRWELL ENTRANCE ILLUSTRATED ON THE NORTH |
| | ELEVATION ON SHEET PZ-02A. WHAT ARE THESE OBJECTS? |
| | 83. MAY WANT TO CONSIDER THE ONE-WAY PAVEMENT STRIPING |
| | ALONG TRINITY PLACE AND TANGLEWOOD COURT TO BE DIRECTLY |
| | IN FRONT OF THE PARKING GARAGE EXIT. SUGGEST CONFIRMING |
| | WITH CITY ENGINEERING ABOUT PROPER PLACEMENT. |
| | 84. A FEE OF $300 IS REQUIRED FOR ANY RESUBMITTAL |
| | BEYOND THE SECOND SUBMITTAL. PLEASE SUBMIT A CHECK FOR |
| | $300 WITH RESUBMITTAL. |
| | |
| | STAFF RESERVES THE RIGHT FOR FURTHER COMMENT AS THE |
| | REVIEW PROGRESSES. |
| | |
| |
Print |