| Date |
Text |
| 2021-10-20 08:30:06 | SETBACKS |
| | 1. PROJECT DOES NOT COMPLY WITH TABLE IV-50 BUILDING |
| | REQUIREMENTS? CWD 10-12. BUILDING IS ENCROACHING INTO |
| | THE MINIMUM SETBACK (16?) ON LEVELS 3 AND ABOVE ALONG |
| | OLIVE STREET, PLEASE ADJUST. |
| | [NOT SATISFIED] |
| | - BANYAN BOULEVARD 16? SETBACK NOT MET, APPEARS TO BE |
| | 14? IN DRAWINGS. |
| | - PLEASE CLEARLY INDICATE SETBACK LINE IN ALL FLOOR |
| | PLANS, ELEVATIONS, AND SECTIONS TO CONFIRM COMPLIANCE. |
| | |
| | OPEN SPACE |
| | 2. PLEASE PROVIDE INFORMATION ON PRIVATE OPEN SPACE |
| | (SEC. 94-109 TABLE IV-7), SPECIFYING THE AMOUNT, |
| | LOCATION, AND TYPE OF SPACE. CONFIRM COMPLIANCE WITH |
| | STANDARDS LOCATED IN TABLE FOR EACH TYPE OF SPACE. |
| | [PARTIALLY SATISFIED] |
| | - PLEASE UPDATE TABLE IN SHEET L4 ? TO REFLECT THAT THE |
| | PRIVATE OPEN SPACE IS CALCULATED FOR THE TWO SITES |
| | |
| | 3. PLEASE EXPLAIN WHAT THE OPEN SPACE/ACTIVE USE ALONG |
| | THE GROUND LEVEL OF NORTHERN FACADE ON BANYAN IS. |
| | [SATISFIED] |
| | |
| | ACTIVE USE |
| | 4. PROPOSED PROJECT IS NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH MINIMUM |
| | GROUND ACTIVE USES (65%) ALONG PRIMARY PEDESTRIAN |
| | STREETS (OLIVE AND BANYAN). SEE TABLE IV-50 BUILDING |
| | REQUIREMENTS? CWD 10-12 |
| | [NOT SATISFIED] |
| | - MINOR TEXT ERROR, BOTH BANYAN AND OLIVE ARE PRIMARY |
| | PEDESTRIAN STREETS IN THIS AREA (SHEET A-1 REFERS TO |
| | OLIVE AS AN AVENUE). |
| | - WILL REQUIRE VARIANCE FOR GROUND LEVEL ACTIVE USE |
| | REQUIREMENT ALONG OLIVE; REQUIRED 80% OF FRONTAGE; |
| | PROVIDED 62% (VARIANCE OF 18% OR 48.75? DIFFERENCE) |
| | - WILL REQUIRE VARIANCE FOR GROUND LEVEL ACTIVE USE |
| | REQUIREMENT ALONG BANYAN; REQUIRED 65% OF FRONTAGE; |
| | PROVIDED 46% (VARIANCE OF 19% OR 30.92? DIFFERENCE) |
| | - PLEASE INCLUDE GRAPHIC CALCULATIONS FOR THE ACTIVE |
| | USE REQUIREMENTS INDICATING IN THE FLOOR PLAN WHAT IS |
| | BEING COUNTED AND THE RESULTING PERCENTAGES. PLEASE |
| | REVISE THE CALCULATED FRONTAGES AND PERCENTAGES OF |
| | ACTIVE USE BASED ON THE BUILDABLE LOT FRONTAGE. |
| | |
| | 5. PROPOSED PROJECT IS NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH MINIMUM |
| | LINER ACTIVE USES [2 TO 3 STORIES (44?)] WHICH REQUIRES |
| | 60%. |
| | [NOT SATISFIED] |
| | - WILL REQUIRE VARIANCE FOR 2ND AND 3RD STORY ACTIVE |
| | USE LINER REQUIREMENT ALONG OLIVE AVE AND BANYAN BLVD; |
| | REQUIRED 60%; PROVIDED 0% (VARIANCE OF 60%) |
| | - THE 1ST STORY IS A DOUBLE HEIGHT AND IT WILL BE |
| | COUNTED AS ONE LEVEL. |
| | - THE ADDITIONAL ENHANCED TREATMENT OF NORTH FA?ADE |
| | PREVIOUSLY DISCUSSED WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE SUBMITTED |
| | DRAWINGS. |
| | |
| | STREETSCAPE |
| | 6. STREETSCAPE REQUIREMENTS ARTICLE IV: SEC. 94-113, |
| | PROPOSED PROJECT AND PLANS SHOULD REFLECT/COORDINATE |
| | WITH THE CITY?S PROPOSED STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS ALONG |
| | BANYAN BOULEVARD. |
| | [NOT SATISFIED] |
| | - ONGOING COORDINATION IS STILL NEEDED. |
| | |
| | 7. CITY WOULD LIKE TO DISCUSS WIDENING THE SIDEWALK IN |
| | FRONT OF HISTORIC BUILDING (301 CLEMATIS) TO ALLOW FOR |
| | LANDSCAPING ALONG OLIVE. |
| | [NOT SATISFIED] |
| | - DISCUSSIONS ONGOING, DETAILS AND ACTIONS TO BE |
| | DETERMINED. |
| | |
| | 8. STREET TREES SHALL BE PLANTED ALONG OLIVE FRONTAGE |
| | ADJACENT TO THE CURB AT A MAXIMUM OF 30 FEET ON CENTER. |
| | TREES SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF 20 FEET IN HEIGHT, AND HAVE |
| | A MINIMUM OF EIGHT FEET CLEAR TRUNK, OR AS APPROVED BY |
| | THE CITY. STRUCTURAL SOIL SHALL BE INSTALLED MEETING |
| | THE CITY APPROVED STANDARDS AS A MINIMUM REQUIREMENT |
| | UNDER ADJACENT PAVED AREAS, OR SUSPENDED PAVEMENT SOIL |
| | CELL SYSTEMS MAY BE INSTALLED AS AN ALTERNATIVE. |
| | [PARTIALLY SATISFIED] |
| | - STAFF RECOMMENDS REDUCING THE DROP-OFF ON OLIVE AVE. |
| | TO 10? IN WIDTH. FURTHER DISCUSSION NEEDED WITH TRAFFIC |
| | ENGINEER. |
| | |
| | BIKES, PARKING, & LOADING |
| | 9. AS PER ARTICLE IV: SEC. 94-111, BICYCLE PARKING MUST |
| | INCLUDE: |
| | A) (I) SECURE BIKE RACKS AND/OR STORAGE AT A RATIO OF |
| | ONE BICYCLE PARKING SPACE PER EVERY 15 PARKING SPACES |
| | PROVIDED |
| | B) (II) A MINIMUM OF ONE SHOWER AND CHANGING FACILITY |
| | SHALL BE PROVIDED TO BE AVAILABLE FOR ALL TENANTS AND |
| | SHALL BE LOCATED WITHIN THE BUILDING, OR WITHIN 200 |
| | FEET OF THE BUILDING ENTRANCE, FOR DEVELOPMENTS GREATER |
| | THAN 50,000 SQUARE FEET IN GROSS BUILDING AREA. |
| | C) ADDITIONALLY, 1 SPACE PER 100 FT. OF STREET |
| | FRONTAGE; TO BE LOCATED ALONG ROW OR STREET FRONTAGES |
| | FOR PUBLIC ACCESS. |
| | D) PLEASE INDICATE THE LOCATION OF SHOWER FACILITIES |
| | [SATISFIED] |
| | - DISTRIBUTE PUBLIC BIKE PARKING SPACES |
| | ALONG/THROUGHOUT THE FRONTAGE. |
| | |
| | 10. AS PER SUBSECTION 94-485(P), PROPOSED PROJECT NOT |
| | IN COMPLIANCE WITH REQUIRED LOADING STANDARDS |
| | A) REQUIRES 2 (10?X50?) FOR COMMERCIAL USES; PROPOSED |
| | PLAN WILL REQUIRE A VARIANCE. |
| | [SATISFIED] |
| | |
| | 11. PLEASE PROVIDE AN AUTOTURN STUDY AND SERVICE PLAN. |
| | [SATISFIED] |
| | |
| | 12. STAFF DOES NOT SUPPORT LOCATION OF PORTE COCHERE |
| | DROP-OFF ALONG OLIVE. |
| | A) MAY SUPPORT ALTERNATIVE ON-STREET DROP-OFF. |
| | [PARTIALLY SATISFIED] |
| | - SHEET A-1 APPEARS TO SHOW OLD DROP-OFF WITH |
| | PEDESTRIAN ISLAND AND TERRACE SEATING IN DROP-OFF ROW, |
| | AS OPPOSED TO NEW DROP-OFF CONFIGURATION SHOWN IN |
| | LANDSCAPE SHEETS. |
| | - STAFF RECOMMENDS TO REDUCE DROP-OFF WIDTH TO 10? ? |
| | TALK WITH VALERIO (TRAFFIC ENGINEER) |
| | |
| | 13. PLEASE INCLUDE TABLE OF PARKING REQUIREMENTS. |
| | [SATISFIED] |
| | |
| | 14. PLEASE DIMENSION ALL DRIVE AISLE AND PARKING |
| | SPACES. |
| | [SATISFIED] |
| | |
| | FACADE ARTICULATION |
| | 15. WEST ELEVATION OF PROPOSED BUILDING HAS THE FIRST 7 |
| | FLOORS AS A BLANK WALL. DOES NOT COMPLY WITH CODE SEC. |
| | 94-109 TABLE IV-4. BLANK WALLS ARE NOT PERMITTED, AND |
| | EXCEEDS 20% OF THE WESTERN FACADE. REQUIRES |
| | FENESTRATION OR ARCHITECTURAL TREATMENTS. |
| | [NOT SATISFIED] |
| | - B-21 HAS UPDATED ELEVATION (NOT B-18 AS RESPONSE |
| | INDICATES) |
| | - WEST ELEVATION DRAWINGS INCLUDE A BLANK WALL NOT |
| | PERMITTED BY CODE. GARAGE FA?ADE IS MORE THAN 20% OF |
| | OVERALL. |
| | |
| | 16. ADDITIONAL ARCHITECTURAL TREATMENT SHALL BE |
| | PROVIDED TO SCREEN PARKING USES. |
| | [NOT SATISFIED] |
| | - WITHIN THE SUBMITTED DRAWINGS NOT SEEING THE |
| | ALTERNATE SCREENING AND FA?ADE/ARCHITECTURAL TREATMENTS |
| | DISCUSSED IN MEETINGS, DID PLANS REVERT TO PREVIOUS |
| | DESIGN? |
| | - PLEASE EXPLAIN HOW IS THE PROJECT COMPLYING WITH THE |
| | PLANAR BREAK REQUIREMENTS. |
| | |
| | 17. SOME ADDITIONAL ARCHITECTURAL TREATMENTS ON PORTION |
| | OF ALLEY (SOUTHERN FACADE) WOULD BE PREFERRED AS IT |
| | DOESN?T HAVE FENESTRATION. |
| | [SATISFIED] |
| | - OKAY WITH ALLEYWAY/NO CHANGE IN SOUTHERN GROUND-FLOOR |
| | FA?ADE. |
| | - ALLEYWAY RENDERINGS SHOW A CANOPY NOT ILLUSTRATED OR |
| | SHOWN IN DRAWINGS, PLEASE PROVIDE MORE DETAILS IN |
| | DRAWINGS. |
| | |
| | GENERAL SITE |
| | 18. CITY CURRENTLY HAS A TRASH COMPACTOR ON SITE. |
| | FURTHER DISCUSSIONS NECESSARY TO EXPLORE OPTION TO KEEP |
| | COMPACTOR ON SITE. |
| | [PARTIALLY SATISFIED] |
| | - DISCUSSIONS ONGOING, DETAILS AND ACTIONS TO BE |
| | DETERMINED. |
| | - SPEAK WITH VINCE (SURVEY) |
| | |
| | 19. FURTHER DISCUSSION NEEDED TO DETERMINE IF ALLEYWAY |
| | NEEDS TO BE ONE-WAY. |
| | [PARTIALLY SATISFIED] |
| | - DISCUSSIONS ONGOING, DETAILS AND ACTIONS TO BE |
| | DETERMINED. |
| | - SPEAK WITH VALERIO (TRAFFIC ENGINEER) EAST-WAY |
| | TRAFFIC FLOW MAY BE NEEDED FOR VALET OPERATIONS. |
| | EXPLORE OPENING IN GARAGE ON SOUTHWESTERN CORNER? |
| | |
| | 20. PLEASE IDENTIFY IF THERE ARE ANY HARDSCAPE |
| | IMPROVEMENTS PROPOSED TO THE ALLEYWAY. |
| | [PARTIALLY SATISFIED] |
| | - FURTHER DISCUSSIONS NECESSARY TO CONFIRM THE PROPOSED |
| | IMPROVEMENTS ON THE CITY-OWNED ALLEY ARE VIABLE. |
| | |
| | 21. PLEASE EXPLORE HOW THE DESIGN OF PROPOSED BUILDING |
| | CAN BETTER RELATE TO THE HISTORIC BUILDING. |
| | A) SCALE COMPATIBILITY WITH HISTORIC BUILDING, HISTORIC |
| | TREATMENTS, ETC. |
| | [SATISFIED] |
| | - HPB APPROVED |
| | |
| | 22. PROVIDE SITE TABLE WITH: |
| | A) SITE AREA |
| | B) GROSS BUILDING AREA ALLOWED |
| | C) GROSS BUILDING AREA PROPOSED |
| | D) TDR?S NEEDED FOR PROJECT |
| | [PARTIALLY SATISFIED] |
| | - PLEASE UPDATE TABLE TO INCLUDE SEPARATED INFORMATION |
| | FOR 301 CLEMATIS AND 300 BANYAN, THEN COMBINED TOTALS. |
| | |
| | 23. PLEASE LABEL WHAT THE USES ARE THAT ARE COUNTED AND |
| | THOSE USES EXCLUDED FROM THE GROSS BUILDING AREA |
| | CALCULATIONS. |
| | [NOT SATISFIED] |
| | - GROUND FLOOR CORRIDORS AND ENCLOSED STORAGE AREAS, |
| | ELEVATORS, AND STAIRS NEED TO BE INCLUDED. LABEL EACH |
| | SPACE TO CONFIRM THAT IT IS A MECHANICAL ROOM NOT |
| | INCLUDED WITHIN GBA. |
| | - STAIR AT NW CORNER ONLY SERVING GARAGE MAY BE |
| | EXCLUDED FROM GBA, BUT IT SHALL NOT BE COUNTED AS |
| | ACTIVE USE ALONG BANYAN EITHER. |
| | - EXPLAIN THE ELEVATORS NOT COUNTED AS FAR; PARKING |
| | ELEVATORS? SERVICE ELEVATORS ONLY? WHAT IS WITHIN THE |
| | SERVICE ROOMS? |
| | |
| | 24. PLEASE CONFIRM THAT GROSS BUILDING AREA |
| | CALCULATIONS ARE MEASURED FROM THE EXTERIOR WALL. |
| | [SATISFIED] |
| | |
| | 25. PLEASE IDENTIFY LOCATION OF GAS METERS AND ANY |
| | OTHER ABOVE GROUND UTILITY CONNECTIONS. |
| | A) FIRE DEPT. CONNECTION ON BANYAN SHALL BE |
| | WALL-MOUNTED. |
| | [SATISFIED] |
| | |
| | 26. OPEN GROUND FLOOR AREAS EXCEED THE MAX PERMITTED |
| | GROUND FLOOR SETBACK. |
| | [SATISFIED] |
| | |
| | ADDITIONAL COMMENTS BASED ON RESUBMISSION: |
| | 27. SOME DRAWINGS STILL SHOW THE PORTE-COCHERE ? PLEASE |
| | UPDATE AND VERIFY INFORMATION ACROSS DRAWINGS IS |
| | CONSISTENT. |
| | 28. RENDERINGS SHOW PLANTERS ALONG OLIVE NEXT TO PATIO |
| | AREA BUT LANDSCAPE PLANS DO NOT SHOW ANY. GROUND FLOOR |
| | PLANTERS DELINEATING PUBLIC WALKWAY AND RESTAURANT |
| | TERRACE NEEDS FURTHER DISCUSSION. |
| | 29. CONTEXTUAL RENDERINGS AND SCHEMATIC DRAWINGS ARE |
| | NOT UPDATED OR CONSISTENT WITH ONE ANOTHER AND THE |
| | CURRENT PROPOSAL. |
| | 30. MICRO-MOBILITY STATION SHOULD BE IN PUBLIC |
| | ROW/VISIBLE AS OPPOSED TO IN ALLEY. |
| | 31. IF POWER LINES ALONG THE ALLEY ARE GOING TO BE |
| | BURIED, PLEASE IDENTIFY THE LOCATION OF THE REQUIRED |
| | TRANSFORMERS. |
| | 32. PLEASE INCLUDE REFERENCE PHOTOS OF SPECIAL |
| | MATERIALS USED IN ELEVATIONS TO BETTER EXPLAIN THE |
| | FA?ADE TREATMENT. |
| | FOR RESUBMITTAL, PLEASE INCLUDE A RESPONSE LETTER, ONE |
| | FULL SET COPY (COLORED) AND A CD WITH A DIGITAL COPY. |
| | COMMENTS DO NOT INCLUDE A REVIEW OF RENDERINGS E-MAILED |
| | TO STAFF ON 10/15/21. |
| | |
| |
Print |
