| Date |
Text |
| 2022-06-28 16:39:13 | CASE NO. 1895 - MAY 27, 2022 RESUBMITTAL |
| | NORTHWOOD COMMONS - NMUD ANCHOR SITE |
| | BROADWAY & 24TH STREET |
| | |
| | - CONTACT ERIC SCHNEIDER @ (561) 822-1446, |
| | [email protected] |
| | |
| | - PLEASE PROVIDE RESPONSES TO REVIEW COMMENTS IN |
| | WRITTEN FORMAT. |
| | |
| | - WHEN RESUBMITTING, PLEASE PROVIDE A MINIMUM OF THREE |
| | (3) PAPER COPIES AND AN ELECTRONIC COPY IN .PNG FORMAT |
| | OF ALL PLANS. PLEASE NOTE THAT CHANGES ON THE |
| | RESUBMITTED PLANS OR THE SUBMITTAL OF INFORMATION/PLANS |
| | TO ADDRESS THE COMMENTS MAY RESULT IN ADDITIONAL |
| | COMMENTS. |
| | |
| | - ONCE THE COMMENTS ARE RESUBMITTED AND DEEMED |
| | SUFFICIENTLY ADDRESSED, THE CASE WILL BE SCHEDULED FOR |
| | THE NEXT AVAILABLE PLANNING BOARD MEETING. |
| | |
| | - PLEASE NOTE THAT IF THE PLANNING DIVISION HAS NOT |
| | RECEIVED A RESPONSE TO THE COMMENTS WITHIN 60 DAYS FROM |
| | THE DATE OF THESE COMMENTS (BY SEPTEMBER 28, 2022), THE |
| | PLANNING DIVISION MAY NOTIFY THE APPLICANT THAT THE |
| | CASE IS CONSIDERED WITHDRAWN. ANY FURTHER ACTION SHALL |
| | REQUIRE A NEW DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION. |
| | |
| | - PLEASE NOTE THAT PREVIOUSLY ISSUED COMMENTS CONTINUE |
| | WERE NOT ADDRESSED, SO THE APPLICANT IS ASSESSED A |
| | RESUBMITTAL FEE. SUCH FEE WILL BE 20% OF THE ORIGINAL |
| | APPLICATION FEE ($600). |
| | |
| | - PUBLIC HEARING NOTIFICATION SIGNAGE SHALL BE POSTED |
| | IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION |
| | 94-39(I)(5) OF THE ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT |
| | REGULATIONS. |
| | |
| | THE DSI RESUBMITTAL ORIGINALLY COINCIDED WITH A CODE |
| | TEXT CHANGE TO THE NMUD DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS. IT IS |
| | ANTICIPATED THAT A CODE AMENDMENT FOR THE |
| | VARIANCE/WAIVER PROCESS WILL BE ADOPTED BY THE CITY |
| | COMMISSION IN JULY. STAFF HAS NOTED AREAS WHERE THE NEW |
| | VARIANCE/WAIVER PROCESS IS PREFERABLE TO AN NMUD TEXT |
| | CHANGE. THERE ARE SOME AREAS WHERE THE NMUD TEXT WILL |
| | NEED TO BE AMENDED REGARDLESS SUCH AS TO THE REGULATING |
| | MAPS. |
| | |
| | 1) THE PLANS SHOW DISCREPANCIES FOR THE ULTIMATE |
| | OWNERSHIP AND BOUNDARY STATUS OF THE BROADWAY |
| | EXTENSION. THE CIVIL AND LANDSCAPE PLANS SHOW A |
| | DEDICATED RIGHT-OF-WAY, WHILE THE SITE PLAN SHOWS IT AS |
| | PRIVATE PROPERTY. THERE ARE CONFLICTING CODE |
| | IMPLICATIONS FOR HOW THE BROADWAY EXTENSION IS |
| | CLASSIFIED. THE PLANNING COMMENTS ARE BASED ON THE |
| | BROADWAY EXTENSION BEING PRIVATE PROPERTY WITH AN |
| | ACCESS EASEMENT. THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT IS STILL |
| | DETERMINING THE MOST APPROPRIATE OPTION. |
| | |
| | 2) THE DEMOLITION PLAN SHOWS THAT THE "LOT 23" BUILDING |
| | AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE SITE WILL STILL BE |
| | REMOVED AS PART OF THE PROJECT. THE PLANS SHOW A NEW |
| | BUILDING IN THIS LOCATION; HOWEVER, THE DETAILS OF THIS |
| | BUILDING, TO INCLUDE DIMENSIONS, SETBACKS, HEIGHT, FULL |
| | ELEVATIONS, ETC. HAVE NOT BEEN PROVIDED. THIS WOULD BE |
| | BUILDING D ON THE PLANS. SINCE IT IS IN THE NORTHWOOD |
| | ROAD HISTORIC DISTRICT, IT NEEDS TO BE APPROVED BY THE |
| | HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD. |
| | |
| | 3) UPDATED COMMENT: PROVIDE A REVISED TRAFFIC |
| | PERFORMANCE STANDARDS APPROVAL LETTER FROM THE PALM |
| | BEACH COUNTY TRAFFIC DIVISION FOR THE SCOPE OF THE |
| | PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT BASED ON THE UPDATED PLANS AND |
| | TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS (73,990 SF RETAIL AND 364 DU). |
| | THE TRAFFIC LETTER NEEDS TO REFLECT THAT THE ANCHOR |
| | SITE PROJECT BOUNDARIES ARE NOT VACANT, BUT THAT THE |
| | CONTAIN BUILDINGS (3) AS SHOWN ON THE SURVEY. *** THE |
| | LATEST TIA SHOWS THE NEW USE MIX HAVING LESS IMPACT |
| | THAN WHAT THE CURRENT TPS LETTER SHOWS; THEREFORE, THE |
| | UPDATED TPS LETTER IS PRIOR TO THE SCHEDULING OF THE |
| | CITY COMMISSION HEARING. |
| | |
| | 4) REPEAT COMMENT: PROVIDE A PREDETERMINATION LETTER |
| | FROM FDOT FOR THE IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN THE FDOT |
| | RIGHTS-OF-WAY OF BROADWAY AND 24TH AND 25TH STREETS |
| | ADJACENT TO THE PROJECT. *** THIS IS REQUIRED PRIOR TO |
| | SCHEDULING A PLANNING BOARD HEARING. |
| | |
| | 5) REPEAT COMMENT: SECTION 94-209.J.1.C REQUIRES THAT |
| | PROJECTS WITH THREE OR MORE DISTINCTLY SEPARATE |
| | BUILDINGS HAVE SUBSTANTIALLY DIFFERENT FRONT |
| | ELEVATIONS. SUBSTANTIALLY DIFFERENT FRONT ELEVATIONS |
| | SHALL INCLUDE BUT NOT BE LIMITED TO VARIATIONS IN |
| | FENESTRATION, MATERIAL, MASSING AND COLOR. BUILDINGS B |
| | AND C DO NOT HAVE SUBSTANTIALLY DIFFERENT FRONT |
| | ELEVATIONS FROM EACH OTHER IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CODE |
| | REQUIREMENTS. BUILDING D WILL NEED TO COMPLY WITH THIS |
| | REQUIREMENT AS WELL. PLEASE NOTE THAT THE BUILDING C |
| | ELEVATIONS HAVE CHANGED FROM THOSE PRESENTED TO THE |
| | HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD AND WILL REQUIRE APPROVAL |
| | FROM THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION DIVISION. |
| | |
| | 6) BUILDING B: SHEET A0.03 PROJECT DATA AND SHEET A405 |
| | SHOW DIFFERING HEIGHTS FOR THE BUILDING LEVELS. ALL |
| | PLANS MUST SHOW CONSISTENT, ACCURATE INFORMATION. WHAT |
| | IS LEVEL 1.5 LISTED ON THE DATA TABLE? |
| | |
| | 7) BUILDING C: SHEET A0.03 PROJECT DATA AND SHEET A406 |
| | SHOW DIFFERING HEIGHTS FOR THE BUILDING LEVELS. ALL |
| | PLANS MUST SHOW CONSISTENT, ACCURATE INFORMATION. |
| | |
| | 8) THE MINIMUM UNIT SIZE IN NMUD IS 550 SF. BUILDING A |
| | LEVEL 3 UNITS 5 AND 19, LEVEL 4 UNITS 9 AND 23, AND |
| | LEVELS 5 THROUGH 9 UNITS 10 AND 24 DO NOT MEET THIS |
| | MINIMUM. |
| | |
| | 9) REPEAT COMMENT: PROVIDE THE HEIGHTS OF THE ROOFTOP |
| | MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT AND THE MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT |
| | SCREENING HEIGHTS FOR ALL BUILDINGS SO THAT STAFF CAN |
| | VERIFY THAT THE EQUIPMENT IS SCREENED IN ACCORDANCE |
| | WITH THE NMUD REQUIREMENTS. THE PARAPET HEIGHTS SHOWN |
| | (STAFF HAD TO SCALE THE DRAWINGS) FOR BUILDINGS B AND C |
| | WILL NOT SCREEN THE FULL HEIGHT OF THE A/C UNITS WHERE |
| | THEY ARE LOCATED ON THE ROOF PLANS. |
| | |
| | 10) UPDATED COMMENT: THE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE |
| | INFORMATION WAS NOT PROVIDED FOR THE INTERSECTION OF |
| | THE BROADWAY EXTENSION AND NORTHWOOD ROAD. IT APPEARS |
| | THAT THERE MAY BE A CONFLICT HERE WITH PROPOSED |
| | BUILDING D. NOTE: THE CITY?S TRAFFIC ENGINEER IS |
| | PERMITTED TO REVIEW THE SPECIFIC INTERSECTION |
| | CONFIGURATION, SPECIFICALLY THE EXISTING BULB OUTS AND |
| | DETERMINE IF THE PROPOSED BUILDING D PLACEMENT DOES NOT |
| | PRESENT A VISIBILITY HAZARD. |
| | |
| | 11) UPDATED COMMENT: THE MAXIMUM LOT WIDTH FOR FLEX |
| | BUILDINGS IS 200 FEET AND TOWER BUILDINGS IS 250 FEET. |
| | THE LOT CONTAINING BUILDINGS A AND B EXCEEDS THIS BASED |
| | ON THE ABANDONMENT OF PINEWOOD AND NORTHWOOD ROAD AND |
| | THE BLOCK NO LONGER BOUNDED ON ALL SIDES BY STREETS OR |
| | RR. **** POSSIBLE NEW VARIANCE/WAIVER PROCESS INSTEAD |
| | OF CODE CHANGE. |
| | 12) THE ADDITIONAL ABANDONMENT OF PINEWOOD AND |
| | NORTHWOOD ROAD RESULTS IN EXCEEDING THE MAXIMUM BLOCK |
| | LENGTH AND PERIMETER DIMENSION. **** POSSIBLE NEW |
| | VARIANCE/WAIVER PROCESS INSTEAD OF CODE CHANGE. |
| | |
| | 13) THE PROPOSAL IS NOW TO ABANDON THE REMAINDER OF |
| | PINEWOOD AND NORTHWOOD ROAD, WEST OF BROADWAY. THE |
| | PROPERTY AND SETBACK LINES SHOWN ON THE PLANS NEED TO |
| | BE ADJUSTED TO REFLECT THE NEW PROPERTY BOUNDARIES. |
| | |
| | 14) UPDATED COMMENT: STAFF IS HAVING DIFFICULTY |
| | VERIFYING THAT THE TOWER AND THE ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES |
| | ARE NOT ENCROACHING ON THE BROADWAY SETBACK. THE PLAN, |
| | SECTION AND ELEVATION DRAWINGS SHOW DIFFERENCES |
| | INCLUDING THAT THE TOWER BOTH IS AND IS NOT SET BACK 15 |
| | FEET FROM THE EDGE OF THE PODIUM. BETTER, DIMENSIONED |
| | GRAPHICS AT A LARGER SCALE NEED TO BE PROVIDED TO |
| | VERIFY THAT THERE IS NO SETBACK ENCROACHMENT. |
| | |
| | 15) UPDATED COMMENT: SHEET A0.02 CONTINUES TO LIST THE |
| | GROSS LAND AREA AS 144,250 SQUARE FEET. SHEET L1.01 NOW |
| | LISTS THE SITE AS HAVING 128,027. |
| | |
| | A. THE SITE NOW HAS TWO DEVELOPMENT PARCELS (ONE |
| | INCLUDING BUILDINGS A, B AND D AND ONE WITH BUILDING |
| | C), EACH MUST INDEPENDENTLY MEET THE LANDSCAPE, OPEN |
| | SPACE, STREETSCAPE, PERVIOUS, ETC. REQUIREMENTS OF |
| | NMUD. |
| | B. THE LAND AREA FOR EACH PARCEL NEEDS TO INCLUDE THE |
| | ABANDONED RIGHTS-OF-WAY. NOTE THAT THE BROADWAY |
| | EXTENSION AND NEW PINEWOOD WILL NOT BE SEPARATE |
| | PARCELS, BUT RATHER ACCESS EASEMENTS. |
| | |
| | 16) BUILDING FRONTAGE (NOTE: THE COMMENTS BELOW ARE |
| | BASED ON ALL OF THE STREETS WITHIN THE PARCEL |
| | CONTAINING BUILDINGS A, B AND D REMAINING PRIVATE |
| | EASEMENTS): |
| | |
| | A.THE NMUD REGULATIONS REQUIRE THAT A MINIMUM OF 50% |
| | BUILDING FRONTAGE IS PROVIDED ALONG 23RD STREET WITHIN |
| | THE MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM SETBACK. THE LINEAR DIMENSION |
| | ALONG 23RD STREET IS 360 FEET, SO A MINIMUM BUILDING |
| | FRONTAGE OF 180 FEET IS REQUIRED. A SIGNIFICANT PORTION |
| | OF BUILDING B EXCEEDS THE 20-FOOT MAXIMUM SETBACK, |
| | WHICH IS NOT PERMITTED TO COUNT TOWARD THE BUILDING |
| | FRONTAGE. STAFF CALCULATES THE TOTAL BUILDING FRONTAGE |
| | ALONG 23RD STREET AS ONLY 117 FEET, WHICH CONSISTS OF |
| | THE PORTION OF BUILDING A FRONTING PLAZA 4, THE |
| | PORTIONS OF BUILDING B THAT MEET THE MAXIMUM SETBACK |
| | AND BUILDING D. THIS COULD BE SOLVED BY MOVING THE |
| | BUILDING B TO THE SOUTH. |
| | B. BUILDING A FRONTAGE COMPLIES ON 25TH STREET AND |
| | BROADWAY. |
| | C. THE NMUD REGULATIONS REQUIRE THAT A MINIMUM OF 90% |
| | BUILDING FRONTAGE IS PROVIDED ALONG NORTHWOOD ROAD |
| | WITHIN THE MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM SETBACK. THE EXISTING |
| | BUILDING D DOES NOT PROVIDE ENOUGH FRONTAGE. SINCE THIS |
| | AREA IS NOT WITHIN THE CORE SUBDISTRICT, A VARIANCE |
| | WOULD BE REQUIRED. |
| | D. BUILDING C FRONTAGE COMPLIES ON NORTHWOOD ROAD, 24TH |
| | STREET AND BROADWAY. |
| | |
| | 17) UPDATED COMMENT: THE NMUD REGULATIONS REQUIRE THAT |
| | THE PRIMARY ENTRANCE TO THE UPPER LEVELS OF A MIXED-USE |
| | BUILDING SHALL BE FROM A PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY. THE |
| | PRIMARY ENTRANCE TO THE UPPER LEVELS OF BUILDING B IS |
| | SHOWN FROM NEW PINEWOOD, WHICH IS NOT A PUBLIC |
| | RIGHT-OF-WAY, BUT RATHER AN EASEMENT. THIS CAN BE |
| | SOLVED BY HAVING A DOORWAY TO THE LOBBY FACING 23RD |
| | STREET. |
| | |
| | 18) UPDATED COMMENT: THE NMUD REGULATIONS CURRENTLY |
| | LIMIT THE TOWER FLOOR PLATE TO 30,000 SQUARE FEET FOR |
| | ANY SINGLE FLOORPLATE WITH AND AVERAGE FLOORPLATE OF UP |
| | TO 20,000 SQUARE FEET. THE MAXIMUM TOWER FLOORPLATES |
| | ARE SHOWN AT 36,475 SQUARE FEET, THE MAXIMUM FLOORPLATE |
| | WILL BE NO GREATER THAN 40,000 SQUARE FEET. THE NMUD |
| | FLOOR PLATE AVERAGE ONLY APPLIES TO THE TOWER PORTION |
| | OF BUILDINGS WITHIN THE CORE SUBDISTRICT. PROVIDE THE |
| | AVERAGE FLOORPLATE OF FLOORS L-4 THROUGH L-9 AS THESE |
| | ARE THE ONLY ONES THAT APPLY. **** POSSIBLE NEW |
| | VARIANCE/WAIVER PROCESS INSTEAD OF CODE CHANGE. |
| | |
| | DESIGN STANDARDS |
| | |
| | 19) UPDATED COMMENT: ACTIVE USE STANDARDS |
| | |
| | A. THE STOREFRONT GLAZING CALCULATIONS WERE NOT |
| | ACCURATELY PROVIDED. SECTION 94-209.J.1.G.I.4. REQUIRES |
| | THAT STOREFRONTS HAVE A TRANSPARENT GLAZED AREA OF NOT |
| | LESS THAN 70 PERCENT OF THE GROUND LEVEL FACADE AREA. |
| | THE TABLE AND DRAWINGS PROVIDED FOR BUILDING A DO NOT |
| | PROVIDE THE FACADE AREA FOR ONLY THE GROUND FLOOR THAT |
| | CAN THEN BE USED TO DETERMINE IF THE PROVIDED GROUND |
| | GLAZING LEVEL SQUARE FOOTAGE COMPLIES WITH THE 70% |
| | MINIMUM. |
| | B. THE REQUIRED STOREFRONT GLAZING CALCULATIONS FOR |
| | BUILDINGS B, C AND D WAS NOT PROVIDED. |
| | C. THE ACTIVE USE LINER REQUIRED BY SECTION |
| | 94-209.J.1.G.II. IS REQUIRED TO BE ON EACH LEVEL OF |
| | EACH BUILDING FRONTAGE ABOVE THE GROUND FLOOR. |
| | ADDITIONALLY, SECTION 94-209.E.2.B.I. REQUIRES A 20 |
| | FOOT DEEP LINER ALONG 24TH STREET. **** POSSIBLE NEW |
| | VARIANCE/WAIVER PROCESS INSTEAD OF CODE CHANGE. |
| | |
| | 20) UPDATED COMMENT: NO FENESTRATION WAS PROVIDED ALONG |
| | THE GROUND FLOOR OF THE BUILDING ALONG THE RR AS |
| | REQUIRED BY SECTION 94-209.J.I. **** POSSIBLE NEW |
| | VARIANCE/WAIVER PROCESS INSTEAD OF CODE CHANGE. |
| | |
| | 21) UPDATED COMMENT: SECTION 94-209.J.A. REQUIRES THE |
| | PROVISION OF PLANAR BREAKS. WHILE THE PLANS APPEAR TO |
| | SHOW ARTICULATION ON THE FACADES THAT REFLECT PLANAR |
| | BREAKS, THE PLANS DO NOT INCLUDE DEPTH DIMENSIONS FOR |
| | THE VARIOUS FEATURES, NOR IS A TABLE PROVIDED TO SHOW |
| | THAT THE CUMULATIVE HORIZONTAL LENGTH OF ALL PLANAR |
| | BREAKS SHALL BE GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO 20% OF EACH |
| | BUILDING FRONTAGE EXCEEDING 150 FEET FOR BUILDINGS A, B |
| | AND C HAVE BEEN MET. |
| | |
| | 22) UPDATED COMMENT: PROVIDE THE DIMENSIONS OF THE |
| | PROJECTIONS AND ENCROACHMENTS (EX. BALCONIES AND OTHER |
| | ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES) ON THE PLANS AND ELEVATIONS SO |
| | THAT STAFF CAN VERIFY COMPLIANCE WITH THE NMUD |
| | REGULATIONS. THIS HAS NOT BEEN PROVIDED FOR ALL OF THE |
| | FACADES ON ALL THE BUILDINGS. |
| | |
| | 23) THE SITE PLANS DO NOT SHOW ALL THE UTILITIES - EX. |
| | FIRE HYDRANT MISSING AT SOUTHWEST CORNER OF BUILDING C. |
| | ALL PLANS MUST SHOW ACCURATE CONDITIONS. |
| | |
| | STREETSCAPE |
| | |
| | 24) REPEAT COMMENT: NO DETAILS WERE PROVIDED ON THE |
| | SITE LIGHTING TO VERIFY COMPLIANCE WITH THE NMUD |
| | REGULATIONS. *** THIS IS REQUIRED PRIOR TO SCHEDULING A |
| | PLANNING BOARD HEARING SO THAT STAFF CAN VERIFY THAT |
| | THERE IS NO INCONSISTENCY WITH THE CODE REQUIREMENTS. |
| | THE MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS REQUIRE THAT |
| | STREETLIGHTS BE PROVIDED ALONG PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF-WAY |
| | ADJACENT TO THE SITE. CLEARLY SHOW THE PEDESTRIAN |
| | ORIENTED LIGHTING FOR THE SIDEWALKS ALONG THE SITE ON |
| | THE PLANS. THE LANDSCAPE AND CIVIL PLANS INDICATE THAT |
| | SOME EXISTING LIGHTS WILL REMAIN, BUT NOT ALL OF THE |
| | SITE IS COVERED. |
| | |
| | 25) UPDATED COMMENT: THANK YOU FOR INCLUDING A NOTE |
| | STATING WHERE THE SIDEWALKS OR WALKWAYS CROSS THE |
| | DRIVEWAY ENTRANCES TO THE PARKING FACILITIES, LOADING |
| | AREAS, OR STREETS (BOTH PRIVATE AND PUBLIC), THE |
| | SIDEWALK OR WALKWAY IS CONTINUOUS AND REMAINS AT A |
| | CONSTANT LEVEL; HOWEVER, THIS NEEDS TO BE SHOWN IN |
| | CROSS-SECTION (OR OTHER GRAPHIC METHOD) ON THE PLANS, |
| | PREFERABLY THE CIVIL PLANS. |
| | |
| | 26) REPEAT COMMENT: THE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS MUST SHOW |
| | THE MEDIANS IN BROADWAY THAT ARE SHOWN ON THE CIVIL AND |
| | LANDSCAPE PLANS. THE LANE WIDTH DIMENSIONS NEED TO BE |
| | PROVIDED AT THESE LOCATIONS. |
| | |
| | 27) UPDATED COMMENT: ROADWAY CROSS-SECTIONS. |
| | |
| | A. THERE ARE DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN SECTION A-A ON SHEET |
| | C2.05 AND THE SAME LOCATION ON SHEET A-301. SHEET A-301 |
| | SHOWS THE 10-FOOT SIDEWALK DIMENSION EXTENDING INTO THE |
| | PARKING SPACE. THE SECTION A-A DOES NOT MATCH AND |
| | EXCEEDS THE 60 FEET BETWEEN BUILDINGS. |
| | B. SECTION B-B ON SHEET C2.05 EXCEEDS THE 60 FEET |
| | BETWEEN BUILDINGS AND CALLS OUT LANDSCAPING WHERE IT IS |
| | ACTUALLY PAVED AREA. |
| | C. THE DIMENSIONS PROVIDED ON SECTION C-C ON SHEET |
| | A2.05 DO NOT MATCH THE DIMENSIONS PROVIDED ON SHEET |
| | A-301. THERE IS ONE FOOT LESS WIDTH SHOWN ON SECTION |
| | C-C. ALL PLANS NEED TO SHOW THE SAME, ACCURATE |
| | CONDITIONS. ADDITIONALLY, SECTION C-C DOES NOT DEPICT |
| | WHAT IS OCCURRING IN THE ROW BETWEEN THE CURB AND |
| | PROPERTY LINE TO VERIFY THAT THE MINIMUM 5-FOOT WIDE |
| | UNOBSTRUCTED SIDEWALK HAS BEEN PROVIDED. |
| | D. THE DIMENSIONS PROVIDED ON SECTION D-D ON SHEET |
| | A2.05 DO NOT MATCH THE DIMENSIONS PROVIDED ON SHEET |
| | A-301. THERE IS ONE FOOT LESS WIDTH SHOWN ON SECTION |
| | D-D. ALL PLANS NEED TO SHOW THE SAME, ACCURATE |
| | CONDITIONS. |
| | E. SECTION E-E ON SHEET A2.05 DOES NOT ACCURATELY |
| | DEPICT WHAT IS OCCURRING AT THIS LOCATION. EX. TREE |
| | GRATE NOT SHOWN. |
| | F. THE DIMENSIONS PROVIDED ON SECTION F-F ON SHEET |
| | A2.05 DO NOT MATCH THE DIMENSIONS PROVIDED ON SHEET |
| | A-301. THERE IS ONE FOOT MORE WIDTH SHOWN ON SECTION |
| | F-F. |
| | G. SECTION G-G ON SHEET A2.05 DOES NOT ACCURATELY |
| | DEPICT WHAT IS OCCURRING AT THIS LOCATION. EX. |
| | LANDSCAPE STRIP NOT SHOWN. |
| | H. SECTION H-H ON SHEET A2.05 DOES NOT ACCURATELY |
| | REFLECT THE SITE PLAN OR OTHER CIVIL PLANS. |
| | ADDITIONALLY, THE STATUS OF THE BROADWAY EXTENSION HAS |
| | NOT BEEN DETERMINED BY THE CITY, SO THE PROPERTY LINES |
| | WILL BE INCORRECT. BUILDING D DOES NOT COMPLY WITH ANY |
| | STREETSCAPE REQUIREMENTS, TO INCLUDE THE ROADWAY |
| | CROSS-SECTION REQUIREMENTS. |
| | |
| | 28) THE EXTENSION OF BROADWAY AND CONCURRENT CLOSING OF |
| | THE VEHICULAR CONNECTIONS BETWEEN BROADWAY AND PINEWOOD |
| | RESULTS IN MORE TRAFFIC BEING ROUTED TO 23RD STREET |
| | SOUTH OF THE PROJECT. CURRENTLY 23RD STREET WEST OF THE |
| | BROADWAY EXTENSION IS ONE-WAY WEST WITH A BULB OUT TO |
| | RESTRICT THE EASTWARD FLOW OF TRAFFIC. THIS WILL NEED |
| | TO BE REMOVED AND THIS SECTION OF 23RD STREET REOPENED |
| | TO TWO-WAY TRAFFIC, WITH APPROPRIATE TRAFFIC MARKINGS. |
| | |
| | PARKING/LOADING |
| | |
| | 29) PROVIDE VEHICLE TURNING RADIUS DRAWING FOR MOVING |
| | TRUCKS INTO/OUT OF THE LOADING AREAS. |
| | |
| | 30) UPDATED COMMENT: ALL LEVELS OF THE PARKING GARAGE |
| | MUST BE SCREENED BY A LINER BUILDING CONTAINING A |
| | MINIMUM DEPTH OF 20 FEET OF HABITABLE SPACE. THIS IS |
| | NOT MET ALONG THE FULL LENGTH OF 25TH STREET. **** |
| | POSSIBLE NEW VARIANCE/WAIVER PROCESS INSTEAD OF CODE |
| | CHANGE. IF DONE AS A CODE TEXT CHANGE, THE SPECIFIC |
| | CODE LANGUAGE MUST INCLUDE THE PROVISION OF |
| | ARCHITECTURAL TREATMENT AND PLANAR BREAKS TO VARY THE |
| | FACADE IN ORDER TO CONCEAL THE NON-HABITABLE PARKING. |
| | |
| | 31) THERE ARE FOUR PARKING SPACES IN THE NORTHEAST |
| | CORNER OF LEVEL 1.5 THAT DO NOT CONTAIN A COLOR OR |
| | LABELS AND ONE SPACE IN THE SOUTH PORTION THAT DOES NOT |
| | CONTAIN A LABEL. |
| | |
| | 32) UPDATED COMMENT: DEAD END PARKING ROWS FOR |
| | UNASSIGNED, TO INCLUDE PUBLIC, PARKING ARE NOT |
| | PERMITTED WITHOUT A TURNAROUND SPACE. THE DEAD-END |
| | PARKING ROW ON LEVEL 1.5 MUST CONTAIN A TURNAROUND |
| | SPACE. THIS REMOVED SPACE MUST BE REFLECTED ON ALL THE |
| | PARKING TABLES. |
| | |
| | 33) UPDATED COMMENT: SECTION 94-209.2.A.IV. REQUIRES |
| | THAT ALL PARKING GARAGES MUST HAVE DIRECT PEDESTRIAN |
| | ACCESS TO A PUBLIC WALKWAY. THE PUBLIC ELEVATORS THAT |
| | ARE NOW DESIGNATED ON THE PLAN DO NOT PROVIDE ACCESS TO |
| | A PUBLIC WALKWAY, BUT RATHER THE INTERNAL PRIVATE |
| | ROADWAY NETWORK. **** POSSIBLE NEW VARIANCE/WAIVER |
| | PROCESS INSTEAD OF CODE CHANGE. |
| | |
| | 34) UPDATED COMMENT: THANK YOU FOR PROVIDING THE COLUMN |
| | LOCATIONS ON THE GARAGE LEVELS: |
| | |
| | A. PLEASE PROVIDE A DIAGRAM SHOWING HOW THE ?FINS? |
| | SHOWN ON EACH SIDE OF EACH COLUMN INTERACT WITH THE |
| | PARKING SPACES THAT THEY ARE LOCATED ADJACENT TO. IN |
| | MANY INSTANCES THESE FINS EXTEND INTO THE PARKING |
| | SPACES AND DRIVE AISLES MAKING THEM NO LONGER COMPLIANT |
| | WITH CODE MINIMUMS. |
| | B. THE COLUMNS ARE SHOWN EXTENDING ON LEVELS 3 AND |
| | ABOVE. SOME OF THE COLUMNS ARE NO LONGER WITHIN THE |
| | BUILDING AND VIOLATE THE TOWER SETBACK, WHICH IS NOT |
| | PERMITTED. ADDITIONALLY, THE EXTERIOR COLUMNS, EVEN |
| | WHERE THE SETBACK IS NOT VIOLATED, ARE NOT SHOWN ON THE |
| | ELEVATION DRAWINGS AND RENDERINGS. |
| | |
| | 35) UPDATED COMMENT: THE PARKING STALL DETAIL WAS |
| | REMOVED FROM THE PLANS AND NOT REPLACED. PROVIDED A |
| | CITY CODE COMPLIANT PARKING DETAIL FOR ALL CONDITIONS. |
| | |
| | 36) REPEAT COMMENT: THE PARKING PROVIDED TABLES SHALL |
| | CLEARLY SEPARATE THE PROVIDE ADA SPACES FROM THE TOTAL |
| | PROVIDED SPACES FOR EACH CATEGORY. THE CURRENT LINE |
| | ITEM FOR L2 PARKING GARAGE MAKE IT LOOK LIKE THERE ARE |
| | ADA SPACES IN ADDITION TO THE REGULAR SPACES, WHICH |
| | OVERSTATES THE NUMBER OF PROVIDED PARKING SPACES. |
| | |
| | 37) THERE ARE 26 PARKING ON-STREET PARKING SPACES, NOT |
| | 25 AS LISTED. |
| | |
| | 38) UPDATED COMMENT: THE PLANS AND DATA TABLES DO NOT |
| | CLEARLY SHOW THE PUBLIC PARKING SPACES REQUIRED IN |
| | ACCORDANCE WITH THE AGREEMENT WITH CRA. THESE NEED TO |
| | BE A SEPARATE LINE ITEM ON THE TABLES AND A SHOWN WITH |
| | A SEPARATE MARKING FROM THE REQUIRED RETAIL SPACES. |
| | STAFF HAS COUNTED THE NUMBER OF SPACES MARKED AS PUBLIC |
| | PARKING AND IT IS DEFICIENT FOR RETAIL PLUS PUBLIC |
| | PARKING SINCE ONLY 2 PARKING SPACES IN EXCESS OF THE |
| | RETAIL REQUIREMENT ARE PROVIDED. |
| | |
| | 39) REPEAT COMMENT: THE CRA AGREEMENT REQUIRES THAT THE |
| | DEVELOPER CONSTRUCT PUBLIC PARKING SPACES IN AN AMOUNT |
| | TO EQUAL 10% OF THE PARKING REQUIRED FOR THE PROJECT. |
| | WHILE THE PLANS DO NOT CLEARLY DEMONSTRATE WHERE THE |
| | CRA REQUIRED PARKING SPACES ARE LOCATED, IT APPEARS |
| | THAT SOME OF THEM ARE INTENDED TO BE LOCATED WITHIN THE |
| | ON-STREET PARKING SHOWN ON THE PLANS. SINCE THE |
| | LANGUAGE REQUIRES THAT NEW PARKING SPACES BE |
| | CONSTRUCTED TO MEET THE CRA REQUIREMENT, PROVIDE AN |
| | EXISTING PARKING INVENTORY OF THE ON-STREET PARKING |
| | SPACES. EXISTING PARKING SPACES MAY NOT BE COUNTED AS |
| | NEWLY CONSTRUCTED SPACES, AND ANY SPACES BEING REMOVED, |
| | WILL NEED TO BE REPLACED AND MAY NOT BE COUNTED AS |
| | NEWLY CREATED PARKING SPACES. |
| | |
| | 40) REPEAT COMMENT: THE PROJECT REQUIRES 15 BICYCLE |
| | SPACES FOR THE COMMERCIAL PORTION AND 38 BICYCLE SPACES |
| | FOR THE RESIDENTIAL PORTION. THERE ARE 53 TOTAL |
| | REQUIRED BICYCLE PARKING SPACES. THIS SHALL BE |
| | CORRECTLY REFLECTED ON THE PARKING TABLES AND SHOWN ON |
| | THE PLANS. THE CURRENT PLAN ONLY LISTS 44 REQUIRED |
| | BICYCLE PARKING SPACES. |
| | |
| | 41) REPEAT COMMENT: PROVIDE THE DIMENSIONS AND DETAIL |
| | FOR THE BICYCLE RACKS, INCLUDING THE NUMBER OF SPACES, |
| | LOCATED IN THE BICYCLE STORAGE ROOM AS WELL AS THE |
| | DIMENSIONS OF THE ROOM AND THE RACKS IN THE ROOM. THIS |
| | SHALL BE PROVIDED ON ITS OWN BICYCLE ROOM DETAIL SHEET |
| | THAT THIS AT A LEGIBLE SCALE. |
| | |
| | 42) UPDATED COMMENT: ON-STREET BICYCLE FACILITIES ARE |
| | REQUIRED. THE HARDSCAPE PLAN SHOWS ON-STREET BICYCLE |
| | RACKS, YET THE ARCHITECTURAL, LANDSCAPE AND CIVIL PLANS |
| | DO NOT. ALL PLANS MUST SHOW THE SAME CODE COMPLIANT |
| | CONDITIONS. ON-STREET BICYCLE PAD DIMENSIONS MUST BE |
| | CLEARLY SHOWN ON THE PLANS SO THAT STAFF CAN VERIFY |
| | THAT THERE IS SUFFICIENT ROOM AND THAT SIDEWALKS ARE |
| | NOT BLOCKED. THE PADS MUST INCLUDE THE RACKS AND THE |
| | DIMENSIONS FROM THE RACKS TO THE EDGE OF THE PAD. FOR |
| | CLARITY THIS DETAIL SHALL BE PROVIDED AT A BIGGER |
| | SCALE. |
| | |
| | 43) UPDATED COMMENT: PROVIDE THE DIMENSIONS FROM THE |
| | MICRO MOBILITY STATIONS TO THE PROPOSED PLAZA LANDSCAPE |
| | AREAS SO STAFF CAN VERIFY THE PEDESTRIAN CLEARANCES. |
| | |
| | LANDSCAPE |
| | |
| | 44) THE REQUIRED LANDSCAPE AROUND BUILDING D HAS NOT |
| | BEEN PROVIDED. THERE DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE ADEQUATE |
| | ROOM TO INSTALL THIS ALONG THE BROADWAY EXTENSION. |
| | |
| | 45) THE LANDSCAPE PLANS DO NOT SHOW ALL OF THE PINEWOOD |
| | AND PASEO SUPPORT COLUMNS. ALL OF THE COLUMNS ALONG |
| | PINEWOOD NEED TO HAVE THE BASE PLANTINGS. |
| | |
| | 46) ALL BACK FLOW PREVENTORS MUST BE LOCATED ON PRIVATE |
| | PROPERTY AND NOT WITHIN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY LANDSCAPE |
| | STRIP. THE REQUIRED LANDSCAPE NEEDS TO BE PROVIDED |
| | WHERE THESE WILL NO LONGER EXIST IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY. |
| | |
| | 47) THE WATER AND FIRE LINES IN PLAZA IV ARE SHOWN IN |
| | DIRECT CONFLICT WITH PROPOSED TREES. |
| | |
| | 48) THE COLUMNS FOR THE SOUTH SIDE OF BUILDING A ARE |
| | NOT SHOWN ON THE LANDSCAPE PLAN WITHIN PLAZA III AND |
| | DIRECTLY CONFLICT WITH SOME OF THE PROPOSED TREES. |
| | ADDITIONALLY, PLEASE REVIEW THE COLUMN ORIENTATION |
| | DETAILS AS THEY PROGRESS UP THE LEVELS AT THIS LOCATION |
| | AS THEY CHANGE. |
| | |
| | PUBLIC OPEN SPACE |
| | |
| | 49) THE PROPOSAL TO REDEFINE THE REQUIRED OPEN SPACE AS |
| | THE PASEO WAS BASED ON THE DESIGNS WITH NO PUBLIC OPEN |
| | SPACE THAT MET THE CODE DEFINITION OF OPEN TO THE SKY. |
| | THE NEW DESIGN THAT INCORPORATES CLOSURE OF NORTHWOOD |
| | ROAD AND THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE SITE AS PUBLIC |
| | OPEN SPACE SEEMS TO MEET THE 10,000 SQUARE FOOT |
| | REQUIREMENT. STAFF DID SOME ROUGH CALCULATIONS AND IT |
| | SEEMS TO BE CLOSE. PROVIDE CALCULATIONS OF THIS AREA |
| | (PLAZA III AND IV) THAT MEET THE DEFINITION OF OPEN |
| | SPACE - OPEN TO THE SKY AND NOT WITHIN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY |
| | OR REQUIRED MINIMUM SETBACK. THE AMOUNT OF AREA FOR |
| | PLAZA III WILL BE REDUCED ON THE NORTH, EAST AND SOUTH |
| | AS WELL AS WHERE THE OVERHEAD PASSAGE IS. PLAZA IV WILL |
| | BE REDUCED ON THE NORTH SIDE DUE TO THE OVERHANG PLUS |
| | THE REQUIRED 10-FOOT SETBACK. IF THIS AREA IS LESS THAN |
| | 10,000 SQUARE FEET STAFF CAN REVIEW THE MERITS OF THE |
| | PASEO TEXT CHANGE VS. A VARIANCE TO THE AMOUNT OF |
| | REQUIRED PUBLIC OPEN SPACE VS. OPEN SPACE CODE CHANGE |
| | SIMILAR TO THE DMP TO PERMIT CERTAIN COVERED AREAS TO |
| | APPLY AS OPEN SPACE. IT MAY STILL BE NECESSARY TO ADD |
| | PUBLIC PASEO AS A FEATURE, BUT STAFF PREFERS THAT THIS |
| | NOT SUBSTITUTE FOR TRUE OPEN SPACE. |
| | |
| | PRIVATE OPEN SPACE |
| | |
| | 50) UPDATED COMMENT: THANK YOU FOR PROVIDING A TABLE |
| | AND PLAN THAT DESCRIBE THE PRIVATE OPEN SPACE |
| | REQUIREMENTS. |
| | |
| | A. THE TABLE DOES NOT CONTAIN THE SAME SITE AREA THAT |
| | IS LISTED ON THE DATA COVER SHEET. NOTE: THIS WILL |
| | CHANGE WHEN COMMENT NUMBER 15 IS ADDRESSED. |
| | B. PRIVATE OPEN SPACE IS BASED ON THE SITE AREA WHERE |
| | THE BUILDING(S) IS LOCATED. BUILDINGS A, B AND D ARE |
| | ALL LOCATED ON ONE SITE, SO 10% OF THIS SITE AREA SHALL |
| | BE PROVIDED AS PRIVATE OPEN SPACE. THIS MAY ALL BE |
| | CONTAINED ON THE BUILDING A AMENITY DECK. PLEASE NOTE |
| | THAT THE PRIVATE OPEN SPACE TABLE LISTS PRIVATE OPEN |
| | SPACE ON LEVEL 2 OF BUILDING B, WHICH HAS NOT OPEN |
| | SPACE AT THIS LOCATION. |
| | C. PROVIDE INFORMATION ON HOW THE BUILDING C PRIVATE |
| | OPEN SPACE MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION |
| | 94-210.K.3.C. PRIVATE OPEN SPACES SHALL PROVIDE SHADED |
| | AREAS, AND THEIR GROUND SURFACE SHALL BE A COMBINATION |
| | OF PAVING MATERIALS, LAWN, OR GROUND COVER. NOTE: |
| | ROOFTOP STRUCTURES MUST CLEARLY SHOW THAT THEY ARE NOT |
| | EXCEEDING THE HEIGHT ALLOWANCE. |
| | |
| |
Print |
