| Date |
Text |
| 2022-11-22 11:02:43 | ZONING: |
| | |
| | 1. ACTIVE USE: PLEASE NOTE THAT ACTIVE USES ARE |
| | REGULATED AS A PERCENTAGE OF THE BUILDABLE LOT |
| | FRONTAGE, NOT THE BUILDING FRONTAGE. PLEASE ADJUST |
| | CALCULATIONS ACCORDINGLY.THE PERCENTAGE SHOULD BE 80% |
| | OF THE ENTIRE N ROSEMARY AVE. PROPERTY LINE (60% FOR |
| | LINERS 2-5), 30% OF THE 3RD ST. PROPERTY LINE, AND |
| | THEN 30% OF THE W. RAILROAD AVE. PROPERTY LINE. |
| | |
| | RESPONSE: SEE SHEET A1.5 FOR ACTIVE USE DIAGRAMS AND |
| | CALCULATIONS. |
| | |
| | ZONING 11.17.22 ??? PARTIALLY SATISFIED |
| | TABLE ON SHEET A0.2 DIFFERS FROM CALCULATIONS ON A1.5 |
| | ??? A1.5 IS LABELED CORRECTLY PLEASE ADJUST. |
| | |
| | 2. PLEASE PROVIDE OWNERS CONSENT OR PROOF OF AGREEMENT |
| | BETWEEN THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY OWNER OF 411 W |
| | RAILROAD AVE. TO ALLOW FOR THE EXTENSION OF 4TH ST. |
| | OVER THEIR PROPERTY. |
| | |
| | RESPONSE: THE RECORDED EASEMENT PROVIDING AUTHORITY TO |
| | MAKE THESE IMPROVEMENTS ARE INCLUDED WITHIN THIS |
| | SUBMITTAL. NO ADDITIONAL CONSENT IS REQUIRED FROM THE |
| | ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS AS THE EASEMENT ALLOWS EITHER |
| | PARTY THE AUTHORITY TO MAKE THE CONTEMPLATED |
| | IMPROVEMENTS DENOTED WITHIN THE EASEMENT ITSELF. |
| | |
| | ZONING 11.17.22 ??? PARTIALLY SATISFIED |
| | EASEMENT AGREEMENT PROVIDED ??? EASEMENT EXHIBIT B |
| | SHOWS A 50FT. EASEMENT, PLANS SHOW 60FT. WHY THE |
| | ADDITIONAL 10 FT.? |
| | |
| | 3. RADIUS OF THE CURB-CUT OR APRON FOR THE NORTHERN |
| | SERVICE ACCESS ENCROACHES INTO CITY PROPERTY, PLEASE |
| | ADJUST. |
| | |
| | RESPONSE: SHEET A1.0 SHOWS REVISED CURB CUT. |
| | |
| | ZONING 11.17.22 ??? PARTIALLY SATISFIED |
| | ADJUSTMENT MADE, HOWEVER PORTION OF CURBCUT RADIUS |
| | STILL SHOWN AS PART OF ADJACENT PROPERTY ON NORTHERN |
| | SERVICE ROAD (WEST RAILROAD AVE) AND EASTERN SERVICE |
| | ROAD (3RD ST). |
| | |
| | |
| | 4. THE SERVICE ACCESS ALONG THE SOUTHERN AND NORTHERN |
| | SIDE OF THE PROPERTY DOES NOT PROVIDE REQUIRED 5 FT. |
| | LANDSCAPE BUFFER ALONG THE PROPERTY LINE AND TO SCREEN |
| | THE VEHICULAR USES. SERVICE ROADS WILL HAVE TO BE |
| | ADJUSTED TO ACCOMMODATE FOR THE BUFFER. |
| | |
| | RESPONSE: SHEET A1.0 SHOWS REVISED SERVICE ACCESS AND |
| | BUFFER. |
| | |
| | ZONING 11.17.22 ??? PARTIALLY SATISFIED |
| | NORTHERN SERVICE ROAD (ADJACENT TO CITY PROPERTY) |
| | INCLUDES LIVE OAK, GREEN BUTTONWOOD, AND COCOPLUM |
| | GROUND COVER WHICH SATISFIES THE LANDSCAPE BUFFER. |
| | SUGGEST PLANTING HEDGES TO FURTHER SCREEN LOADING |
| | BAY/OPERATION FROM ROSEMARY AND ADJACENT PROPERTY. |
| | |
| | SOUTHERN SERVICE ROAD (3RD ST.) INDICATES SYNTHETIC |
| | TURF, THIS DOES NOT SATISFY LANDSCAPE BUFFER |
| | REQUIREMENTS NOR IS IT PERMITTED IF SEEN FROM THE ROW |
| | (4TH ST. EXT OR 3RD ST.) PLEASE ADJUST TO INCLUDE REAL |
| | PLANT MATERIAL AND/OR GROUND COVER. |
| | |
| | 5. SHEET A0.2, SITE INFORMATION TABLES REQUIRE |
| | CORRECTIONS: |
| | |
| | - IF LOT AREA IS 108,638; THEN WITH A 2.75 FAR MAXIMUM |
| | ALLOWED IS 298,755 SF, NOT 298,729 SF. |
| | |
| | - REQUIRED PRIVATE OPEN SPACE AT 25% IS 27,160 SF, NOT |
| | 27,158 SF. |
| | |
| | - CONDITIONAL 50? SETBACK IS FROM ABOVE THE 5TH FLOOR, |
| | NOT THE 6TH. |
| | |
| | - GBA SHOULD MATCH FAR CALCULATION. |
| | |
| | - PLEASE DOUBLE CHECK ALL CALCULATIONS AND DIMENSIONS |
| | FOR CONSISTENCY ACROSS PLANS. |
| | |
| | RESPONSE: SHEET A0.2 SHOWS REVISED DATA. |
| | ZONING 11.17.22 ??? PARTIALLY SATISFIED |
| | TABLE ON SHEET A0.2 DIFFERS FROM CALCULATIONS ON A1.5 |
| | ??? A1.5 IS LABELED CORRECTLY PLEASE ADJUST. |
| | |
| | |
| | 6. OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENT: |
| | |
| | A. PLEASE CLARIFY THE 4TH ST. EXTENSION. IS IT A |
| | PRIVATE ROAD WITH PUBLIC ACCESS AGREEMENT/EASEMENT? |
| | DOES IT SERVE AS A PUBLIC ROW? |
| | |
| | RESPONSE: 4TH STREET EXTENSION IS PROPOSED AS A |
| | PRIVATE ROAD WITH PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENT. |
| | ZONING 11.17.22 ??? PARTIALLY SATISFIED (SEE NEW |
| | COMMENT #5) |
| | |
| | B. IF 4TH ST. IS AN EXTENSION OF THE PUBLIC ROW, THEN |
| | IT REQUIRES A SETBACK ON EITHER SIDE AND SHOULD BE |
| | DESIGNED WITH STREETSCAPE REQUIREMENTS IN MIND. IF IT |
| | IS NOT CONSIDERED A PUBLIC ROW, THEN PUBLIC OPEN SPACE |
| | #2 DOES NOT MEET REQUIREMENT OF A COURTYARD TO HAVE |
| | PUBLIC ROW ABUTMENT. PUBLIC OPEN SPACES SHOULD NOT BE |
| | LOCATED ALONG THE PRIVATE DRIVE AS THAT IS NOT THE |
| | INTENTION OF THE CODE, SPACES SHOULD BE PUBLICLY |
| | ACCESSIBLE AND VISIBLE; OTHERWISE, PEDESTRIANS WILL NOT |
| | UTILIZE THE SPACE AS DESIGNED. |
| | |
| | RESPONSE: AFTER DISCUSSIONS WITH STAFF, 4TH STREET IS |
| | PROPOSED AS A PRIVATE ROAD WITH PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENT. |
| | IT IS DESIGNED WITH 8??? SIDEWALKS AND TREE GRATES. IT |
| | WAS UNDERSTOOD THAT PUBLIC OPEN SPACE WOULD BE ALLOWED |
| | TO ABUT THE 4TH STREET EXTENSION. |
| | ZONING 11.17.22 ??? PARTIALLY SATISFIED (SEE NEW |
| | COMMENT #5) |
| | |
| | C. ON SHEET A1.4 PUBLIC OPEN SPACE #1 AND #2 SHOULD BE |
| | COMBINED INTO A SINGLE SPACE, THE WALKWAY/SIDEWALK DOES |
| | NOT DELINEATE SEPARATE SPACES, AS IT IS SHOWN THE OPEN |
| | SPACE WOULD HAVE TO HAVE ITS PROPORTIONS CHANGED AS NO |
| | SINGLE SIDE CAN BE 5X THE LENGTH OF THE OTHER. THIS IS |
| | A VERY LINEAR OPEN SPACE. |
| | |
| | RESPONSE: |
| | PER DISCUSSIONS WITH STAFF, AREA WAS ADDED BETWEEN |
| | OPEN SPACES #1 AND #2 TO INCREASE SEPARATION. SEE |
| | ARCHITECTURAL SHEETS FOR REVISED LAYOUT OF THIS AREA; |
| | SHEET A1.0 SHOWS THIS CLEARLY. |
| | ZONING 11.17.22 ??? PARTIALLY SATISFIED (SEE NEW |
| | COMMENT #5) |
| | |
| | D. WHAT IS THE GROUND LEVEL PRIVATE OPEN SPACE AT THE |
| | NORTHWEST CORNER OF SHEET L-1? IS THIS PART OF THE |
| | REQUIRED PRIVATE OPEN SPACE COUNT? SUGGEST EXPANDING |
| | 2BR UNIT TO SCREEN LOADING/SERVICE ROAD FROM THE |
| | PRIVATE OPEN SPACE AND N ROSEMARY. |
| | |
| | RESPONSE: THIS AREA IS NO LONGER DESIGNATED OPEN SPACE. |
| | SEE SHEET A1.0 FOR REVISED LAYOUT OF THIS AREA. |
| | ZONING 11.17.22 ??? PARTIALLY SATISFIED (SEE NEW |
| | COMMENT #5) |
| | |
| | RECOMMEND INCLUDING HEDGES ALONG ROSEMARY FRONTAGE TO |
| | SCREEN LOADING OPERATION |
| | |
| | E. PLEASE PROVIDE CALCULATIONS FOR HOW THE PROPOSED |
| | OPEN SPACES MEET THE REQUIREMENTS FOR SIZE, ACTIVE USE |
| | ABUTMENT, ROW ABUTMENT, SEATING, VEGETATION, OVERHEAD |
| | COVER, ETC. AS IS APPLICABLE. |
| | |
| | RESPONSE: |
| | SEE SHEET A1.4 FOR OPEN SPACE CALCULATIONS. |
| | ZONING 11.17.22 ??? PARTIALLY SATISFIED (SEE NEW |
| | COMMENT #5) |
| | |
| | 7. PLEASE ADJUST GROSS BUILDING AREA (GBA) CALCULATIONS |
| | ON SHEET A0.2 AND A1.1: |
| | |
| | - GROSS BUILDING AREA MEANS THE TOTAL FLOOR AREA OF A |
| | BUILDING, INCLUDING AIR-CONDITIONED OR FULLY ENCLOSED |
| | STORAGE SPACES, ENCLOSED AREAS ON THE ROOFTOP, SUCH AS |
| | BATHROOMS AND LOBBIES, STAIRS AND ELEVATOR AREAS, AND |
| | EXTERNAL UNENCLOSED CIRCULATION AREAS. THE GROSS |
| | BUILDING AREA DOES NOT INCLUDE PARKING AREAS; |
| | UNENCLOSED COLONNADES, PORCHES AND BALCONIES; |
| | MECHANICAL AND ELECTRICAL SPACES; AND TRASH ROOMS. |
| | STORAGE SPACES WITHOUT WINDOWS AND ENCLOSED BY SURFACES |
| | THAT ALLOW FOR NATURAL VENTILATION OR OUTSIDE AIR |
| | CIRCULATION SHALL NOT BE INCLUDED. |
| | |
| | - THE GROSS BUILDING AREA SHALL BE MEASURED FROM THE |
| | OUTSIDE FACE OF EXTERIOR WALLS. |
| | |
| | - SHEET A1.1 AND A1.2 SHOULD MATCH IN TERMS OF TOTALS. |
| | |
| | RESPONSE: |
| | BECAUSE GROSS BUILDING AREA AND FAR ARE ESSENTIALLY THE |
| | SAME AREA DESIGNATION, TO CLARIFY AND REMOVE |
| | REDUNDANCY, ONLY FAR DIAGRAMS ARE SHOWN. |
| | ZONING 11.17.22 ??? SATISFIED |
| | |
| | 8. SHEET A1.0 PLEASE PROVIDE ALL CURBCUT WIDTH |
| | DIMENSIONS ALONG PROPERTY LINE, CANNOT EXCEED 25???. |
| | |
| | RESPONSE: SEE SHEET A1.0 FOR CURB CUT DIMENSIONS. |
| | ZONING 11.17.22 ??? PARTIALLY SATISFIED |
| | MEASUREMENT FOR CURBCUT WIDTH IS TO BE TAKEN FROM |
| | INTERSECTION OF PROPERTY LINE WITH THE CURBCUT, PLEASE |
| | ADJUST. |
| | |
| | 9. ON SHEET L-1 AND A1.0 STREETSCAPE AND LANDSCAPE |
| | REQUIREMENTS NOT MET: |
| | |
| | A. STREET TREES ARE REQUIRED TO BE ADJACENT TO THE |
| | CURB, N ROSEMARY AVENUE SIDE ON FEATURES 5 (EXISTING) |
| | TREES, REQUIREMENT IS TREES SPACED OUT AT A MAX. OF 30 |
| | FT. ON CENTER; APPROX. 16 STREET TREES REQUIRED ALONG N |
| | ROSEMARY. |
| | |
| | RESPONSE: ALONG ROSEMARY AVE THE 8' SIDEWALK IS |
| | PROPOSED ADJACENT TO THE CURB SO THE STREET TREES ARE |
| | PROVIDED BETWEEN THE WALK AND THE BUILDING AT 30' O.C. |
| | THE 5 EXISTING TREES WILL BE REMOVED. CITY ALSO |
| | MENTIONED CRA WOULD BE DEVELOPING A STREETSCAPE ALONG |
| | ROSEMARY AVE. ONCE CRA PLANS ARE FINALIZED THE |
| | STREETSCAPE ALONG ROSEMARY SHALL BE MODIFIED TO |
| | INCORPORATE CRA DESIGN. |
| | ZONING 11.17.22 ??? NOT SATISFIED |
| | STREET TREES ARE REQUIRED TO BE PLANTED ADJACENT TO THE |
| | CURB PER SEC. 94-113. CITY STAFF HAS CONFIRMED WITH CRA |
| | THAT THE APPLICANT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR MEETING THE CITY |
| | STREETSCAPE REQUIREMENTS WITH THIS PROJECT PROPOSAL, AS |
| | FUTURE WORK AND DESIGN BY CRA/CITY NOT CONFIRMED. |
| | APPROX. 16 STREET TREES REQUIRED ALONG N ROSEMARY |
| | |
| | PLEASE ILLUSTRATE STREETSCAPE/LANDSCAPE ELEMENTS |
| | (STREET TREES, ETC.) WITHIN THE SITE PLAN A1.0 |
| | |
| | B. FURTHER DISCUSSION IS NECESSARY WITH CRA AS THERE |
| | ARE PLANS TO RECONFIGURE THE N ROSEMARY STREETSCAPE. |
| | |
| | RESPONSE: MULTIPLE DISCUSSIONS WITH THE CRA HAVE BEEN |
| | HAD PRIOR TO FORMAL SUBMITTAL TO THE CITY. WE WILL |
| | CONTINUE TO COORDINATE WITH THE CRA REGARDING TIMING |
| | AND DESIGN OF IMPROVEMENTS ALONG ROSEMARY. |
| | ZONING 11.17.22 ??? ACKNOWLEDGED |
| | CITY STAFF HAS CONFIRMED WITH CRA THAT THE APPLICANT IS |
| | RESPONSIBLE FOR MEETING THE CITY STREETSCAPE |
| | REQUIREMENTS WITH THIS PROJECT PROPOSAL |
| | |
| | C. PLEASE ILLUSTRATE THE SITE VISIBILITY TRIANGLES |
| | FROM ALL INTERSECTIONS IN ACCORDANCE WITH SEC. |
| | 94-305(E.) LANDSCAPE APPEARS TO IMPEDE. |
| | |
| | RESPONSE: VISIBILITY TRIANGLES SHOWN ON SHEET L-1. |
| | TREES ADJACENT TO TRIANGLES SHALL HAVE AN 8??? CT. |
| | ZONING 11.17.22 ??? NOT SATISFIED |
| | SHEET L-1 DOES NOT APPEAR TO PROVIDE SITE VISIBILITY |
| | TRIANGLES FOR 4TH ST. EXT ONTO WEST RAILROAD RD. OR FOR |
| | THE TWO SERVICE DRIVES. |
| | |
| | 10. PLEASE PROVIDE SETBACK LINES ON ALL ELEVATIONS. |
| | |
| | RESPONSE: SEE SHEETS A3.1 AND A3.2 FOR REVISED |
| | ELEVATIONS. |
| | |
| | ZONING 11.17.22 ??? PARTIALLY SATISFIED |
| | |
| | SETBACKS PROVIDED |
| | |
| | SHEET A3.1 WEST ELEVATION DOES NOT SHOW BRIDGE |
| | CONNECTING TWO BUILDINGS |
| | |
| | SHEET A3.1 EAST ELEVATION SHOWS OPENINGS THROUGH THE |
| | 2ND AND 3RD LEVELS, WHAT ARE THESE? |
| | |
| | SHEET A3.2 SOUTH ELEVATION GROUND LEVEL SHOWS GREYED |
| | OUT PORTION OVER ENTRY. PLEASE REVISE. |
| | |
| | 11. PLEASE PROVIDE SEPARATE SHEETS ON FA??ADE |
| | ARTICULATION AND HOW THE PROJECT MEETS PLANAR BREAK |
| | REQUIREMENTS, TRANSPARENCY/FENESTRATION REQUIREMENTS, |
| | AND PROVIDE ADDITIONAL DETAILS FOR ANY PROJECTIONS, |
| | SCREENING, OR ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES. |
| | |
| | RESPONSE: SEE SHEETS A1.5 AND A1.6 FOR PLANAR BREAK |
| | AND TRANSPARENCY DIAGRAMS. |
| | ZONING 11.17.22 ??? NOT SATISFIED |
| | CLARIFICATION ??? FOR BUILDING FRONTAGES OF 150 FT. OR |
| | MORE NO FA??ADE SHALL EXCEED 60% OF FRONTAGE WITHOUT |
| | PROVIDING A PLANAR BREAK OF AT LEAST 3 FT. IN DEPTH, |
| | TOTAL WIDTH OF PLANAR BREAKS SHALL BE GREATER THAN OR |
| | EQUAL TO 20% OF BUILDING FRONTAGE. |
| | |
| | PLEASE PROVIDE PLANAR BREAK CALLOUTS AND DIMENSIONS FOR |
| | THE W RAILROAD AVE. SIDE, THE GARAGE ENTRY IS STILL |
| | PART OF THE OVERALL BUILDING AND PODIUM. |
| | |
| | WIDTH REQUIREMENTS APPEAR TO BE MET. PLEASE PROVIDE |
| | DEPTH OF PLANAR BREAKS (MINIMUM OF 3FT.) |
| | |
| | PLEASE CLARIFY OR EXPLAIN THE FA??ADE PLANE |
| | CALCULATIONS: GROUND FLOOR TABLE, WHAT DOES THIS MEAN |
| | OR SHOW? |
| | |
| | TRANSPARENCY REQUIREMENTS MET. |
| | |
| | 12. THE WALLS ON THE INTERIOR OF THE PUBLIC OPEN SPACE |
| | COURTYARD (BETWEEN 4TH AND 3RD) ARE BLANK, PLEASE |
| | PROVIDE SOME FENESTRATION, ARCHITECTURAL TREATMENT OR |
| | FACADE ARTICULATION ON THESE WALLS. - NORTHERN FACADE |
| | OF THE BUILDING (FACING SALVATION ARMY) APPEARS TO HAVE |
| | A LARGE BLANK WALL (>20%) PLEASE PROVIDE ADDITIONAL |
| | FENESTRATION, ARCHITECTURAL TREATMENT OR FACADE |
| | ARTICULATION TO THIS FRONTAGE. - WEST RAILROAD AVENUE, |
| | GROUND LEVEL FACADE WOULD BENEFIT FROM ADDITIONAL |
| | ARTICULATION. |
| | |
| | RESPONSE: SEE SHEETS A3.1 AND A3.2 FOR REVISED |
| | ELEVATIONS. |
| | ZONING 11.17.22 ??? PARTIALLY SATISFIED |
| | INTERIOR WALLS OF THE PUBLIC OPEN SPACE COURTYARD |
| | APPEAR TO BE BLANK STILL WITHIN THE RENDERS PROVIDED. |
| | PLEASE PROVIDE CLARIFICATION ON IF THERE ARE ANY |
| | ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES, FENESTRATION, OR TREATMENTS ON |
| | THESE INSIDE WALLS. A2.1, A2.2, AND A2.3 SHOW |
| | DIFFERENCES IN FENESTRATION. ALSO A3.3 SHOWS WINDOWS |
| | AND FA??ADE ARTICULATION. |
| | |
| | 13. BICYCLE PARKING REQUIRES 1 SPACE PER EVERY 100 FT. |
| | OF FRONTAGE, PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE ALONG ROW/CURB (~5-6 |
| | SPACES ON ROSEMARY; ~2 SPACES ON 3RD; ~3 SPACES ON W |
| | RAILROAD.) |
| | |
| | RESPONSE: SEE SHEET A1.0 FOR REVISED SITE PLAN SHOWING |
| | BICYCLE PARKING SPACES. |
| | ZONING 11.17.22 ??? PARTIALLY SATISFIED |
| | PLEASE PROVIDE DETAIL OF BIKE RACKS TO BE PLACED WITHIN |
| | ROW TO ENSURE IT MEETS CITY STANDARDS. |
| | |
| | 14. PLEASE INDICATE LOCATION OF BIKE ROOM, PROVIDE |
| | DETAILS OF HOW ROOM IS ACCESSED, AND PROVIDE THE TYPE |
| | OF RACKS OR DETAIL HOW THE BIKES ARE SECURED WITHIN THE |
| | ROOM. |
| | |
| | RESPONSE: SEE SHEET A1.0 DESIGNED BICYCLE ROOMS IN |
| | EACH GARAGE. THE BICYCLE RACK DETAIL WILL BE PROVIDED |
| | IN THE PERMIT SET OF PLANS. |
| | ZONING 11.17.22 ??? PARTIALLY SATISFIED |
| | PLEASE PROVIDE DIMENSION OF BIKE ROOM TO VERY SPACE IS |
| | ADEQUATE FOR TYPE OF RACKS/SECURING METHODS PROPOSED. |
| | PLEASE PROVIDE A DETAIL OF BIKE RACKS TO ENSURE IT |
| | MEETS CITY STANDARDS. |
| | |
| | |
| | 15. PLEASE PROVIDE PARKING STALL DETAILS, MAKE SURE |
| | THE STRIPING AND DIMENSIONS MEET CITY STANDARD. PLEASE |
| | PROVIDE DRIVE AISLE WIDTH, REQUIRED 24FT. MINIMUM. |
| | PLEASE PROVIDE PARKING RAMP SLOPES. PROVIDE DIMENSION |
| | OF LOADING AREA. |
| | |
| | RESPONSE: SEE SHEET A1.0 FOR TYPICAL STALL AND AISLE |
| | DIMENSIONS, PARKING SLOPES AND LOADING AREA SIZES. |
| | ZONING 11.17.22 ??? NOT SATISFIED |
| | PLEASE PROVIDE DIMENSIONS FOR ADA SPACES AND INCLUDE |
| | 5??? ACCESS AISLE. PLEASE PROVIDE CONSISTENCY BETWEEN |
| | DRAWING SETS AND BE SURE THAT ALL ADA SPACES ARE |
| | ACCURATELY REPRESENTED BETWEEN SHEETS, SOME DRAWINGS |
| | HAVE THE SPACES MISSING. |
| | |
| | PLEASE CONSIDER ADDITIONAL ADA SPACES FOR GROUND FLOOR. |
| | |
| | ON SHEET A1.0, WHAT IS THE PATH OF ENTRY/EXIT FOR AN |
| | ADA USER WITHIN THE SOUTHERN BUILDING? THERE IS NO |
| | CLEAR ACCESS INTO THE BUILDING OR DIRECT CONNECTION TO |
| | ELEVATORS, PLEASE ADJUST. |
| | |
| | ARE ALL INTERNAL PARKING RAMPS 12% SLOPE? |
| | |
| | ADA SPACE ON SHEET A2.3 DOES NOT PROVIDE ACCESS AISLE |
| | OR CLEAR PATH TO ELEVATOR. CAN THIS BE RELOCATED? |
| | |
| | 16. FOR DAC PLEASE PROVIDE ACCURATE AND FULL DETAIL |
| | RENDERS OF THE PROJECT. |
| | |
| | RESPONSE: ACKNOWLEDGED. RENDERING WILL BE PROVIDED. |
| | ZONING 11.17.22 ??? SATISFIED |
| | BE ACCURATE TO THE FINAL DESIGN OR PROPOSED PLANS |
| | |
| | 17. CITY/CRA IN PARTNERSHIP WITH GEHL HAS PRODUCED A |
| | STUDY TO REDEVELOP N ROSEMARY AVENUE AND ITS |
| | STREETSCAPE, AS PART OF THIS STUDY N ROSEMARY IS TO BE |
| | A MORE ACTIVE FRONTAGE. |
| | |
| | A. CRA RECOMMEND INCORPORATING GROUND-LEVEL COMMERCIAL |
| | USES ALONG THE PORTION OF N. ROSEMARY AND THE 3RD ST. |
| | FRONTAGE OR CORNER. FROM 3RD ST. TO 4TH ST. |
| | COMMERCIAL/RETAIL OPPORTUNITIES FOR BOTH THE PROJECT'S |
| | RESIDENTS AS WELL AS THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD. |
| | |
| | RESPONSE: AS WAS DISCUSSED WITH STAFF, WE HAVE CREATED |
| | ACTIVE USES ON THE GROUND FLOOR TO THE EXTENT POSSIBLE, |
| | INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO A DOUBLE-HEIGHT LIVE-WORK |
| | UNIT ON THE CORNER OF N. ROSEMARY AVE AND 3RD STREET. |
| | HOWEVER, AT THIS TIME, WE ARE CONCERNED WITH THE |
| | REQUEST TO ADD COMMERCIAL USES ALL ALONG ROSEMARY. THE |
| | CONCERN STEMS FROM THE CURRENT REALITY THAT THE STORE |
| | FRONTS WILL BE VACANT ??? PROVIDING NO VIBRANCY. TO THE |
| | CONTRARY, AS DESIGNED, THERE WILL BE ACTIVE USES FROM |
| | THE LIVE-WORK AS WELL AS CERTAIN RESIDENTIAL UNITS |
| | ABUTTING ROSEMARY. AS DESIGNED, THE DEVELOPMENT WILL |
| | PROVIDE MORE VIBRANCY THAN FORCED COMMERCIAL SPACES |
| | WITH NO TENANTS. |
| | ZONING 11.17.22 ??? SATISFIED |
| | CAN A RETAIL SPACE BE ACCOMODATED ON THE GROUND FLOOR |
| | OF 4TH ST. FRONTAGE WHERE CURRENTLY THERE ARE LARGE |
| | LOBBIES AND AMENITY ROOMS? BRINGS MORE ACTIVITY TO THE |
| | BUILDING AND PUBLIC OPEN SPACES. |
| | |
| | B. PORTION FROM 4TH ST. UP TO THE SALVATION ARMY |
| | PROPERTY LINE CAN REMAIN AS THE WALK-UP UNITS. HOWEVER |
| | ADDITIONAL GROUND-LEVEL RETAIL IS ENCOURAGED BY CRA. |
| | |
| | RESPONSE: AS DISCUSSED ABOVE, THE SEGMENT OF ROSEMARY |
| | IS NOT YET READY FOR VIABLE COMMERCIAL USES. AS |
| | DESIGNED, THE LIVE-WORK UNIT ALONG WITH WALK-UP UNITS |
| | ALONG ROSEMARY WILL PROVIDE THE DESIRED AND MUCH NEED |
| | VIBRANCY. |
| | ZONING 11.17.22 ??? SATISFIED |
| | SEE PREVIOUS SUGGESTION |
| | |
| | C. RELOCATE INTERIOR LOBBY TO THE INTERSECTION OF 4TH |
| | AND N ROSEMARY, MIRROR THE CONDITION ON THE 2ND |
| | BUILDING'S LOBBY. |
| | |
| | RESPONSE: THE SOUTH CORNER OF 4TH AND ROSEMARY IS |
| | CURRENTLY OCCUPIED BY UNITS. RELOCATING THE LOBBY TO |
| | THIS CORNER LOCATION WOULD, IN TURN, RELOCATE THOSE |
| | CORNER UNITS UNDER THE BRIDGE ELEMENT. THIS WOULD LIMIT |
| | NATURAL LIGHT FOR THOSE DWELLING UNITS. |
| | ZONING 11.17.22 ??? SATISFIED |
| | SEE PREVIOUS SUGGESTION |
| | |
| | D. SUGGEST FURTHER DISCUSSION WITH CRA. |
| | |
| | RESPONSE: AS DISCUSSED ABOVE, THE APPLICANT HAS AND |
| | WILL CONTINUE TO COORDINATE WITH THE CRA. |
| | ZONING 11.17.22 ??? SATISFIED |
| | |
| | 18. RECOMMEND EXPLORING ADDITIONAL ARCHITECTURAL |
| | TREATMENTS, FACADE ARTICULATION, OR DESIGNS TO THE |
| | CORNER/INTERSECTION OF 3RD AND N ROSEMARY. THIS IS A |
| | FOCAL POINT AND SERVES AS A GATEWAY INTO THE NORTHWEST |
| | NEIGHBORHOOD, GREAT OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE A STANDOUT OR |
| | SPECIAL FRONTAGE. |
| | |
| | RESPONSE: SEE SHEETS A3.1 AND A3.2 FOR REVISED |
| | ELEVATIONS. CORNER OF 3RD AND ROSEMARY SHOWS A MORE |
| | ARTICULATED FA??ADE WITH RECESSED, DOUBLE-HEIGHT |
| | LIVE-WORK UNIT AND WRAP-AROUND BALCONY. |
| | ZONING 11.17.22 ??? NOT SATISFIED |
| | LANDSCAPE REMOVED FOR ADDITIONAL HARDSCAPE. |
| | |
| | PLEASE INCLUDE PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS OVER ROSEMARY AND |
| | 3RD STREET. PLEASE CONSIDER OPENING THIS CORNER UP |
| | MORE. |
| | |
| | RELOCATE MICROMOBILITY SPACE TO THE AREA UNDER THE |
| | BRIDGE IN FRONT OF AMENITY SPACE ON 4TH STREET. |
| | PROVIDES COVER AND FREES UP ADDITIONAL SPACE FOR |
| | LANDSCAPE, ETC. |
| | |
| | WILL THE LIVE-WORK UNIT PROVIDE ACCESS FROM 3RD STREET |
| | NOW INSTEAD OF THE PREVIOUS ROSEMARY ENTRY? |
| | |
| | 19. ON SHEET A1.1 AND A1.2, THE DIAGRAM FOR LEVEL 4 |
| | AND LEVEL 8 ARE MISSING, VALUES ARE SHOWN IN TABLE. |
| | |
| | RESPONSE: DIAGRAM LABELS UPDATED TO INCLUDE MISSING |
| | LEVELS. |
| | ZONING 11.17.22 ??? SATISFIED |
| | |
| | 20. SHEET A2.3 THE BRIDGE SPANNING OVER 4TH ST. SHOWS |
| | PARKING SPACES, HOWEVER THERE ARE SEVERAL WALLS DRAWN, |
| | PLEASE CLARIFY HOW THIS BRIDGE/SPACE FUNCTIONS. WHAT IS |
| | THE GREY ROOM TO THE LEFT OF THE BRIDGE PARKING; IS |
| | THIS STORAGE? |
| | |
| | RESPONSE: PARKING SPACES ACROSS 4TH STREET ON LEVELS 3 |
| | AND 4. SEE SHEET A2.3 FOR REVISED LAYOUT WITH WALLS |
| | REMOVED. |
| | ZONING 11.17.22 ??? SATISFIED |
| | |
| | 21. SHEET A4.1 & A4.2, PLEASE EXPLAIN OR CLARIFY HOW |
| | THE BRIDGE AND PARKING LEVELS RELATE TO THE OVERALL |
| | FLOOR PLATES OF THE BUILDING, DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE |
| | LEVEL/LOOKS TO BE A HALF OR QUARTER-FLOOR DIFFERENCE IN |
| | THE ALIGNMENT. HOW DOES THIS SPACE FUNCTION IN RELATION |
| | TO THE OVERALL BUILDING? INTERNALLY RAMPS UP? |
| | |
| | RESPONSE: PARKING IS ORGANIZED IN A SPLIT-LEVEL |
| | ARRANGEMENT. ONE PART OF THE GARAGE ALIGNED TO THE MAIN |
| | HABITABLE LEVEL; THE OTHER PART IS MIDWAY BETWEEN MAIN |
| | HABITABLE LEVELS. THE BRIDGE LEVELS HAVE BEEN REWORKED |
| | TO ALIGN WITH THE MAIN HABITABLE LEVELS. |
| | ZONING 11.17.22 ??? NOT SATISFIED |
| | SECTION DRAWINGS NEED TO BE CLEANED UP OR CLARIFIED |
| | FURTHER. THERE ARE MANY INSTANCES DPOUBLE SLAB LINES, |
| | WHERE THE SLAB UNDULATES OR VARIES BETWEEN LEVELS, AND |
| | IT IS NOT CLEAR HOW THE SPACES RELATE TO THE FLOOR |
| | PLANS. |
| | |
| | SECTION A ON SHEET A4.1: THE BRIDGE BETWEEN THE TWO |
| | BUILDINGS SHOWS A WHITE BOX/ROOM LABELED PARKING, BUT |
| | THIS SPACE DOES NOT EXIST ON THE 3RD FLOOR PLAN, THIS |
| | IS AN AMENITY SPACE. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE TWO |
| | PARKING LEVELS BETWEEN THE BRIDGE IS NOT CLEAR. |
| | |
| | SECTION A ON SHEET A4.1: DOES THE LOADING BAY RAMP UP |
| | INTO THE GARAGE? THE CHANGE IN SLABS IS CONFUSING. |
| | IT???S UNDERSTOOD THAT THE NORTHERN PORTION OF THE |
| | PARKING STRUCTURE HAS A HALF LEVEL STEP DOWNWARD, BUT |
| | IS THE REST OF THE PARKING AND LOADING ON A SLAB ABOVE |
| | GRADE? WHY ARE THERE TWO DIFFERENT FLOOR SLABS? |
| | |
| | SECTION A ON SHEET A4.1: PLEASE CLEAN UP OR CLARIFY |
| | WHAT IS HAPPENING ON THE 4TH STREET PORTION OF THE |
| | SECTION, TWO SEPARATE LINES INDICATING THE FLOOR OF THE |
| | BUILDING AND ROADWAY. |
| | |
| | SECTION A ON SHEET A4.1: PLEASE CLARIFY DOES THE |
| | SOUTHERN BUILDING STEP DOWN IN THE PARKING GARAGE? TWO |
| | DIFFERENT FLOOR SLABS AND ELEVATIONS SHOW BETWEEN |
| | PARKING LEVEL AND REST OF BUILDING/SIDEWALK. |
| | |
| | SECTION B ON SHEET A4.1: CLARIFY THE TWO BOLDED LINES |
| | FOR THE FLOOR ELEVATION/SLAB AND SIDEWALK/AT GRADE |
| | LEVEL. |
| | |
| | SECTION C AND D ON SHEET A4.2: PLEASE CLARIFY THE |
| | GROUND LEVEL CONDITIONS, TWO SEPARATE BOLD LINES SHOWN |
| | AGAIN, WHAT IS THE FINISHED FLOOR ELEVATION AND ARE |
| | THERE ADDITIONAL STEPS DOWN/UP FOR THE GROUND LEVEL? |
| | |
| | PLEASE PROVIDE FINISHED FLOOR ELEVATIONS, OR LEADERS ON |
| | THE DRAWINGS AND INDICATE AREAS WITH ANY STEPS OR |
| | RAMPS. |
| | |
| | 22. UPDATED RENDERS PROVIDED ON 9.8.22 SHOW THE |
| | GROUND-LEVEL WALKUP UNITS ENCLOSED BY A RAILING OR |
| | FENCE, WHAT IS THE TOTAL HEIGHT OF THE WALL + RAILING? |
| | |
| | RESPONSE: THE HEIGHTS OF THE WALLS WILL VARY DEPENDING |
| | ON THE SIDEWALK???S RELATIONSHIP TO THE ADJACENT |
| | WALK-UP GARDEN FINISH FLOOR ELEVATION (A DIFFERENCE OF |
| | APPROX. 2??? ??? 3.5???). THE RAILING WILL BE 42??? |
| | ABOVE THE TOP OF THE WALL. |
| | ZONING 11.17.22 ??? NOT SATISFIED |
| | PER SECTION 94-109 WALK-UP GARDEN: FENCES, WALLS OR |
| | OTHER SIMILAR STRUCTURES SHALL NOT EXCEED FOUR FEET IN |
| | HEIGHT. PLEASE REFER TO FIGURE IV-34. |
| | |
| | PLEASE PROVIDE A DETAIL OF THE WALK-UP UNITS SPECIFYING |
| | THE DIMENSIONS OF THE DIFFERENT ELEVATION CHANGES, |
| | FLOOR LEVELS, WALLS/FENCE, AND PROJECTIONS AS IS |
| | APPLICABLE. |
| | |
| | BE SURE RENDERS ARE ACCURATE TO PLANS. |
| | |
| | 23. PER CONVERSATION WITH HISTORIC PRESERVATION STAFF, |
| | WHILE THE PROJECT LIES OUTSIDE OF THE BOUNDARIES FOR |
| | THE NORTHWEST NEIGHBORHOOD, STAFF ENCOURAGES DESIGN |
| | THAT PROVIDES RELATIONSHIP OR REFERENCE TO THE HISTORIC |
| | NATURE OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD THIS PROJECT FACES/OPENS TO. |
| | ADDITIONAL ARCHITECTURAL ELEMENTS TO CONSIDER INCLUDE: |
| | ANGLED CORNERS ON THE BALCONIES CONNECTING TO THE |
| | BUILDING FACADE (CREATING A TRAPEZOID LOOK), CABLED |
| | SUPPORTS FROM THE BALCONIES TO THE BUILDING FA??ADE |
| | (MIMIC AWNING OR CANOPY SUPPORTS), A THICKER BALCONY |
| | SLAB FOR THE BALCONY ABOVE THE 3RD ST. ACCESS ROAD |
| | (CREATING MORE OF A MARQUEE ELEMENT), AND OPENING UP |
| | THE CORNER OF 3RD AND N ROSEMARY BY SETTING THE MASS |
| | BACK AND CREATING A FOCAL POINT AT THE CORNER. |
| | |
| | RESPONSE: THE TREATMENT OF THE CORNER OF 3RD AND |
| | ROSEMARY HAS BEEN REVISED TO SHOW ADDITIONAL |
| | WRAP-AROUND BALCONIES, A STRONG FRAMING ELEMENT, A |
| | RECESSED VOLUME ON THE GROUND FLOOR AND MORE OPEN SPACE |
| | IN FRONT. |
| | |
| | ZONING 11.17.22 ??? SATISFIED |
| | RENDERS PROVIDED DO NOT ACCURATELY REFLECT CHANGES TO |
| | SITE PLAN OR ELEVATIONS OR THE RENDER IN SHEET A5.1. |
| | PLEASE ADDRESS PRIOR TO DAC. |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | NEW COMMENTS 11/18/22: |
| | |
| | 1. PLEASE ILLUSTRATE ALL ENTRY/EXIT AND DOORS ON THE |
| | GROUNDLEVEL AND UPPER FLOOR PLANS TO CLARIFY USER |
| | CIRCULATION AND ACCESS THROUGHOUT THE BUILDING. |
| | |
| | 2. MAX FOOTPRINT LENGTH PERMITTED FOR NWD-8 SUBDISTRICT |
| | IS 250???, PROPOSED SOUTH BUILDING EXCEEDS MAX LENGTH |
| | AT 265???. PLEASE ADDRESS/ADJUST. |
| | |
| | 3. SHEET A0.2 TABLE 5 NEEDS TO BE ADJUSTED. SHOULD |
| | REFLECT SHEET A1.5 CALCULATIONS AND DESCRIPTION/LABEL. |
| | |
| | 4. PLEASE MOVE THE TREES TO BE ADJACENT TO THE CURB |
| | ALONG THE 4TH ST. EXTENSION, THESE SHALL SERVE AS THE |
| | REQUIRED STREET TREES (MAX. 30 FT ON CENTER). PLEASE |
| | ALSO INCLUDE TREES ON BOTH SIDES OF 4TH ST, CONTINUOUS |
| | SHADE FOR PEDESTRIANS. |
| | |
| | 5. THE TWO ADJACENT PUBLIC OPEN SPACES ALONG 4TH STREET |
| | STILL LOOK AND READ AS ONE LINEAR SPACE. ISSUE IS THAT |
| | NO PUBLIC SPACE CAN HAVE 1 SIDE 5X THE LENGTH OF THE |
| | OTHERS. THE PUBLIC OPEN SPACE ALSO SEEMS TO SERVE THE |
| | GROUND LEVEL UNITS MORE THAN GENERAL PUBLIC, MOVING THE |
| | TREES TO THE CURB MAY HELP OPEN THE SPACE UP. STAFF |
| | ALSO SUGGESTS THAT THE UNITS THAT ARE FACING THE |
| | INTERSECTION OF W. RAILROAD AVE AND 4TH ST SHIFT |
| | SLIGHTLY OR CHANGE IN DIMENSION. CREATE MORE OF AN OPEN |
| | COURTYARD SPACE RATHER THAN A LINEAR ONE. ADDITIONALLY |
| | A PORTION OF THE OPEN SPACE CAN BE UNDER THE OVERHEAD |
| | BRIDGE (MAX. 20% OVERHEAD COVERAGE) TO PROVIDE |
| | ADDITIONAL SEPARATION BETWEEN TWO PUBLIC OPEN SPACES. |
| | |
| | 6. PLEASE PROVIDE PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS AND ADA RAMPS |
| | ALONG THE INGRESS/EGRESS OF 4TH ST. EXTENSION. AS WELL |
| | AS AT THE CORNER OF 3RD AND ROSEMARY. |
| | |
| | 7. PLEASE PROVIDE A PHOTOMETRIC PLAN FOR THE PROJECT |
| | SITE, REQUIREMENT IS A MINIMUM OF 0.6 FOOTCANDLES AS |
| | MEASURED AT THE BACK EDGE OF THE CURB AND ONE FOOT |
| | ABOVE THE SIDEWALK. ADDITIONALLY PLEASE PROVIDE A |
| | DETAIL AND SPECS OF THE PROPOSED LIGHT FIXTURES. CITY |
| | STANDARD FOR DECORATIVE STREET LAMPS IS THE LUMEC |
| | S55-007) |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | CHRIS KIMMERLY, AICP |
| | URBAN DESIGN PLANNER |
| | 822.1426 [email protected] |
| | |
| |
Print |
