| Date |
Text |
| 2023-01-30 14:09:47 | ZONING AND PLANNING |
| | PROJECT: SOLESTE ??? 410 N. ROSEMARY AVE. |
| | DATE: JANUARY 27, 2023 |
| | CONTACT: CLAUDIA IBAVEN, CITY URBAN DESIGNER, AT |
| | 561-822-1402 OR VIA [email protected]. |
| | I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE REFERENCED PETITION AND |
| | PROVIDE THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS: |
| | |
| | GENERAL COMMENTS: |
| | PER SEC. 94-39 (J)(4) AND SEC. 94-54 (B)(3), THE |
| | PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT WILL NEED TO MEET PROCEDURES OF |
| | NOTICES OF PUBLIC MEETINGS. |
| | |
| | THE PROJECT IS SUBJECT TO THE CITY OF WPB'S ART LIFE |
| | ASSESSMENT. PLEASE PROVIDE INFORMATION ON HOW THE |
| | PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT WILL MEET THIS REQUIREMENT. |
| | |
| | AS PART OF THE APPLICATION CHECK LIST, ALL REQUIRED |
| | DOCUMENTS WILL NEED TO BE UPDATED AND REVISED IN EACH |
| | RESUBMITTAL. IF A DOCUMENT DOES NOT NEED TO BE REVISED |
| | OR NEED TO BE UPDATED, PLEASE LIST THE DOCUMENT ON THE |
| | WRITTEN RESPONSE. SEE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS THAT WILL |
| | NEED TO BE UPDATED/REVISE: |
| | - PLEASE REVISE PROJECT DATA SHEET, ON CURRENT ZONING |
| | EAST AND WEST ROWS. |
| | - PLEASE UPDATE JUSTIFICATION LETTER DATED ON |
| | 08.04.2022 AND ADD TO RESUBMITTAL. |
| | - PLEASE UPDATE YOUR TRAFFIC PERFORMANCE STANDARDS |
| | LETTER FROM PALM BEACH COUNTY TO REFLECT ANY NEW |
| | DRIVEWAYS AND UNITS IN THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. |
| | |
| | |
| | IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO RECEIVE A WORD DOC OF THE ZONING |
| | AND PLANNING COMMENTS, PLEASE CONTACT CLAUDIA IBAVEN |
| | VIA EMAIL. PLEASE NOTE, I ADDED A 'Z' AT THE BEGINNING |
| | OF A COMMENT COMING FROM ZONING OR 'A' AT THE BEGINNING |
| | OF A COMMENT COMING FROM THE APPLICANT. |
| | |
| | |
| | COMMENT 1: |
| | |
| | Z - 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. |
| | |
| | A- SEE SHEET A1.5 FOR ACTIVE USE DIAGRAMS AND |
| | CALCULATIONS. |
| | |
| | Z 11.17.22 - PARTIALLY SATISFIED. |
| | TABLE ON SHEET A0.2 DIFFERS FROM CALCULATIONS ON A.1.5. |
| | A1.5 IS LABELED CORRECTLY. PLEASE ADJUST. |
| | |
| | A - RESPONSE: SHEET A0.2 HAS BEEN ADJUSTED TO REFERENCE |
| | CALCULATIONS ON SHEET A1.5. |
| | |
| | Z 01.27.23 - NOT SATISFIED. AS PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED, |
| | THE PERCENTAGE OF ACTIVE USE WILL BE CALCULATED FROM |
| | THE BUILDABLE LOT FRONTAGE AND NOT THE BUILDING |
| | FRONTAGE. PLEASE REVISE 'MINIMUM ACTIVE USE' TABLE ON |
| | SHEET A1.05, MAKE SURE ALL DIMENSIONS OF BUILDING LOT |
| | FRONTAGE AND OTHERS ARE ON THE DRAWINGS. PLEASE ALSO |
| | ADD CALCULATIONS FOR 4TH STREET FACADES. FOR MORE INFO |
| | ABOUT THE DEFINITION OF 'ACTIVE USE' OR 'BUILDABLE LOT |
| | FRONTAGE' AND WHAT CAN BE INCLUDED IN CALCULATIONS SEE |
| | SEC. 94-109, AND FIGURE IV-14 SHOWING BUILDABLE LOT |
| | FRONTAGE. |
| | |
| | |
| | COMMENT 2: |
| | Z - 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. |
| | |
| | A- 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. |
| | |
| | Z 11.17.22 - PARTIALLY SATISFIED. |
| | EASEMENT AGREE PROVIDED. EASEMENT EXHIBIT B SHOWS 50 FT |
| | EASEMENT, PLANS SHOW 60 FEET. SHY THE ADDITIONAL 10 FT? |
| | |
| | A - SHEET A1.0 HAS BEEN ADJUSTED TO REFLECT 50 FT |
| | EASEMENT WIDTH. |
| | |
| | Z 01.27.23 - NOT SATISFIED. PLEASE CLARIFY THE CHANGES |
| | MADE TO SHEET A1.0 COMPARED TO PREVIOUS SUBMITTAL. |
| | THERE IS NO DIMENSION OR LABEL SHOWING THE 50FT |
| | EASEMENT. ALSO NOTE, LANDSCAPE AREA IS SHOWING IN |
| | LANDSCAPE SHEET L-1 WITH LIVE OAKS, PLEASE REVISE A1.0 |
| | TO MATCH L-1. |
| | |
| | |
| | COMMENT 3: |
| | Z - RADIUS OF THE CURB-CUT OR APRON FOR THE NORTHERN |
| | SERVICE ACCESS ENCROACHES INTO CITY PROPERTY, PLEASE |
| | ADJUST. |
| | |
| | A - SHEET A1.0 SHOWS REVISED CURB CUT. |
| | |
| | Z 11.17.22 - PARTIALLY SATISFIED. ADJUSTMENT MADE, |
| | HOWEVER PORTION OF CURB CUT RADIUS STILL SHOWN AS PART |
| | OF ADJACENT PROPERTY ON NORTHERN SERVICE ROAD (WEST |
| | RAILROAD AVE) AND EASTERN SERVICE ROAD (3RD STREET) |
| | |
| | A- SEE SHEET A1.0. SERVICE ROAD RADII HAVE BEEN |
| | ADJUSTED AS TO NOT ENCROACH INTO ADJACENT PROPERTIES. |
| | |
| | Z 01.27.23 - SATISFIED. |
| | |
| | |
| | COMMENT 4: |
| | Z - 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. |
| | |
| | A - PREVIOUS RESPONSE: SHEET A1.0 SHOWS REVISED SERVICE |
| | ACCESS AND BUFFER. |
| | |
| | Z - 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. |
| | |
| | A - PLEASE, SEE REVISED LANDSCAPE SHEETS. |
| | |
| | Z 01.27.23 - PARTIALLY SATISFIED - ON THE SITE PLAN, |
| | SHEET A1.0, THERE IS THE LABEL 'DOG RUN' BUT ON |
| | LANDSCAPE SHEET L-01 THERE IS VEGETATION AND TREES, |
| | PLEASE REVISE. IN ADDITION, TREES SHOULD CONTINUE FROM |
| | NORTH (4TH STREET) TO SOUTH (3RD ST) ON THE 5FT |
| | LANDSCAPE BUFFER. LASTLY, MAKE SURE THAT THE SIDEWALK |
| | ON 3RD STREET IS NOT INTERRUPTED WITH VEGETATION AREAS |
| | AS SHOWN ON LANDSCAPE SHEET L-1. |
| | |
| | COMMENT 5: |
| | Z - 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 |
| | OR CONSISTENCY ACROSS PLANS. |
| | |
| | A- SHEET A0.2 SHOWS REVISED DATA. |
| | |
| | Z 11.17.22 - PARTIALLY SATISFIED. TABLE ON SHEET A0.2 |
| | DIFFERS FROM CALCULATIONS ON A1.5. A1.5 IS LABELED |
| | CORRECTLY PLEASE ADJUST. |
| | |
| | A - SHEET A0.2 HAS BEEN ADJUSTED TO REFERENCE |
| | CALCULATIONS ON SHEET A1.5. |
| | |
| | Z 01.27.23 - NOT SATISFIED. CORRECT CALCULATIONS ON |
| | TABLE 'MINIMUM ACTIVE USE', AS MENTIONED ON COMMENT #1. |
| | |
| | IN ADDITION, ON SHEET A1.4, PLEASE ADD A TABLE SHOWING |
| | TOTALS FOR REQUIRED VS PROPOSED FOR OPEN SPACE |
| | CALCULATIONS. PRIVATE OPEN SPACE CALCULATIONS ARE |
| | MISSING. NOTE, 'POOL DECK' IS NOT A TYPE OF PRIVATE |
| | OPEN SPACE. ON PUBLIC OPEN SPACE TABLES, NOTE THE TYPE. |
| | FOR INFORMATION ABOUT WHAT IS PERMITTED BY DISTRICT |
| | CHECK SEC. 94-109, TABLE IV-6, OR CHECK SAME SECTION |
| | FOR DEFINITIONS OF EACH TYPE. CALCULATIONS WILL NEED TO |
| | MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF SEC. 94-109, TABLE IV-7. |
| | |
| | |
| | COMMENT 6: |
| | Z 11.17.22 - OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENT. PARTIALLY |
| | SATISFIED (SEE NEW COMMENT 5). |
| | |
| | A - SEE NEW COMMENT 5 RESPONSE. |
| | |
| | Z 01.27.23 NOT SATISFIED - PLEASE SEE COMMENT NO. 5. |
| | AND PLEASE SHARE ANY UPDATES ON DISCUSSIONS RELATED TO |
| | THE PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENT. |
| | |
| | PER SEC. 94-113 (D) (1), PRIVATE SIDEWALKS WHICH SERVE |
| | AS AN EXTENSION OF THE PUBLIC SIDEWALK SHALL COMPLY |
| | WITH THE STREETSCAPE REQUIREMENTS, SHALL MATCH THE |
| | PUBLIC SIDEWALK IN DESIGN AND MATERIAL, AND SHALL |
| | PROVIDE A SEAMLESS TRANSITION BETWEEN THE TWO. ON 4TH |
| | (NORTH AND SOUTH SIDEWALKS) STREET PLEASE MAKE SURE YOU |
| | HAVE A CLEAR SIDEWALK AND STREET TREES ON A LANDSCAPE |
| | STRIP ADJACENT TO THE CURB. STREET TREES SHOULD BE ON |
| | 4FT PLANTING BEDS, SIDEWALK WIDTH CAN BE A MINIMUM 5 |
| | FT. NOTE, STREET TREES SPACING IS 30FT MAX., SEE MORE |
| | INFO ON SEC. 94-113 (D) (2) AND MAKE SURE ALL STREET |
| | TREES MEET THE REQUIREMENT. |
| | |
| | NOTE, PLEASE REFLECT ANY CHANGES ON ALL PLANS, AS NOTED |
| | BEFORE SOME CHANGES IN LANDSCAPE PLANS ARE MISSING ON |
| | ARCHITECTURAL PLANS. |
| | |
| | |
| | COMMENT 7: |
| | Z 11.17.22. SATISFIED. |
| | |
| | |
| | COMMENT 8: |
| | Z - SHEET A1.0 PLEASE PROVIDE ALL CURBCUT WIDTH |
| | DIMENSIONS ALONG PROPERTY LINE, CANNOT EXCEED 25. |
| | |
| | A- SEE SHEET A1.0 FOR CURB CUT DIMENSIONS. |
| | |
| | Z 11.17.22 - PARTIALLY SATISFIED MEASUREMENT FOR |
| | CURBCUT WIDTH IS TO BE TAKEN FROM INTERSECTION OF |
| | PROPERTY LINE WITH THE CURBCUT, PLEASE ADJUST. |
| | |
| | A - SHEET A1.0 HAS BEEN ADJUSTED TO SHOW CURB CUT |
| | DIMENSIONS AT PROPERTY LINES. |
| | |
| | Z 01.27.23 - SATISFIED. |
| | |
| | |
| | COMMENT 9: |
| | Z - 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. |
| | |
| | A - 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. |
| | |
| | Z 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 |
| | |
| | A - PLEASE, SEE REVISED LANDSCAPE SHEETS. |
| | |
| | Z 01.27.23 - PARTIALLY SATISFIED. ON N ROSEMARY AVE, |
| | SOME TREES ARE SPACED OUT MORE THAN 30 FT. PLEASE |
| | ADJUST. |
| | |
| | PLEASE NOTE, ON 4TH STREET SOUTH SIDEWALK GREEN AREAS |
| | WHERE TREES ARE LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE BLOCK |
| | ARE NOT SHOWING ON A1.0 JUST LIKE IT SHOWS ON L-1. ALSO |
| | SEE COMMENT NO. 4 AND 6 AS RELATES TO LANDSCAPE. |
| | |
| | |
| | COMMENT 10: |
| | Z- PLEASE PROVIDE SETBACK LINES ON ALL ELEVATIONS. |
| | |
| | A - SEE SHEETS A3.1 AND A3.2 FOR REVISED ELEVATIONS. |
| | |
| | Z 11.17.22 - PARTIALLY SATISFIED |
| | SETBACKS PROVIDED, SHEET A3.1 WEST ELEVATION DOES NOT |
| | SHOW BRIDGE CONNECTING TWO BUILDINGS. |
| | |
| | A - SHEET A3.1 HAS BEEN ADJUSTED TO SHOW BRIDGE. |
| | |
| | Z 01.27.23 - SATISFIED. |
| | |
| | |
| | Z - SHEET A3.1 EAST ELEVATION SHOWS OPENINGS THROUGH |
| | THE 2ND AND 3RD LEVELS, WHAT ARE THESE? |
| | |
| | A - SHEET A3.1 HAS BEEN ADJUSTED TO REMOVE OPENINGS IN |
| | EAST ELEVATION. |
| | |
| | Z 01.27.23 - PARTIALLY SATISFIED. ON THE GROUND FLOOR, |
| | ON THE ENTRANCE OF THE LOADING AREA ON THE NORTH |
| | BUILDING, THERE IS STILL A BLUE OPENING. IN ADDITION, |
| | ON THE 4 FLOOR, PARKING LEVEL AREA, IT SEEMS THAT THE |
| | FACADE ARTICULATION IS NOT FINISH OR MEETING THE OTHER |
| | BUILDING VOLUME TO THE NORTH. |
| | |
| | Z - SHEET A3.2 SOUTH ELEVATION GROUND LEVEL SHOWS |
| | GREYED OUT PORTION OVER ENTRY. PLEASE REVISE. |
| | |
| | A - SHEET A3.2 HAS BEEN ADJUSTED TO REVISE ELEVATION. |
| | ELEVATION LABELS HAVE ALSO BEEN UPDATED TO REFLECT THE |
| | CORRECT ORIENTATION. |
| | |
| | Z 01.27.23 - PARTIALLY SATISFIED. PERHAPS THE USE OF |
| | SOLID FILL HATCH AND THE PRINTING IS CAUSING SLIGHTS |
| | ERRORS ON THE ELEVATIONS, PLEASE SEE ON SOUTH |
| | ELEVATION, THERE IS A GRAY VOLUME CROSSING THE |
| | SETBACKS. THERE ARE ALSO SOME DOORS THAT ARE NOT |
| | MEETING THE GROUND FLOOR AND IT IS NOT CLEAR IF THEY |
| | HAVE ANY STEPS OR HOW PEDESTRIANS WILL ACCESS THE |
| | BUILDING. PLEASE REVISE. |
| | |
| | Z 01.27.23 - NEW COMMENT: PLEASE PROVIDE MORE |
| | INFORMATION ON ELEVATIONS DRAWINGS ABOUT FACADE |
| | MATERIALS AND ARCHITECTURAL TREATMENT DETAILS TO MEET |
| | FACADE ARTICULATION REQUIREMENTS ON SEC. 94-109, TABLE |
| | IV-4. NOTED THAT YOU HAVE A1.6 PROVIDING INFORMATION |
| | ABOUT TRANSPARENCY. AND, A1.5 PROVIDING INFO ABOUT |
| | PLANAR BREAKS AND HORIZONTAL PROJECTIONS. |
| | |
| | |
| | COMMENT 11: |
| | Z - PLEASE PROVIDE SEPARATE SHEETS ON FACADE |
| | ARTICULATION AND HOW THE PROJECT MEETS PLANAR BREAK |
| | REQUIREMENTS, TRANSPARENCY/FENESTRATION REQUIREMENTS, |
| | AND PROVIDE ADDITIONAL DETAILS FOR ANY PROJECTIONS, |
| | SCREENING, OR ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES. |
| | |
| | A - SEE SHEETS A1.5 AND A1.6 FOR PLANAR BREAK AND |
| | TRANSPARENCY DIAGRAMS. |
| | |
| | Z 11.17.22 - NOT SATISFIED. CLARIFICATION FOR BUILDING |
| | FRONTAGES OF 150 FT. OR MORE NO FACADE 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. |
| | |
| | A - PLANAR BREAKS ADDED TO RAILROAD AVENUE AND TABLE |
| | UPDATED. |
| | |
| | Z - WIDTH REQUIREMENTS APPEAR TO BE MET. PLEASE PROVIDE |
| | DEPTH OF PLANAR BREAKS (MINIMUM OF 3FT.). |
| | |
| | A - PLANAR BREAK DIMENSIONS ADDED. |
| | |
| | Z 01.27.23 - PARTIALLY SATISFIED. ON SHEET A1.5 PLANAR |
| | BREAKS FOR RAILROAD AVE AND N ROSEMARY ARE MET. PLEASE |
| | REVISE BUILDING FRONTAGE FOR 3RD STREET AS THE DRAWING |
| | SHOWS A DIFFERENT NUMBER FROM THE TABLE. IN ADDITION, |
| | PROVIDE PLANAR BREAKS FOR FACADES ON 4TH STREET. |
| | |
| | ON SHEET A1.5, PLEASE PROVIDE INFORMATION ABOUT 4TH |
| | STREET AND HOW MEETS ALL REQUIREMENTS SHOWN IN |
| | TABLES.MINIMUM ACTIVE USE CALCULATIONS NEED TO BE |
| | REVISED AS MENTIONED BEFORE. |
| | |
| | Z - PLEASE CLARIFY OR EXPLAIN THE FACADE PLANE |
| | CALCULATIONS: GROUND FLOOR TABLE, WHAT DOES THIS MEAN |
| | OR SHOW? |
| | |
| | A - TABLE HAS BEEN REMOVED. IT WAS INCLUDED IN ERROR. |
| | |
| | Z -TRANSPARENCY REQUIREMENTS MET. |
| | |
| | Z 01.27.23 - NEW COMMENT: ON SHEET A1.6 FRONTAGE |
| | DIAGRAMS, PLEASE CLEAN UP ELEVATIONS, THERE ARE LINES |
| | BELOW GROUND LEVEL. IN ADDITION, PLEASE ADD ACTIVE USE |
| | AND NON-ACTIVE USE DIMENSIONS AS SHOWN IN SEC. 94-109, |
| | TABLE IV-33. IT SEEMS THAT CALCULATIONS ARE NOT |
| | CORRECT, PLEASE REVISE. PLEASE ALSO ADD MINIMUM ACTIVE |
| | USE LINER DEPTH REQUIRED AND PROPOSED, SEE SEC. 94-128, |
| | TABLE IV-35A. |
| | |
| | Z 01.27.23 - NEW COMMENT: AS MENTIONED ON PREVIOUS |
| | COMMENT, PLEASE PROVIDE MORE INFORMATION ON ELEVATIONS |
| | DRAWINGS ABOUT FACADE MATERIALS AND ARCHITECTURAL |
| | TREATMENT DETAILS TO MEET FACADE ARTICULATION |
| | REQUIREMENTS ON SEC. 94-109, TABLE IV-4. |
| | |
| | |
| | COMMENT 12: |
| | Z - 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 FA??ADE |
| | OF THE BUILDING (FACING SALVATION ARMY) APPEARS TO HAVE |
| | A LARGE BLANK WALL (>20%) PLEASE PROVIDE ADDITIONAL |
| | FENESTRATION, ARCHITECTURAL TREATMENT OR FA??ADE |
| | ARTICULATION TO THIS FRONTAGE. - WEST RAILROAD AVENUE, |
| | GROUND LEVEL FACADE WOULD BENEFIT FROM ADDITIONAL |
| | ARTICULATION. |
| | |
| | A - SEE SHEETS A3.1 AND A3.2 FOR REVISED ELEVATIONS. |
| | |
| | Z 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 FACADE ARTICULATION. |
| | |
| | A - PUBLIC OPEN SPACE #4 HAS FENESTRATION, EYEBROWS AND |
| | ACCENT COLORS AS SHOWN IN WEST ELEVATION (SHEET A3.1) |
| | AND COVER PERSPECTIVE VIEW (SHEET A0.0). THE BACK |
| | (WEST-FACING) WALL OF THE PUBLIC SPACE WILL HAVE A |
| | SERIES OF WINDOWS ON ALL LEVELS. THE INTERIOR WALLS |
| | WILL ALSO HAVE WINDOWS. |
| | |
| | |
| | Z 01.27.23 - PARTIALLY SATISFIED. FENESTRATION ON THE |
| | OPEN SPACE #4 IS MET ON THE WALL FACING WEST, NOTE ON |
| | THE WALLS FACING NORTH AND SOUTH, THE COVER SHEET A0.0 |
| | SHOW WINDOWS ON THE GROUND FLOOR WHICH ARE NOT |
| | CONSISTENT WITH THE GROUND FLOOR PLANS A1.0, A1.4, |
| | A2.1. PLEASE ALSO CLARIFY IF THERE ARE EYEBROWS ON |
| | THESE WALLS. |
| | |
| | |
| | COMMENT 13: |
| | Z- 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.) |
| | |
| | A - SEE SHEET A1.0 FOR REVISED SITE PLAN SHOWING |
| | BICYCLE PARKING SPACES. |
| | |
| | Z 11.17.22 - PARTIALLY SATISFIED |
| | PLEASE PROVIDE DETAIL OF BIKE RACKS TO BE PLACED WITHIN |
| | ROW TO ENSURE IT MEETS CITY STANDARDS. |
| | |
| | A - A REFERENCE DETAIL IMAGE HAS BEEN ADDED TO SHEET |
| | A0.2 TO CONVEY THE DESIGN INTENT OF THE PUBLICLY |
| | ACCESSIBLE BIKE RACKS. |
| | |
| | Z 01.27.23 - NOT SATISFIED, PLEASE CONTACT CLAUDIA |
| | IBAVEN VIA EMAIL TO PROVIDE YOU WITH THE CITY'S BICYCLE |
| | PARKING GUIDELINES. ONCE YOU REVIEWED THE GUIDELINES, |
| | MAKE SURE THAT YOU PROVIDE DETAILS ON THE ARRANGEMENT |
| | OF BIKE RACKS WITH DIMENSIONS AS NOTED IN THE |
| | GUIDELINES. AND PLEASE REVIEW SEC. 94-485 FOR OTHER |
| | BICYCLE PARKING REQUIREMENTS AND STANDARDS. |
| | |
| | |
| | COMMENT 14: |
| | Z - 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. |
| | |
| | A - SEE SHEET A1.0 DESIGNED BICYCLE ROOMS IN EACH |
| | GARAGE. THE BICYCLE RACK DETAIL WILL BE PROVIDED IN THE |
| | PERMIT SET OF PLANS. |
| | |
| | Z 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. |
| | |
| | A - SEE SHEET A2.1. BIKE STORAGE ROOMS HAVE BEEN |
| | DIMENSIONED AND BIKE STORAGE GRAPHICS HAVE BEEN ADDED. |
| | TOTAL BIKE STORAGE COUNT HAS BEEN UPDATED ON ZONING |
| | DATA SHEET A0.2. |
| | |
| | Z 01.27.23 PARTIALLY SATISFIED. PLEASE CLARIFY IF YOU |
| | WILL BE USING THE SAME BIKE RACK SPECS FOR BIKE RACKS |
| | LOCATED ADJACENT TO SIDEWALKS AND BIKE RACKS LOCATED |
| | INSIDE THE BIKE ROOMS. PLEASE CONTACT CLAUDIA IBAVEN |
| | VIA EMAIL TO PROVIDE YOU WITH THE CITY'S BICYCLE |
| | PARKING GUIDELINES. ONCE YOU REVIEWED THE GUIDELINES, |
| | MAKE SURE THAT YOU PROVIDE DETAILS ON THE ARRANGEMENT |
| | OF BIKE RACKS WITH DIMENSIONS AS NOTED IN THE |
| | GUIDELINES. AND PLEASE REVIEW SEC. 94-485 FOR OTHER |
| | BICYCLE PARKING REQUIREMENTS AND STANDARDS. |
| | |
| | |
| | COMMENT 15: |
| | Z - 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. |
| | |
| | A - SEE SHEET A1.0 FOR TYPICAL STALL AND AISLE |
| | DIMENSIONS, PARKING SLOPES AND LOADING AREA SIZES. |
| | |
| | Z 11.17.22 - NOT SATISFIED. |
| | PLEASE PROVIDE DIMENSIONS FOR ADA SPACES AND INCLUDE |
| | 5FT 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. |
| | |
| | A - SHEETS A2.1, A2.2, AND A2.3 HAVE BEEN REVISED TO |
| | SHOW ALL ADA SPACES AND ACCESS AISLES. |
| | |
| | Z 01.27.23 - PARTIALLY SATISFIED. ON SHEET A2.1, PLEASE |
| | PROVIDE DIMENSIONS ON THE AREA WHERE AN ADA SPACE IS IN |
| | PROXIMITY WITH THE ENTRANCE TO THE BUILDING AS IT SEEMS |
| | TO BE TOO SMALL. |
| | ON SHEET A2.2, NORTH BUILDING, THERE IS A COLUMN IN |
| | FRONT OF THE MAIN ENTRANCE WHICH MIGHT NOT BE ADA |
| | ACCESSIBLE, PLEASE REVISE. |
| | |
| | PLEASE REVIEW SEC. SEC. 94-485 AND PROVIDE A PARKING |
| | STANDARD DETAIL SHOWING DIMENSIONS, PAINTING DETAILS, |
| | ETC., AS WELL AS FOR ADA PARKING SPACES. |
| | |
| | PLEASE LABEL 'TANDEM PARKING' ON DRAWINGS. NOTE, AS PER |
| | SEC. 94-111 (E)(2), TANDEM PARKING, IF PROVIDED, MAY |
| | COUNT AS TWO SPACES, PROVIDED BOTH SPACES ARE DEDICATED |
| | TO THE SAME RESIDENTIAL UNIT, AND A RESTRICTIVE |
| | COVENANT IS RECORDED ON CITY APPROVED FORMS, AND |
| | RECORDED IN THE PUBLIC RECORDS. ALSO, ADD # OF TANDEM |
| | PARKING SPACES ON TABLE 6 - PARKING AND LOADING ON |
| | SHEET A0.2. |
| | |
| | Z - 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. |
| | |
| | A - SHEETS A2.1, A2.2, AND A2.3 HAVE BEEN REVISED TO |
| | SHOW HATCHED AREAS INDICATING ACCESSIBLE PATHS FROM |
| | PARKING SPACE TO BUILDING ENTRY. |
| | |
| | Z 01.27.23 - PARTIALLY SATISFIED - SOME DOORS TO UNITS |
| | SEEM TO BE MISSING IN PLANS. PLEASE CLARIFY IF INSIDE |
| | THE PARKING LOT, PEOPLE CAN ONLY ACCESS THE BUILDING |
| | UNITS THROUGH THE 'BUILDING ACCESS'. |
| | |
| | Z - ARE ALL INTERNAL PARKING RAMPS 12% SLOPE? |
| | |
| | A - SEE SHEETS A2.1, A2.2, AND A2.3 FOR REVISED PARKING |
| | RAMP SLOPES. TYPICAL SLOPES ARE 16% WITH 8% BLENDS AT |
| | TOP AND BOTTOM. |
| | |
| | Z 01.27.23 - SATISFIED |
| | |
| | Z - ADA SPACE ON SHEET A2.3 DOES NOT PROVIDE ACCESS |
| | AISLE OR CLEAR PATH TO ELEVATOR. CAN THIS BE RELOCATED? |
| | |
| | A - SHEETS A2.1, A2.2, AND A2.3 HAVE BEEN REVISED TO |
| | SHOW HATCHED AREAS INDICATING ACCESSIBLE PATHS FROM |
| | PARKING SPACE TO BUILDING ENTRY. |
| | |
| | Z 01.27.23 - SAME COMMENT AS ABOVE, PARTIALLY |
| | SATISFIED. ON SHEET A2.1, PLEASE PROVIDE DIMENSIONS ON |
| | THE AREA WHERE THE ENTRANCE IS ADJACENT TO THE ADA AS |
| | IT SEEMS TO BE TOO SMALL. ON SHEET A2.2, NORTH |
| | BUILDING, THERE IS A COLUMN IN FRONT OF THE MAIN |
| | ENTRANCE WHICH SEEMS TO BE NOT ADA ACCESSIBLE. |
| | |
| | Z 01.27.23 - NEW COMMENT: PLEASE CLARIFY IF PARKING LOT |
| | RAMPS ON THE SOUTH BUILDING CHANGE LOCATION. ON THE |
| | GROUND FLOOR AND 2ND FLOOR ARE LOCATED ON THE SAME |
| | AREA, ON 3RD AND 4TH FLOOR RAMP ON THE SOUTH CHANGED |
| | LOCATIONS. |
| | |
| | |
| | COMMENT 16: RENDERS |
| | |
| | Z 11.17.22 SATISFIED |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | COMMENT 17: RETAIL SPACE |
| | Z 11.17.22 - SATISFIED |
| | CAN A RETAIL SPACE BE ACCOMMODATED 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. |
| | |
| | Z 01.27.23 NEW COMMENT. AS PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED, A |
| | STUDY HAS BEEN PRODUCED, BY THE CITY AND CRA, TO |
| | REDEVELOP N ROSEMARY AVE WITH THE GOAL OF ACTIVATING |
| | THE STREETSCAPE. GROUND LEVEL COMMERCIAL USE IS |
| | RECOMMENDED, AND NEW DEVELOPMENT IS ALREADY |
| | INCORPORATING RETAIL USE ON GROUND FLOORS CHANGING THE |
| | CURRENT STREETSCAPE CONDITIONS ON N ROSEMARY AVE, |
| | ENCOURAGING MORE ACTIVITY IN THE DOWNTOWN AREA. |
| | BUILDING CORNERS ON N ROSEMARY AVE AND 3RD STREET AND |
| | 4TH STREET CAN INCORPORATE NEW RETAIL AMENITIES TO |
| | RESIDENTS, ATTRACT THE PUBLIC IN GENERAL, AND ALIGN |
| | WITH THE GOALS OF THE DOWNTOWN MASTER PLAN. PLEASE |
| | EXPLORE INCORPORATING RETAIL IN THESE AREAS OR AT LEAST |
| | IN THE CORNER OF N ROSEMARY AND 3RD STREET. |
| | |
| | |
| | COMMENT 18: |
| | Z - 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. |
| | |
| | A - 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. |
| | |
| | Z 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. |
| | |
| | A - CORNER PLAZA HAS BEEN OPENED UP MORE TO ALLOW FOR |
| | MORE LANDSCAPING. REFER TO CIVIL SHEET C-8. |
| | |
| | Z 01.27.23 - NOT SATISFIED. PLEASE CLARIFY CHANGES MADE |
| | ON SHEET C-8 COMPARED TO PREVIOUS SUBMITTAL. |
| | |
| | Z 01.27.23 - NEW COMMENT, PLEASE MAKE SURE THAT |
| | LANDSCAPE AND ARCHITECTURAL PLANS ARE CONSISTENT WITH |
| | CHANGES ON SHEET C-8. ON SHEET C-8, THE 3RD STREET |
| | CORNER, PLEASE CLARIFY IF THE EXISTING CROSSWALK WILL |
| | BE REMOVED OR IF THE PROJECT WILL ADD SIDEWALK TO MEET |
| | THE EXISTING CROSSWALK AS IT IS NOT SHOWING ON OTHER |
| | ARCHITECTURAL AND LANDSCAPE PLANS. PLEASE SHOW ALL |
| | EXISTING OR PROPOSED CROSSINGS ON A1.0 AND ADD |
| | CROSSINGS ON 4TH STREET. |
| | |
| | Z - 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. |
| | |
| | A - SEE SHEET A1.0. MICRO MOBILITY SPACE HAS BEEN |
| | RELOCATED TO THE SUGGESTED LOCATION. |
| | |
| | Z 01.27.23 - SATISFIED. |
| | |
| | Z- WILL THE LIVE-WORK UNIT PROVIDE ACCESS FROM 3RD |
| | STREET NOW INSTEAD OF THE PREVIOUS ROSEMARY ENTRY? |
| | |
| | A - STREET ACCESS TO LIVE/WORK UNIT WILL BE FROM |
| | ROSEMARY. |
| | |
| | Z 01.27.23 - PARTIALLY SATISFIED, PLEASE CLARIFY IF |
| | FOLKS PARKING INSIDE THE LOT WILL HAVE TO GO OUT OF THE |
| | BUILDING TO ACCESS THE UNIT. IN ADDITION, SEE COMMENT |
| | NO. 17. |
| | |
| | |
| | COMMENT 19: |
| | Z 11.17.22 - SATISFIED |
| | |
| | |
| | COMMENT 20: |
| | Z 11.17.22 - SATISFIED |
| | |
| | |
| | COMMENT 21: |
| | Z- 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? |
| | |
| | |
| | A - 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. |
| | |
| | Z 11.17.22 - NOT SATISFIED |
| | SECTION DRAWINGS NEED TO BE CLEANED UP OR CLARIFIED |
| | FURTHER. THERE ARE MANY INSTANCES DOUBLE 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. |
| | |
| | A - SECTION SHEET A4.1 HAS BEEN CLEANED UP TO SHOW |
| | PARKING WITHIN THE BRIDGE ON LEVELS 3 AND 4. |
| | |
| | |
| | Z - 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? |
| | |
| | A- SECTION ON SHEET A4.1 HAS BEEN CLEANED UP TO REMOVE |
| | THE DOUBLE SLABS. THE LOADING BAYS ARE SLIGHTLY LOWER |
| | THAN THE ADJACENT PARKING DECKS. STAIRS/RAMPS HAVE BEEN |
| | ADDED TO NEGOTIATE THIS LEVEL CHANGE. SEE GROUND FLOOR |
| | PLAN (SHEET A2.1) |
| | |
| | Z- 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. |
| | |
| | A- SECTION ON SHEET A4.1 HAS BEEN CLEANED UP TO REMOVE |
| | THE DOUBLE SLABS. |
| | |
| | Z - 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. |
| | |
| | A - THE LOADING BAYS ARE SLIGHTLY LOWER THAN THE |
| | ADJACENT PARKING DECKS. STAIRS/RAMPS HAVE BEEN ADDED TO |
| | NEGOTIATE THIS LEVEL CHANGE. |
| | |
| | Z - SECTION B ON SHEET A4.1: CLARIFY THE TWO BOLDED |
| | LINES FOR THE FLOOR ELEVATION/SLAB AND SIDEWALK/AT |
| | GRADE LEVEL. |
| | |
| | A - SECTION ON SHEET A4.1 HAS BEEN CLEANED UP TO REMOVE |
| | THE DOUBLE SLABS. |
| | |
| | Z 01.27.23 - NOT SATISFIED: PLEASE ADD PROPERTY LINES |
| | SETBACK LINES, AND DIMENSIONS TO PARAPET TO SECTIONS |
| | JUST AS DONE ON ELEVATIONS DRAWINGS TO SHOW HIGHEST |
| | POINT OF THE BUILDING. |
| | ON SHEET A4.1, SECTION 1 - A IS NOT MATCHING GROUND |
| | FLOOR PLAN, PLEASE REVISE. SECTION 2 - B IS CUTTING ON |
| | THE STREET BUT NOT SHOWING ANY STEPS OR RAMP FOR |
| | PEDESTRIANS ENTERING THE SOUTH LOBBY AMENITY SPACE. |
| | |
| | |
| | Z - 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. |
| | |
| | A - SECTION ON SHEET A4.1 HAS BEEN CLEANED UP TO REMOVE |
| | THE DOUBLE SLABS. SPOT ELEVATIONS HAVE BEEN ADDED TO |
| | SHEET A2.1, AS WELL AS STAIRS/RAMPS TO NEGOTIATE |
| | CHANGES IN LEVEL. SEE GROUND FLOOR PLAN (SHEET A2.1) |
| | |
| | Z 01.27.23 - NOT SATISFIED: PLEASE ADD PROPERTY LINES, |
| | SETBACK LINES, AND DIMENSIONS TO PARAPET TO SECTIONS |
| | JUST AS DONE ON ELEVATIONS DRAWINGS TO SHOW HIGHEST |
| | POINT OF THE BUILDING. |
| | ON SHEET A2.1 ON PARKING LOT THERE IS A RAMP WITH A 5% |
| | SLOPE AND ON SHEET A4.2, SECTION 2-C, THIS IS NOT |
| | REFLECTED IT. THE RAMP SEEMS TO GO DOWN TOWARDS |
| | RAILROAD AVE TO MEET THE STREET LEVEL AND THE SECTION |
| | DOES NOT MEET THE STREEL LEVEL. IN ADDITION, ACCORDING |
| | TO THE SHEET A2.2 AND A2.3 THE PARKING LOT FLOOR LEVELS |
| | ARE THE SAME AS THE UNIT'S FLOOR LEVELS AND THE SECTION |
| | DOES NOT REFLECT THAT. SECTION 3-D, A SMALL RAMP ON THE |
| | GROUND FLOOR DOES NOT MATCH THE FLOORPLAN. PLEASE |
| | REVISE DRAWINGS. |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | COMMENT 22: |
| | Z - 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? |
| | |
| | A - 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. |
| | |
| | Z 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. |
| | |
| | A - WALK UP GARDEN GATE, WALLS, AND STEPS HAVE BEEN |
| | REVISED. SEE DETAIL SECTION AND PLAN ON SHEET A1.4 |
| | |
| | Z 01.27.23 - SATISFIED. |
| | |
| | |
| | COMMENT 23: |
| | Z 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. |
| | |
| | A- RENDERINGS WILL BE UPDATED PRIOR TO DAC |
| | |
| | Z 01.27.23 - NOT SATISFIED, RENDERS WILL NEED TO BE |
| | PROVIDED AS PART OF THE RESUBMITTAL. |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | COMMENTS 11/18/22: |
| | |
| | COMMENT 1: |
| | Z - PLEASE ILLUSTRATE ALL ENTRY/EXIT AND DOORS ON THE |
| | GROUND LEVEL AND UPPER FLOOR PLANS TO CLARIFY USER |
| | CIRCULATION AND ACCESS THROUGHOUT THE BUILDING. |
| | |
| | A - BUILDING ACCESS DOORS HAVE BEEN LABELED ON GROUND |
| | LEVEL, GARAGE LEVELS AND AMENITY LEVEL PLANS. |
| | |
| | Z 01.27.23 - PARTIALLY SATISFIED. AS MENTIONED ABOVE, |
| | SOME FLOOR PLANS ARE MISSING DOORS TO UNITS, AND ON |
| | SHEET A2.2 THERE IS A COLUMN IN FRONT OF ACCESS TO THE |
| | BUILDING FROM THE NORTH BUILDING PARKING LOT. |
| | |
| | COMMENT 2: |
| | Z - MAX FOOTPRINT LENGTH PERMITTED FOR NWD-8 |
| | SUBDISTRICT IS 250???, PROPOSED SOUTH BUILDING EXCEEDS |
| | MAX LENGTH AT 265???. PLEASE ADDRESS/ADJUST. |
| | |
| | A - PER CONVERSATIONS WITH STAFF, IT WAS UNDERSTOOD |
| | THAT THE FA??ADE LENGTH COULD EXCEED 250??? BY |
| | PROVIDING A PUBLIC OPEN SPACE TO BREAK UP THE BUILDING |
| | LENGTH. |
| | |
| | Z 01.27.23 - NOT SATISFIED. PER SEC. 94-128, TABLE |
| | IV-35A, THERE IS A MAXIMUM 250FT FOOTPRINT LENGTH ALONG |
| | ROSEMARY AVE, THIS AFFECTS THE FOOTPRINT LENGTH ON THE |
| | SOUTH BUILDING, PLEASE REVISE AS THIS IS NOT A VARIANCE |
| | THAT CAN BE GRANTED. IN ADDITION, THERE IS THE 150FT |
| | MAXIMUM CONTINUOUS BUILDING FRONTAGE ON ROSEMARY AVE |
| | THAT CAN BE BROKEN BY ADDING PUBLIC OPEN SPACE, THIS |
| | REQUIREMENT AFFECTS THE NORTH BUILDING, PLEASE REVISE. |
| | FOR 'BUILDING FRONTAGE' PLEASE SEE SEC. 94-109, FIGURE |
| | IV-7. FOR 'FOOTPRINT LENGTH' SEE SEC. 94-109, FIGURE |
| | IV-12. |
| | |
| | |
| | COMMENT 3: |
| | Z - SHEET A0.2 TABLE 5 NEEDS TO BE ADJUSTED. SHOULD |
| | REFLECT SHEET A1.5 CALCULATIONS AND DESCRIPTION/LABEL. |
| | |
| | A - SHEET A0.2, TABLE 5 HAS BEEN ADJUSTED TO REFERENCE |
| | CALCULATIONS ON SHEET A1.5. |
| | |
| | Z 01.27.23 - NOT SATISFIED, REVISE MINIMUM ACTIVE USE |
| | TABLE, AND SEE ABOVE COMMENTS RELATED TO CALCULATIONS |
| | ON SHEET. |
| | |
| | |
| | COMMENT 4: |
| | Z - 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. |
| | |
| | A - PLEASE, SEE REVISED LANDSCAPE SHEETS. |
| | |
| | Z 01.27.23 - PARTIALLY SATISFIED. SOME TREES ARE SPACED |
| | OUT MORE THAN 30FT. PLEASE ADJUST. IN ADDITION, SOME |
| | TREES SEEM TO BE NOT IN THE MIDDLE OF LANDSCAPE AREA |
| | AND ALMOST IN THE SIDEWALK. |
| | PLEASE NOTE ON 4TH STREET SOUTH SIDEWALK GREEN AREAS |
| | WHERE TREES ARE LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE BLOCK |
| | ARE NOT SHOWING ON A1.0 JUST LIKE IT SHOWS ON L-1. |
| | NOTE, MORE COMMENTS ABOVE FOR STREETSCAPE AND LANDSCAPE |
| | REQUIREMENTS. |
| | |
| | |
| | COMMENT 5: |
| | Z - 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. |
| | |
| | A - PUBLIC SPACES #1 AND #2 HAVE BEEN SEPARATED AS |
| | SUGGESTED. TREES HAVE ALSO BEEN SHIFTED TO CURB AS |
| | SUGGESTED. |
| | |
| | Z 01.27.23 - OTHER COMMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE ON OPEN |
| | SPACE DIAGRAMS, LANDSCAPING AND STREETSCAPE ABOVE. |
| | |
| | |
| | COMMENT 6: |
| | Z - 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. |
| | |
| | A - PLEASE, REFER TO CIVIL SHEET C-5. |
| | |
| | Z 01.27.23 - NOT SATISFIED, AS MENTIONED BEFORE PLEASE |
| | ADD CROSSINGS TO THE SITE PLAN AND LANDSCAPE PLANS TO |
| | SHOW CONSISTENCY IN DESIGN. ALSO PROVIDE PEDESTRIAN |
| | CROSSINGS ON 4TH STREET. |
| | |
| | |
| | COMMENT 7: |
| | Z - 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) |
| | |
| | A- UNDERSTOOD. PLEASE, SEE PROVIDED PHOTOMETRIC. |
| | |
| | Z - 01.27.23 - SATISFIED. |
| | |
| | |
| | OTHER COMMENTS: |
| | |
| | PLEASE NOTE, AS PER SEC. 94-54 (A)(1), THE APPLICANT |
| | SHALL ADDRESS ANY COMMENTS OF THE PPRC AND SUBMIT A |
| | REVISED APPLICATION WITHIN 60 DAYS OF THE DATE OF SUCH |
| | COMMENTS. FAILURE TO MAKE THE REQUIRED SUBMITTALS |
| | WITHIN THE 60-DAY DEADLINE WILL DEEM THE APPLICATION AS |
| | WITHDRAWN. AT LEAST 15 DAYS PRIOR TO THE EXPIRATION OF |
| | THE 60-DAY REVISION PERIOD, THE APPLICANT MAY REQUEST A |
| | 30-DAY EXTENSION. NO FURTHER EXTENSION REQUEST IS |
| | PERMITTED. COMMENTS RELATING TO REVISED APPLICATIONS |
| | SHALL BE ADDRESSED WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE DATE OF SUCH |
| | COMMENTS. |
| | |
| | WHEN RESUBMITTING, WRITTEN RESPONSES TO COMMENTS NEED |
| | TO BE PROVIDED AS WELL AS A MINIMUM OF TWO (2) PAPER |
| | COPIES AND AN ELECTRONIC COPY IN .PNG/.PDF FORMAT OF |
| | ALL PLANS AND ALL DOCUMENTATION REQUIRED IN THE |
| | APPLICATION. PLEASE NOTE THAT CHANGES ON THE |
| | RESUBMITTED PLANS OR THE SUBMITTAL OF INFORMATION/PLANS |
| | TO ADDRESS THE COMMENTS MAY RESULT IN ADDITIONAL |
| | COMMENTS. |
| | |
| | LASTLY, YOU WERE PERMITTED ONE (1) RESUBMITTAL AT NO |
| | ADDITIONAL COST. AS PREVIOUSLY ISSUED COMMENTS CONTINUE |
| | TO NOT BE SUFFICIENTLY ADDRESSED, THE APPLICANT WILL BE |
| | ASSESSED A RESUBMITTAL FEE. SUCH FEE WILL BE 20% OF THE |
| | ORIGINAL APPLICATION FEE. |
| | |
| | --END OF COMMENTS--- |
| | |
| |
Print |
