| Date |
Text |
| 2022-09-08 12:26:41 | 1. CIVIL PLAN AND SITE PLAN DIFFER IN OVERALL PROPOSAL; |
| | A. SITE PLAN SHOWS MULTI-PURPOSE TURF FIELD IN |
| | NORTHWEST CORNER WITH A NORTH-SOUTH ORIENTATION, THE |
| | PARKING LOT ON THE ABANDON PORTION OF EUCALYPTUS AND |
| | 7TH HAS A DIFFERENT CONFIGURATION AND FEATURES LARGER |
| | LANDSCAPE ISLANDS. |
| | B. CIVIL PLAN SHOWS A 2-STORY BUILDING WITH PARKING |
| | STRUCTURE IN NORTHWEST CORNER, A NEW SOCCER FIELD WITH |
| | AN EAST-WEST ORIENTATION IS JUST BELOW THAT, AND THE |
| | PARKING LOT PAVING ALONG EUCALYPTUS AND 7TH CONFIGURED |
| | DIFFERENTLY THAN THAT OF THE SITE PLAN. |
| | C. PLEASE CLARIFY/IDENTIFY WHICH DESIGN OPTION THE |
| | PROJECT WILL GO FORWARD WITH. |
| | |
| | 2. CIVIL PLAN: THE PROPOSED PARKING INGRESS/EGRESS IS |
| | TOO CLOSE TO THE INTERSECTION OF 8TH AND OLIVE; |
| | REQUIRES MINIMUM 50? SEPARATION. |
| | |
| | 3. PLEASE PROVIDE ADDITIONAL ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS, |
| | ELEVATIONS, OR DETAILS IN REFERENCE TO THE 804 N OLIVE |
| | AVE. PRESERVATION LABELED ON SHEET PSP-1. PREVIOUS |
| | DISCUSSION WAS TO PRESERVE THE ENTIRE BRICK FA?ADE AND |
| | INCORPORATE INTO AN ENTRY/DESIGN, SCREENING, OR OTHER |
| | ELEMENT FOR THIS FRONTAGE. |
| | |
| | 4. PER REQUIREMENTS OF SEC. 94-315, PLEASE ADEQUATELY |
| | SCREEN THE DUMPSTER ENCLOSURE ALONG THE 7TH ST. |
| | ALLEY/PARKING ACCESS, CONSIDER RELOCATING AS PROPOSAL |
| | OPEN SHOWS IT OPENING OUTSIDE OF PROPERTY LINE AND INOT |
| | ROW. |
| | |
| | 5. WITHIN THE ZONING AND SITE DATA ON PSP-1; THE |
| | ROSARIAN ACADEMY PROPERTIES ARE SPLIT-ZONED BETWEEN |
| | LD-R AND LD-5 UNDER THE CSPD. AS PART OF THIS SPLIT |
| | ZONING, LD-R DOES NOT PERMIT SURFACE PARKING LOTS; A |
| | PORTION OF THE ABANDONED ROW/ALLEY WITH PROPOSED |
| | PARKING ON 7TH AND OLIVE FALLS UNDER THE LDR-R ZONING |
| | CLASSIFICATION. PARKING LOT WILL HAVE TO BE ADJUSTED TO |
| | NOT INCLUDE THIS PORTION/PROPERTY OR A WAIVER MUST BE |
| | REQUESTED. STAFF IS NOT IN SUPPORT OF A WAIVER FOR |
| | ALLOWING THE SURFACE PARKING WITHOUT ADEQUATELY |
| | SCREENING AND INCORPORATION OF THE PRESERVED 804 OLIVE |
| | FA?ADE. |
| | |
| | 6. PLEASE PROVIDE CURB-CUT WIDTH ACROSS THE 7TH ST. |
| | PARKING ACCESS, CURB CUT IS MEASURED ALONG PROPERTY |
| | LINE, CANNOT EXCEED 25?. |
| | |
| | 7. LANDSCAPING AND PROPOSED STRUCTURES/PLAYGROUND |
| | EQUIPMENT APPEARS TO IMPEDE WITH UTILITIES. |
| | |
| | 8. PROPOSAL ELIMINATES ALIGNMENT WITH EUCALYPTUS; |
| | EXISTING CITY UTILITIES ARE LOCATED WITHIN THIS PORTION |
| | OF EUCALYPTUS, WILL REQUIRE COORDINATION WITH |
| | RESPECTIVE ENGINEERING DEPT. ON RELOCATION OF SERVICES. |
| | |
| | 9. WITH THE DEMOLITION OF THE STRUCTURES BETWEEN |
| | EUCALYPTUS & 7TH ST. THE NORTH OLIVE FRONTAGE BECOMES A |
| | MASSIVE LOW-SCALE VOID/GAP ALONG THIS FRONTAGE; |
| | ESPECIALLY WITH THE INCLUSION OF SURFACE PARKING AND |
| | THE MULTI-PURPOSE FIELD. PLEASE CONSIDER EXPLORING |
| | ADDITIONAL OPTIONS TO MORE APPROPRIATELY FILL OR SCALE |
| | THIS FRONTAGE, PROVIDE ADDITIONAL SCREENING, |
| | STREETSCAPE ELEMENTS/FURNITURE, OR PROVIDE A MORE |
| | ACTIVE FRONTAGE IN THIS AREA OF THE PROJECT. |
| | A.PLEASE CONSIDER PROVIDING A SECTION OR PERSPECTIVE |
| | DRAWING OF THE N OLIVE FRONTAGE TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL |
| | CONTEXT WITH THE PROPOSED CHANGES. |
| | |
| | 10. PLEASE PROVIDE SETBACK LINES ON PSP-1. |
| | |
| | 11. FENCE REQUIREMENTS: PER SEC. 94-109 |
| | A. FENCES IN R SUBDISTRICTS SHALL BE A MAXIMUM HEIGHT |
| | OF FOUR FEET WITHIN THE FRONT YARD SETBACK AND SIX FEET |
| | WHEN LOCATED BEHIND THE FRONT SETBACK, EXCEPT AS |
| | EXPRESSLY PROVIDED IN BPD-R. IN ALL OTHER SUBDISTRICTS, |
| | FENCES ALONG A LOT FRONTAGE SHALL BE A MAXIMUM HEIGHT |
| | OF FOUR FEET AND FENCES IN REAR AND SIDE SETBACKS SHALL |
| | BE A MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF SIX FEET. |
| | B. FENCES ABUTTING THE RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY OR |
| | ENCLOSING SPORTS FIELDS MAY BE A MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF |
| | EIGHT FEET. |
| | C. CHAIN-LINK FENCES ARE PROHIBITED WITHIN THE STREET |
| | FRONTAGE MAXIMUM SETBACK WITHIN THE URBAN CORE PLANNING |
| | AREA, AND SPECIAL DISTRICT PLANNING AREAS. CHAIN LINK |
| | FENCES WITHIN THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS PLANNING AREA |
| | ARE PERMITTED BUT SHALL BE SCREENED WITH A HEDGE WHEN |
| | LOCATED WITHIN THE FRONT SETBACK. CHAIN LINK FENCES ARE |
| | PERMITTED ALONG SIDE AND REAR SETBACKS. WHERE ALLOWED, |
| | CHAIN LINK FENCES SHALL BE VINYL-COATED, AND SHALL |
| | INCLUDE A TOP RAIL. |
| | |
| | - PROPOSED CHAIN-LINK FENCE EXCEEDS HEIGHT LIMITATIONS |
| | AND APPEARS TO BE LOCATED WITHIN THE MAXIMUM STREET |
| | FRONTAGE SETBACK. VARIANCE/WAIVER REQUEST WILL BE |
| | REQUIRED FOR THE HEIGHT, AS WELL AS FOR THE FENCE |
| | LOCATION SHOULD IT REMAIN CHAIN-LINK WITHIN FRONTAGE |
| | MAXIMUM SETBACK. |
| | |
| | 12. TO CLARIFY, SHEET A1.1 IS PRIMARILY AN INTERIOR |
| | RENOVATION WITH THE REMOVAL OF THE INTERNAL |
| | GROUND-LEVEL PARKING WITH NEW CLASSROOMS AND SCHOOL |
| | FACILITIES? |
| | |
| | 13. PLEASE PROVIDE STREETSCAPE AND LANDSCAPE DETAILS, |
| | SHOWING COMPLIANCE PER SEC. 94-113. |
| | |
| | 14. IS THE NEW MULTI-PURPOSE FIELD ARTIFICIAL TURF? |
| | |
| | 15. FOR FUTURE RESUBMITTALS, PLEASE PROVIDE A CLOUDED |
| | COPY OF THE CHANGED ITEMS/ADDRESSED COMMENTS. |
| | |
| | REGARDING THE TEXT AMENDMENT TO EXPAND THE PD BOUNDARY, |
| | STAFF WILL MAKE MINOR LANGUAGE ADJUSTMENTS OR |
| | CORRECTIONS AND DISCUSS FURTHER WITH APPLICANT PRIOR TO |
| | BRINGING FORWARD. |
| | |
| | CHRIS KIMMERLY, AICP |
| | URBAN DESIGN PLANNER |
| | 822.1426 [email protected] |
| |
Print |
