| Date |
Text |
| 2023-06-28 13:17:37 | ZONING AND PLANNING |
| | PROJECT: 500 CLEARWATER PARK RD (Z23030025) |
| | DATE: JUNE 28, 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 |
| | 1. TPS LETTER WILL NEED TO BE UPDATED TO REFLECT THE |
| | ACCURATE NUMBER OF UNITS. NOTE, PROJECT FACT SHEET |
| | STATES TOTAL OF 222 UNITS VS TPS LETTER STATES 231 |
| | UNITS. |
| | 2. PENDING TO RECEIVED SCAD AND FAA LETTERS. |
| | 3. PLEASE UPDATE RENDERINGS TO MATCH ACCURATE DESIGN |
| | INCLUDING PROPOSED LANDSCAPE. |
| | |
| | |
| | ZONING DIAGRAMS AND TABLES |
| | 1. PLEASE ADD THE ENTRY/EXIT COVERED AREA OF YOUR |
| | PARKING TO YOUR BUILDING FOOTPRINT CALCULATIONS. |
| | |
| | 2. PLEASE NOTE, YOUR 6TH FLOOR IS NOT EXACTLY THE SAME |
| | AS YOUR 3RD TO 5TH LEVELS, AS THEY INCLUDE A MECHANICAL |
| | AREA FRONTING THE STREET. PLEASE ADD THE 6TH LEVEL |
| | FLOOR PLAN ON ITS OWN TO YOUR FOOTPRINT (G-1.4 SHEET) |
| | AND FAR (G1-5 SHEET) DIAGRAMS. IT LOOKS LIKE THE AREAS |
| | ARE CORRECT ON YOUR TABLES AND CALCULATIONS, BUT BY |
| | PROVIDING THE DIAGRAM YOU WILL BE ABLE TO SHOW HOW THE |
| | 6TH LEVEL MEETS IS THE REQUIREMENT. |
| | |
| | 3. FOR ARCHITECTURAL TREATMENT PROVIDED TO SCREEN |
| | NON-ACTIVE USES, FACADE ELEVATIONS NEED TO BE |
| | INTEGRATED WITH THE DESIGN OF ADJACENT ACTIVE USE |
| | FACADE AS PER SEC. 94-109, 'ARCHITECTURAL TREATMENT' |
| | DEFINITION. THERE ARE TWO CLEAR VOLUMES |
| | (PARKING/NON-ACTIVE USE AND TOWER) SHOWING DIFFERENT |
| | DESIGN, BOTH FACADE ELEVATIONS WILL NEED TO BE BETTER |
| | INTEGRATED. IN ADDITION, PLEASE PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES |
| | TO BREAK THE MASSING OF BOTH VOLUMES, ESPECIALLY THE |
| | 6TH AND 7TH FLOORS WHERE CONDITIONAL SETBACKS SHOULD |
| | APPLY AS THE INTENT IS TO HAVE ACTIVE USE FRONTING THE |
| | STREET. EXPLORE DIFFERENT ALTERNATIVES FOR MATERIALS |
| | USED AS ARCHITECTURAL TREATMENT TO HELP BREAK THE |
| | MASSING. AND FOR THE TOWER, EXPLORE ALTERNATIVES TO |
| | HELP BREAK THE MASSING AND REPETITION OF THE VOLUME. |
| | |
| | 4. ACTIVE USE LINER DEPTH ON GROUND FLOOR REQUIRED IS |
| | 25', SP-1 SHOWS A PROVIDED DEPTH OF 54' BUT IT IS NOT |
| | CLEAR WHERE THAT DIMENSION CAME FROM. PLEASE REFENCE A |
| | PLAN WHERE THIS DIMENSION IS SHOWN. NOTE ON FLOORPLANS |
| | IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS LESS THAN 54'. |
| | |
| | 5. SHEET G-1.6 SHOWS TABLE (WEST) TWICE AND DOES NOT |
| | INCLUDE NORTH FACADE. PLEASE REVISE. NOTE THE GROUND |
| | FLOOR FACADE FACING THE WESTSIDE DOES HAVE TRANSPARENCY |
| | AND FENESTRATION REQUIREMENTS THAT YOU SHOW YOU MEET, |
| | AND TABLE SAYS, 'NOT APPLICABLE'. PLEASE REVISE. |
| | |
| | 6. PLEASE PROVIDE THE AREA PERCENTAGE OF THE NORTH |
| | ELEVATION WITH STUCCO SCORING ABSENT FROM FENESTRATION |
| | TO MAKE SURE IT DOES COMPLY WITH BLANK WALL |
| | REQUIREMENTS AS PER SEC. 94-109, 'BLANK WALL' |
| | DEFINITION. |
| | |
| | 7. PLEASE NOT, FAUX TREATMENTS, SUCH AS THE SYNTHETIC |
| | GREEN WALL TREATMENT IS NOT CONSIDERED AN ARCHITECTURAL |
| | TREATMENT, PLEASE REVISE ELEVATIONS AND CONSIDER ADDING |
| | A LIVING GREEN WALL AS DEFINED IN SEC. 94-109. |
| | |
| | 8. MINOR EDIT, ON SP-1, ROW 'FOOTPRINT LENGTH', |
| | 'MAXIMUM' DOES NOT SHOW THE REQUIRED. |
| | |
| | 9. PLEASE CLARIFY IF THERE IS ANY VEGETATION OR |
| | FURNITURE PROPOSED UNDERNEATH THE 'COVERED LOGGIA'. |
| | |
| | 10. MINOR EDIT, ON SP-1, TITLE 'MINIMUM ACTIVE USE' IS |
| | MISSING. |
| | |
| | 11. MINOR EDIT, PLEASE REFERENCE THE CORRECT PLAN WHICH |
| | IS G-1.6 ON SP-1 SHEET IN THE TABLE, TRANSPARENCY ROW. |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | LANDSCAPE & STREETSCAPE |
| | |
| | 1. IN COORDINATION WITH THE CITY, PLEASE REEVALUATE IF |
| | DRAINAGE LINE, CONFLICTING WITH SHADE STREET TREES, CAN |
| | BE RELOCATED TO ALLOW THE PLANTING OF TREES. |
| | |
| | 2. THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT DOES NOT MEET THE REQUIRED |
| | PLANTING BEDS/LANDSCAPE STRIPS ADJACENT TO THE STREET |
| | AS A DROP OFF AREA HAS BEEN PROPOSED. PLEASE REEVALUATE |
| | DROP-OFF AREA TO BE INCLUDED INSIDE THE PROPERTY. IN |
| | ADDITION, PLEASE PROPOSE ANOTHER ALTERNATIVE FOR THE |
| | BIKE SHARE STATION TO NOT CONFLICT WITH LANDSCAPE |
| | TRIPS. |
| | |
| | 3. THE PROPOSED ARTWORK CONFLICTS WITH THE VISIBILITY |
| | TRIANGLES AND THERE IS A STOP SIGN IN THE ARTWORK AREA. |
| | PLEASE FIND A DIFFERENT LOCATION FOR THE ARTWORK AND |
| | ADD VISIBILITY TRIANGLES TO SITE PLAN. SEE SEC. 94-113 |
| | (C) FOR MORE INFO ABOUT VISIBILITY TRIANGLES. |
| | |
| | 4. PLEASE MAKE SURE THAT ANY METERS OR OTHER EQUIPMENT |
| | DOES NOT CONFLICT WITH PROPOSED LANDSCAPE. SHEET C-08 |
| | SHOWS GROUND METERS ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER THAT ARE |
| | NOT SHOWN ON LANDSCAPE PLANS OR ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS. |
| | OUTDOOR MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT SHALL BE SCREEN AS PER |
| | SEC. 94-315 (A) AND SHOULD NOT CONFLICT WITH REQUIRED |
| | LANDSCAPING. |
| | |
| | 5. THERE SEEMS TO BE A GATE NOTED AS 'ACCESS TO |
| | MONTECITO RESIDENTS', PLEASE CLARIFY IF THERE IS A |
| | FENCE OR BARRIER ON THE PROPERTY LINE SURROUNDING THE |
| | SITE. IF FENCES ARE PROPOSED, PLEASE REVIEW DEFINITION |
| | OF FENCE ON SEC. 94-109. |
| | |
| | 6. ON SHEET LP-2, DOG FENCE DETAIL DOES NOT SPECIFY THE |
| | TYPE OF FENCE AND HEIGHT, PLEASE ADD DETAILS, AND MAKE |
| | SURE MEET REQUIREMENTS ON SEC. 94-109. |
| | |
| | 7. PLEASE CLARIFY IF YOU ARE PROPOSING LANDSCAPING |
| | ADJACENT TO THE STREET ON THE NORTH SIDE OF YOUR |
| | PROPERTY. SEE LP-2 SHEET. |
| | |
| | 8. PLEASE NOTE, PER SEC. 94-113, THE REQUIREMENT IS TO |
| | ILLUMINATE ENTRANCES AND ADJACENT SIDEWALKS AT A |
| | MINIMUM OF 0.6 FOOTCANDLES, THE SITE PLAN ??? |
| | PHOTOMETRICS SHOWS ON THE SIDEWALK LESS THAN 0.6FC. |
| | PLEASE REVISE. IN ADDITION, MINOR EDIT, THIS SHEET DOES |
| | NOT HAVE SHEET #. |
| | |
| | 9. PLEASE MAKE SURE THAT THE BIKE RACK ON THE FRONT OF |
| | THE BUILDING IS SHOWN ON GROUND FLOOR PLANS, LANDSCAPE |
| | PLANS, AND CIVIL PLANS. AND, THAT LOCATION ALLOWS FOR A |
| | BICYCLE TO BE LOCKED ON BOTH SIDES OF THE RACK. MINOR |
| | EDIT ON SHEET A-1.1, REVISE LABEL OF BIKE RACK SHARE |
| | STATION TO ONLY BIKE RACK. |
| | |
| | 10. PLEASE PROPOSED SHADE TREES, AT LEAST IN 30-FOOT |
| | INTERVALS, ALONG THE LANDSCAPE BUFFER AROUND THE |
| | PERIMETER OF THE PROPERTY TO HELP WITH BREAKING THE |
| | VIEW OF THE PARKING STRUCTURE. |
| | |
| | |
| | PARKING |
| | |
| | 1. PLEASE CLARIFY WHY ON THE SP-1 SHEET A LABEL CALLS |
| | OUT A ???TEMPORARY TRASH PICK-UP??? ON DROP-FF AREA. |
| | |
| | 2. BECAUSE THE AMOUNT OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS WAS REDUCED, |
| | PLEASE REVISE YOUR CAR-SHARE STATION CALCULATIONS. AS |
| | PER SEC. 94-106 (8)(A), A PROJECT WITH RESIDENTIAL |
| | MICRO-UNITS SHALL PROVIDE ON-SITE CAR-SHARE STATIONS ON |
| | A RATIO OF ONE PER EVERY 13 UNITS. THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF |
| | CAR-SHARE STATIONS MAY BE REDUCED BY ONE CAR-SHARE |
| | STATION PER EVERY 13 ON-SITE PARKING SPACES PROVIDED. |
| | THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT INCLUDES 106 MICRO-UNITS, |
| | WHICH MEANS THAT 8 CAR-SHARE STATIONS NEED TO BE |
| | PROVIDED. HOWEVER, CAR-SHARE STATIONS CAN BE REDUCE |
| | BASED ON PARKING SPACES PROVIDED FOR MICRO-UNITS (TOTAL |
| | OF 53 PARKING SPACES, 53/13=4), WHICH MEANS 4 CAR-SHARE |
| | STATIONS WILL NEED TO BE PROVIDED. |
| | |
| | 3. ONE BIKE-SHARE STATION IS REQUIRED ON SITE. PLANS |
| | SHOW THE LOCATION IS PROPOSED WHERE REQUIRED |
| | LANDSCAPING SHOULD BE, PLEASE EXPLORE AN ALTERNATIVE |
| | FOR LOCATION. |
| | |
| | 4. PLEASE CLARIFY IF 6TH LEVEL PARKING SPACES ON THE |
| | SOUTHWEST AREA ARE TANDEM PARKING. IF SO, PLEASE MAKE |
| | SURE TO REVIEW SEC. 94-111: FOR RESIDENTIAL USES, |
| | 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. |
| | |
| | 5. PLEASE NOTE FLOOR PLANS (SHEETS A-1.1 TO A-1.4) SHOW |
| | DIFFERENT AMOUNTS OF STANDARD AND COMPACT SPACES AND |
| | ADA SPACES COMPARED TO TABLE ON SHEET G-1.3. PLEASE |
| | REVIEW AND REVISE ACCORDINGLY. |
| | |
| | |
| | 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, WHICH IS $300. |
| | |
| | --END OF COMMENTS-- |
| | |
| |
Print |
