Laserfiche WebLink
4. More emphasis and detail should be provided to the ground floor entries to the <br /> upper floor residential units to make the entry more "celebrated." As proposed, the <br /> main entries to the upper units blend with the façade. <br /> Page 46, D1.a. (Residential Entries - Design Guidelines) <br /> Comments: Recessed entries have been incorporated into the elevations to identify <br /> entries. Please refer to sheet A2-3, A2-7, and A2-11 in Attachment 1, Exhibit B-1 <br /> and Attachment 2, Exhibit B-2. <br /> 5. The live/work units for Site 2 do not meet the minimum 50% requirement of building <br /> frontage along Gibraltar Drive. <br /> Page 12, Live/Work bullet point 2 (Retail and Live/Work Requirements) <br /> Comments: A request for an exception to this requirement will be requested. As <br /> proposed, the frontage on Gibraltar Drive has 28% live/work. <br /> 6. The live/work units on Site 1 (building H1) do not meet the minimum storefront <br /> depth of 40-feet. Furthermore, as proposed, it does not appear that the live/work <br /> units could later be converted to retail or service uses given the proposed depth. <br /> Page 47, D4.3 (Retail and Live/Work Storefronts - Development Standards) <br /> Comments: A request for an exception to this requirement will be requested. As <br /> proposed, the project has a minimum 30-foot depth for live/work. As discussed at <br /> the October 17, 2011 work session, the Planning Commission indicated that they <br /> could support this exception. <br /> 7. A well designed and/or decorative material base is desired at the display windows. <br /> As proposed, there is a combination of exterior plaster and vertical siding down to <br /> the ground plane, which do not meet the Guideline requirements. <br /> Page 47, D4.c. (Retail and Live/Work Storefronts - Design Guidelines) <br /> Comments: Concrete panels have been added to the elevation plans of Site 1 <br /> (Attachment 1, Exhibit B-1 sheet A6-3) and brick has been added to the elevations <br /> of Site 2 (Attachment 2, Exhibit B-2 sheets A2-11 and A6-0). <br /> Discussion Points <br /> A. Would the City Council and Planning Commission support the requested exceptions <br /> (items 1, 5, and 6 noted above) to the Hacienda TOD Standards and Guidelines if <br /> the project were to move forward as proposed? <br /> B. Does the City Council and Planning Commission find that items 2, 4, and 7 are <br /> consistent with the Hacienda TOD Standards and Guidelines? <br /> Page 10 of 15 <br />