Glen Irani, Architect

advertisement
Glen Irani Architects
410 Sherman Canal
Venice
California
90291
ph:
310 890 5635
email:
girani@glenirani.com
Re: 601 Ocean Front Walk – Project Synopsis and Drawing Guide
Project Synopsis: This is a 28,782 SF 3 story commercial mixed use project
with 2.5 levels of subterranean parking on a consolidated lot of 19,195SF at
601 Ocean Front Walk in Venice. The following is a guide to assist the plan
checkers in finding information to confirm major code compliance:
1.
Uses: Retail first floor, Office and Residential Joint Living and Work
Quarters (JLWQ) at second floor, Office at third floor, NO roof deck. JLWQ
is allowed per 12.13.2a27. The single residential unit provides Residential
component which avails us 1.5:1 FAR per VSP 11.B.3. Sacorro SmithYumul and Supervisor Chiang confirmed that only one residential unit is
required and it must have at minimum 800SF of floor area.
2.
Height – Building has a “Varied Roofline” of 2.25:12. Low point of roof (at
visible roof edge) is 33 ft above the midpoint at centerline of Ocean Front
Walk (see sections and elevations). The front roof edge is setback 5’ from
the front prop line, well in conformance with VSP sec 10.F.3a. See
elevations and sections. Roof does not exceed 35’ height limit for varied
rooflines and maintains a varied roof line throughout the roof surface. As
discussed in our meeting, the roof mounted mechanical HVAC will sit atop
the roofline rather than embed into the roof planes and sit on a level
mechanical well. Unfortunately, in keeping with the letter of the code,
HVAC units will sit higher in elevation and necessitate a higher, but code
conforming, mechanical screen which will mount on the roof ridgeline and
rise 5’ above that elevation to +40’.
3.
Roof Structures: VSP Sec 9.C.2 Note that numerous ultra-high efficiency
mechanical mini-split condensers must be located on the sloped roof and
do not exceed the height limit of 5’ above the roofline. They are screened
completely by a 5 ft. tall architectural screen mounted on the roof
ridgeline. Mechanical shafts and elevator shaft at the northeast corner and
south elevation top out at 5 feet above the roofline. A clerestory heat
chimney/ventilation shaft at the project centroid takes advantage of ocean
breezes for passive heat evacuation and decreased energy use for air
conditioning. It extends above the roofline by 5 feet in order to capture the
wind’s pressure.
4.
Roof Access Structure: located along the Speedway elevation far from
Sunset Ave or Ocean Front walk per VSP 9.C.1.c is required for
mechanical service to the HVAC and ventilation shaft. It contains less than
100SF of area per VSP 9.C.1.d and does not exceed 10’ above the “flat
roof height limit” of 30’ per VSP 9.C.1.a
5.
Parking: See Sheet A1 for parking data spreadsheets which conforms to
the required parking for this use as well as 43 spaces required by parking
Covenants (see application support material – Exhibit A). Owner elects to
pay in lieu fees for 50% of BIZ required parking (4 of 8 required).
6.
Lot Consolidation: No lot consolidation required since this parcel is
already held as one property by the “Covenant & Agreement to Hold
Property as One Parcel” – Exhibit B
7.
Setbacks: Please see site plan A1 for setback information.
a. Front: Ocean Front Walk Setback: 0’ at 1st floor
b. Sunset Ave: 6’ sideyard on corner lot
c. Speedway: 15’ rear yard incl. 1/2 of 20’ wide alley = 5’
d. South sideyard: 0’. Note that adjoining mixed used project is
setback 3’-4” from property line and is significantly taller than
this project.
e. Residential portion of project conforms to R3 residential
setbacks and unit enters off Sunset Ave.
8.
Existing Permit: See Exhibit ‘C’ – Currently Active CDP for mixed use
retail/food court to be amended by this proposed building. We note that
the currently permitted project was severely and needlessly heightrestricted to +25’. Note that the neighboring projects all enjoy heights far
greater than that, with the neighbor on the south clearly exceeding the
height limits of the current code. We see no reason that the City should
disapprove of this project based on height since it conforms to the VSP.
Download