Microfiche records prior to 2006 have not been completely digitized and may not be available yet on PRO. If you can not find what you are looking for please submit a records request.
Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: RESUBMITTAL
Permit Number - T06CM01912
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 05/24/2006 | DANIEL RUSCH | BUILDING-RESIDENTIAL | REVIEW | Approved | 1.alternate bwp @wic does require hold-down. 2. alternate bwp on two story require sheathing both sides. 3. LPI @great room worst case look over-spanned. 4. LPI doesn't produce 14" |
| 06/29/2006 | JASON GREEN | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: June 29, 2006 SUBJECT: New Single-Family Residence- Site Plan Review TO: Washburn Custom Builders LOCATION: 817 S Bill Martin Drive, T14S R13E Sec17, Ward 1 REVIEWERS: Jason Green, CFM ACTIVITY: T06CM01912 SUMMARY: Engineering Division of Development Services Department has received and reviewed the submitted site plan, Sheet 1-12. The site plan was initial reviewed for Floodplain and Erosion Hazard Management compliance and approved, however further review of the Hillside and Development Zone (HDZ) Overlay regulations show that additional information is required before final approval of the site plan. The site plan is not approved at this time. Please address the following comments: SITE PLAN COMMENTS: 1) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.23: Explain or revise the site plan to accurately reflect the existing topographic contours. It appears that the contour lines do not depict the 1998 PAG NAVD88 contours shown on Mapguide. 2) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A: The dimensions provided do not accurately scale all of the lengths that are called out on the site plan. 3) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.5: Revise the data table on the site plan to show: a) the accurate square footage of Lot 23, as shown on the recorded subdivision plat; b) the total square footage of the proposed grading area; and c) the revised percentage of grading area to total lot area. 4) Land Use Code Article II Division 8 (LUC) Sec.2.8.1.10.A.1: After revising the contour delineations, and adding any missing contour lines, provide the average cross slope (A.C.S.) calculation. 5) DS Sec.2-12.2.3.A: Address the following proposed disturbed area: a) Clarify and label the total proposed disturbed area. Grading may occur within the buildable area and access to the buildable area. Delineated building envelope and the limits of grading are confusing, clarify the entire proposed disturbed limits; b) Label any areas of future disturbance (i.e. future pool area or gazebo); c) Show a calculation for the disturbed area in square feet and as a percentage of total lot area; d) Dimension minimum distances from the platted private drainage easement, as shown on the plat for Canyon View, Book 47 Page 32, to the proposed disturbed area. e) LUC Sec.2.8.1.6.A.2.a.2: The lot must comply with Columns A and D of Table 2.8.1-I. The amount of grading permitted is indicated in Column D of Table 2.8.1. 6) LUC Sec.2.8.1.7.C: Designate any Natural Areas on the lot to be excluded from development. 7) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.20: Show all data, including drainage easement, with dimensions and setbacks as shown on the Final Plat for Canyon View (Book 47, Page 32). GENERAL COMMENTS: Please provide a revised site plan and the A.C.S. calculations for HDZ review that address the comments provided above. Include a comprehensive response letter addressing in detail responses to all of the above comments. Further comments may be generated upon resubmittal of the site plan. Please enclose "redlines" with the resubmittal package for reference. For any questions or to schedule a meeting, call me at 791-5550, extension 1189. Jason Green, CFM Senior Engineer Associate Engineering Division Development Services |
| 06/29/2006 | HEATHER THRALL | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | The height for the residence, if measured as shown on the site plan is 21' 3 from a flat grade. It is not a flat grade on the contour map, it is a drop of up to 10 feet, which would then put this residence over the height limit of 25' in the R-1 RCP zone. Please see engineering comments and revise the site plan accordingly. Zoning will review this at the counter once all engineering comments are addressed. Heather Thrall (This information was provided to the applicant at the original review date and denial on April 4, 2006. The supervisor, Patricia Gehlen, and reviewer Heather Thrall, spoke with the applicant about the height issue at that time with relation to design grade. The plan was taken into the review system for re-review of engineering and zoning to ensure slope information was provided.) |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 07/05/2006 | GBONILL1 | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 07/05/2006 | SUE REEVES | REJECT SHELF | Completed |