Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: REVISION - SITE
Permit Number - T98CM02096
Review Name: REVISION - SITE
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 09/16/2008 | MSTPAUL1 | FIRE | REVIEW | Needs Review | |
| 09/16/2008 | MICHAEL ST. PAUL | NPPO | REVIEW | Needs Review | |
| 09/16/2008 | MICHAEL ST. PAUL | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Needs Review | |
| 09/16/2008 | MICHAEL ST. PAUL | ZONING HC SITE | REVIEW | Needs Review | |
| 09/16/2008 | MICHAEL ST. PAUL | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | CDRC TRANSMITTAL FROM: Michael St.Paul: Planning Technician PROJECT: T98CM02096 & T08CM03020 441 West Dakota Street Multi-family (4 plex) TRANSMITTAL: September 16, 2008 COMMENTS: The following comments are for the purpose of applying for a variance before the Board of Adjustment. The following comments are related to revisions of an approved site plan (T98CM02096) and an approved Lot Development Option (LDO-01-19). Changes on site and subsequent revisions to the plans have invalidated both the site plan and the LDO as approved. An additional level is now being proposed to the roof height (T08CM03020). The DDO process is not applicable to building heights above the limits of the Zone for that use. A fully revised site plan shall be required meeting all the requirements in Development Standards 2-02 for final approval. These comments are for the variance only and do not constitute a full review or a revised site plan approval. 1) This review is for a multi-family dwelling in the O-3 zone (LUC Section 2.4.3.D.1). The Development Designator is "L" (LUC Section 3.2.3.1.C) and the Perimeter Yard Indicator is BB (LUC Section 3.2.6.4). 2) The minimum lot size is five thousand (5000) square feet. The maximum lot coverage is seventy-five percent (75%) and the maximum building height is twenty-five (25) feet (LUC Section 3.2.3.1.C). The proposed building height is thirty-two (32) feet (hence the variance process). (There is no information relative to lot coverage on these plans.) 3) The minimum setback to both the east and west property line equals the height of each wall measured from design grade to highest point of each exterior wall facing the property line. A) The required perimeter yard setback for both the east and west setbacks for the ground floor is ten feet seven inches (10'-7"). Five feet two inches and a half (5'-2 ½") is proposed for the west perimeter yard setback and six feet two and a half inches (6'-2 ½") is proposed for the east perimeter yard setback. B) The required setback for both the east and west perimeter yard setbacks for the second floor or level is twenty one feet four inches (21'-4"). Nineteen feet two inches and a half inches (19'-2 ½") is proposed for the east perimeter yard setback and eighteen feet two and a half inches (18"-2 ½") is proposed for the west perimeter yard setback. C) If a variance is granted for the height, the required perimeter yard setback for both the east and west perimeter yard setbacks for the third floor or level is thirty-two feet (32'-0"). Twenty-two feet nine and a half inches (22'-9 ½") is proposed for the west perimeter yard setback and twenty-three feet nine and a half inches (23'-9 ½") is proposed for the east perimeter yard setback. 4) If a variance is granted for the height, the minimum perimeter yard setback to south property line equals the greater of ten feet or three quarters the height (10' or ¾ height) of the exterior wall facing the south property line. The required setback from the third floor exterior wall equals twenty-four feet (24') and twenty-one feet and six inches (21'-6") is proposed. 5) Please be aware that the setback distance is measured from each wall to the property line. The roof overhang encroaches into the required perimeter yard setback and should be included in the variance request Please be aware that additional comments may be necessary or forthcoming relative to conditions of approval or denial by the Board of Adjustment, changes to the site or building plans, or due to review of the revised site plan. |
| 09/16/2008 | MICHAEL ST. PAUL | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Needs Review | |
| 09/16/2008 | MSTPAUL1 | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Needs Review |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 09/18/2008 | GERARDO BONILLA | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 09/18/2008 | SUE REEVES | REJECT SHELF | Completed |