Zoning Review
Review No:5
, ALUS DESCRIPTION := ZONING REVIEW Employee Init = MJCEmployee Init = MJC Reviewer information : Employee Name = KEVIN FITZPATRICK Employee ID =KFITZPATRICKEmployee Init = MJC Reviewer information : Employee Name = TIM NYUGEN Employee ID =TNYUGEN Reviewer information : Employee Name = RICHARD VAN KLEECK Employee ID =RVAN KLEECKEmployee Init = MJCEmployee Init = MJC Reviewer information : Employee Name = ANDREA KOCH Employee ID =AKOCHEmployee Init = MJC Reviewer information : Employee Name = TOM POHLE Employee ID =TPOHLEEmployee Init = MJC FIRST REVIEW 12/7/05 ______________ 1. The roof scales at more than 27 feet above finish grade on the south elevation. Per the "Building Height Application Requirements" sent under separate cover, a structure that scales at greater than 26 feet with two feet or more of slope requires a surveyed roof plan. Please submit a Surveyed Roof Plan in conformance with the guidelines,with a Roof Plan signed by an engineer, architect or licensed surveyor. Alternatively, reduce height to 26 feet or less. 2. The north elevation disagrees with the roof plan. Please clarify. 3. Also denied pending approval by Environmental Planning and Building. 4. Please provide copy of recorded Acknowlegement of Adjacent Lands Zoned for Timber Harvesting. I believe you were given a copy of the Declaration at the time you made the application. Please do not submit revisions prior to receipt of formal Deficiency letter. SECOND REVEIW 8/7/07 ___________ 5. Comment #1 above not addressed. Please provide surveyed roof plan in accordance with the guidelines provided earlier. 6. Please revise all sections and elevations to be consistent with the grading plan proposed on page C-2. For example, the floor elevations called out on page 1A are 620' and 611' whereas the grading plan indicates finish floor elevations at 621' and 612', respectively. The finish FLOOR (corex 1/16) at the garage on the south elevation scales at 609.5', and on the section on 1A at 610.75, but is stated at 612 on the grading plan. It is either 609' or 607' on the section on page 11. Also, the finish grade indicated at the garage on the south elevation and the section on page 11 is 6 inches lower than the (p) grade in 1-A. These kinds of inconsistencies make it impossible to evaluate the height of the structure. Plans cannot be approved until all sheets are mutually consistent. 7. Acknowlegement of Timber lands enclosed. 8. Also denied pending approval by Environmental Planning and Building. THIRD REVIEW 1/16/08 ____________ 9. Thank you for providing surveyed roof plan and revising elevations, etc. The surveyed roof plan disagrees w/ elevations & x-sections. For example, at the point on the south elevation that is described on the surveyed roof plan at 25.6 feet, the south elevation view calls out 26.5 feet and scales at 27 feet; it scales at 27.5 feet in the A-A section view and, if the B-B section is projected to the ridge (assuming that the location of the section shown in the roof plan is accurate), 28 feet 11 inches in that section. The dwelling is proposed in the viewshed of a scenic highway and will not be approved until it meets at least the same standard that all plans, even in nonsensitive locations, must meet: plans must be internally consistent and measurable. Why was a finish grade of 612.8 used in the surveyed roof plan, when the finish grade under the slab is going to be about 611.5? Please establish a finish grade elevation under the garage slab, call it out, and use it consistently on every single page where it is a factor -- including all elevations, sections, sections created to measure height and surveyed roof plan. 10. Surveyed roof plan must be drawn to scale and the scale stated on the plan. The edge of roof line shall be depicted clearly and labeled. Roof height elevations in the surveyed roof plan shall be taken at the wall and at deck posts. The wall and posts beneath shall be depicted clearly and labeled. 11. Thank you for providing the TP acknowlegement. FOURTH REVIEW 6/13/08 ____________ 12. The garage/bonus rm slab finished floor elevation of 612 means that the finish grade pad, is 611.5. Please correct the elevations, sections, and surveyed roof plan plan to reflect this finish grade elevation. Please adjust the two affected roof height calculations on the surveyed roof plan accordingly, as the finish grade is used to calculate height at exterior walls at these locations at either end of the family room. The reviewing planner cannot redline corrections on signed surveyed roof plans. 13. Please revise Section AA on page 11 to state ALL of the vertical dimensions for each floor, beginning with the slab, then 1st floor to the ceiling of first floor, then thickness of second floor, then second floor to top plate, then top plate to top of sheathing above top plate, then top of sheathing at top plate to top of sheathing at peak. The stated height of the structure will be equal to the sum of the stated dimensions. Please make sure the height calculations in the surveyed roof plan agree with the dimensions that you provide section AA, again based on the finish grade height of 611.5 feet. It appears that the greatest height of the house is close to 27 feet.
Review No:4
 , ALUS DESCRIPTION := ZONING REVIEW Employee Init = MJCEmployee Init = MJC Reviewer information : Employee Name = KEVIN FITZPATRICK Employee ID =KFITZPATRICKEmployee Init = MJC Reviewer information : Employee Name = TIM NYUGEN Employee ID =TNYUGEN Reviewer information : Employee Name = RICHARD VAN KLEECK Employee ID =RVAN KLEECKEmployee Init = MJCEmployee Init = MJC Reviewer information : Employee Name = ANDREA KOCH Employee ID =AKOCHEmployee Init = MJC Reviewer information : Employee Name = TOM POHLE Employee ID =TPOHLEEmployee Init = MJC NO PROJECT REVIEW DESCRIPTION AVAILABLE
Review No:3
 , ALUS DESCRIPTION := ZONING REVIEW Employee Init = MJCEmployee Init = MJC Reviewer information : Employee Name = KEVIN FITZPATRICK Employee ID =KFITZPATRICKEmployee Init = MJC Reviewer information : Employee Name = TIM NYUGEN Employee ID =TNYUGEN Reviewer information : Employee Name = RICHARD VAN KLEECK Employee ID =RVAN KLEECKEmployee Init = MJCEmployee Init = MJC Reviewer information : Employee Name = ANDREA KOCH Employee ID =AKOCHEmployee Init = MJC Reviewer information : Employee Name = TOM POHLE Employee ID =TPOHLEEmployee Init = MJCEmployee Init = MJC NO PROJECT REVIEW DESCRIPTION AVAILABLE
Review No:2
 , ALUS DESCRIPTION := ZONING REVIEW Employee Init = MJCEmployee Init = MJC Reviewer information : Employee Name = KEVIN FITZPATRICK Employee ID =KFITZPATRICKEmployee Init = MJC Reviewer information : Employee Name = TIM NYUGEN Employee ID =TNYUGEN Reviewer information : Employee Name = RICHARD VAN KLEECK Employee ID =RVAN KLEECKEmployee Init = MJCEmployee Init = MJC Reviewer information : Employee Name = ANDREA KOCH Employee ID =AKOCHEmployee Init = MJC Reviewer information : Employee Name = TOM POHLE Employee ID =TPOHLEEmployee Init = MJCEmployee Init = MJC NO PROJECT REVIEW DESCRIPTION AVAILABLE
Review No:1
 Employee Record is no longer valid + employeeid = SHOLT, ALUS DESCRIPTION := ZONING REVIEW Employee Init = MJCEmployee Init = MJC Reviewer information : Employee Name = KEVIN FITZPATRICK Employee ID =KFITZPATRICKEmployee Init = MJC Reviewer information : Employee Name = TIM NYUGEN Employee ID =TNYUGEN Reviewer information : Employee Name = RICHARD VAN KLEECK Employee ID =RVAN KLEECKEmployee Init = MJCEmployee Init = MJC Reviewer information : Employee Name = ANDREA KOCH Employee ID =AKOCHEmployee Init = MJC Reviewer information : Employee Name = TOM POHLE Employee ID =TPOHLEEmployee Init = MJCEmployee Init = MJC NO PROJECT REVIEW DESCRIPTION AVAILABLE