knrios Sep 17 2024 at 4:55PM on page 71 No; must be 14-5.6 and equivalent to current code subsections. Just change the verbiage, not the section... replies
knrios Sep 17 2024 at 4:54PM on page 71 Required to keep the numbering the same as the current code; There are hundreds of current documents that reference the current code. A re-write that was suppose to fix minor typos and simplify the verbiage should not have changed the sections/subsection numbering. What is the purpose to that?... Codes under our Terrain Management team might differ with other departments with how items are referenced to in plans/documents. The code is our day-to-day reference; required to keep the same numbering as the current code. This type of re-write is very incorrect. I have not seen such a huge difference when reviewing national and international standards and regulation updates. A gap-analysis will be difficult to complete. replies
knrios Sep 17 2024 at 4:47PM on page 71 Is there a red-line version to review? This code GREATLY varies from the current code. It is not fixing "typos" and making the code "simpler to read". There is a great deal of consolidation that does not make sense and misses specific information from the current code. It is best to include one of the staff members who uses the code on a day-to-day basis for this type of re-write. Especially, if a red-line version was not going to be provided. A red-line version is standard and should have been done here; the draft missed specific and important information. There are minor details, but very important to our day to day work. This is only in the escarpment sections which I am reviewing - but I am positive it is all over the code. replies
knrios Sep 17 2024 at 4:42PM on page 80 was... landscape architect "and architect" approved to be removed? replies
knrios Sep 16 2024 at 5:53PM on page 79 include a note that says that this disturbed area calculation differs from the zoning calculation. replies
knrios Sep 16 2024 at 5:42PM on page 77 also, "All exterior window treatments exclusive of window trim shall comply with restrictions stated above for roof colors" this was removed from the original code. replies
knrios Sep 16 2024 at 5:42PM on page 77 also, this is windows, which can be a skylight, but is applicable to all windows; idt it should be under "roofs" replies
knrios Sep 16 2024 at 5:41PM on page 77 incorrect. what is required is the Reflectance to be less than 40%, not the heat gain coefficient. SHGC considers the total heat gain from solar radiation passing through a surface, while reflectance only measures the portion that is reflected back. We are concerned with the Visible Light Reflectance (VLR); which should be less than 40%. The relation between VLR and VLT is: 1 – VLT = VLR Visible Light Reflectance (VLR) total visible light that is reflected by a window/glass (glazing); must be less than 40%. Visible Light Transmission (VLT) total visible light that passes through a window/glass (glazing); to be greater than 60%. replies
knrios Sep 16 2024 at 5:37PM on page 77 Please reword, suggested rewording is confusing. Original: "Metal roofs shall be of a nonreflective, nonglossy material that is muted in color and matches the earth tones or darker or vegetation colors characteristic of the site, as approved by the planning and land use department. " replies
knrios Sep 16 2024 at 5:33PM on page 76 The foothills does not necessary mean that there are no 30% slopes; this may cause confusion. would be best to remove the slope percentage here and only state the subdistricts (ridgetop and foothills) replies
knrios Sep 16 2024 at 5:33PM on page 76 The foothills does not necessary mean that there are no 30% slopes; this may cause confusion. would be best to remove the slope percentage here and only state the subdistricts (ridgetop and foothills) replies
knrios Sep 16 2024 at 5:32PM on page 76 Structures cannot be build on 30% slopes. This should be changed to 20-29.99% or identify that the structure on this illustration is build on 0-29.99 % slopes. replies
knrios Sep 16 2024 at 5:30PM on page 10 +The submittal requirements are specific to the Escarpment submittals, which vary for other submittals. These should not be moved; replies
knrios Sep 16 2024 at 5:29PM on page 87 These conditions for variance are only applicable to Escarpment. Will relocating them to a different are in the code call out that these are the conditions for Escarpment Variance? replies
knrios Sep 16 2024 at 5:26PM on page 86 Was it agreed upon to remove the requirement of posting the property for Escarpment? (5) For any development requiring a permit in the escarpment overlay district, the property shall be posted by the applicant with a public notice poster obtained from city staff. Such poster shall be prominently displayed, visible from a public street , and securely placed on the property from the time that an application for a permit is submitted to the issuance of the permit . The poster shall indicate the nature of the request, identify the applicant , the property affected and the phone number for the city staff contact. The public may review the application for permit in the planning and land use department. The poster shall be removed when the building permit is posted. Failure to do so may result in the city removing the sign at the applicant's expense. A civil fee of fifty dollars ($50.00) will be charged. (Ord. No. 2007-45 § 30; Ord. #2020-22 , § 16) replies
knrios Sep 16 2024 at 5:23PM on page 86 THis can move to number 3. above. Make this section into: Preapplication Meeting with staff required. replies
knrios Sep 16 2024 at 5:18PM on page 75 "..decreases the.." Keep similar wording as original code and rest of this section. replies
knrios Sep 16 2024 at 5:12PM on page 75 original code: (c) For lots subdivided or resubdivided on or before February 26, 1992, with a buildable site in the foothills subdistrict, the structure shall be designed and built as far from the viewline as possible in the foothills district. However, staff may upon request of an applicant : (i) Approve an alternate siting in the foothills subdistrict if such siting of the structure will decrease the visual impact beyond that which would exist if the structure were to be sited in the foothills district as far from the viewline as possible; or (ii) Approve an alternate siting in the ridgetop district if such siting of the structure will decrease the visual impact beyond that which would exist if the structure were to be sited in the foothills district as far from the viewline as possible. replies
knrios Sep 16 2024 at 4:56PM on page 74 "In all cases the buildable site shall comply with the following: (a) Subsection (D)(1) above; and (b) The definition of buildable site as set forth in Article 14-12 of this chapter." This was removed and should stay; otherwise, how would staff know what sections are required to comply with. replies
knrios Sep 16 2024 at 4:52PM on page 74 " For all lots subdivided or resubdivided after February 26, 1992, development in the ridgetop subdistrict of the escarpment overlay district, other than driveway access and utilities, is prohibited. " ..(D)(1) This should stay unless it was agreed that no driveway access and utilities are allowed on the ridgetop. replies
knrios Sep 16 2024 at 4:45PM on page 68 also, not sure what you mean by III and IV? That is not on the code, nor in this draft. replies
knrios Sep 13 2024 at 5:27PM on page 86 Addressed above, please see comment. Wording suggested must be changed if these two sections are being consolidated. replies
knrios Sep 13 2024 at 5:26PM on page 86 To consolidate, please reword to... shall be shown on "the plat and on the" plans. Section 2 requires the information on the PLAT. Sections 3 requires the information on the PLANS. Plat and plans are not the same. replies
knrios Sep 13 2024 at 5:20PM on page 85 Relocating the submittal requirements will cause confusion. This section is greatly referred to when speaking with applicants on what plans and items on the plans are required to be submitted. replies
knrios Sep 13 2024 at 5:17PM on page 82 This is incorrect. The height of the screening trees require to be "half the height of the building". If the building is 20 ft in height, the tree requires to be at minimum 10 ft in height. replies
knrios Sep 13 2024 at 5:16PM on page 80 No, the height of the trees are supposed to be "at a minimum of half the height of the building". The building height can vary. replies
knrios Sep 13 2024 at 5:11PM on page 74 Modifications to the buildable site, i.e. building envelope. This is typically done during pre-submittal review, not at a later stage during building application review. Applicant has to abide by the code, even if they do not request the change, if the code doesn't allow something, i.e. not building on 30% slopes, not building on drainage easements, etc., then the modification will have to be made or it will not be approved. replies
knrios Sep 13 2024 at 4:58PM on page 71 Development is prohibited in the ridgetop. Keep this part of the code in exchange to what was proposed: ...by limiting development that is highly visible on or about the ridgetop areas of the foothills. replies
knrios Sep 13 2024 at 4:48PM on page 71 These items were under "Purpose and Intent" in Ch. 14. A. could be "Purpose and Intent" instead of "Purpose", include B1-7 under A, and remove section B. replies
knrios Sep 13 2024 at 4:44PM on page 71 Question Is there a reason the Ord. No. were completely removed? replies
knrios Sep 13 2024 at 4:38PM on page 71 Should be "Escarpment Overlay District", and used throughout as such. replies
Dee Beingessner Sep 11 2024 at 1:23PM on page 83 We do have a list but it is currently not official. I don't think we will have any changes to it and can make it official. replies
Dee Beingessner Sep 11 2024 at 11:21AM on page 83 No, the approval would be given by Land Use based on whether conditions are favorable for the survival of pinons. replies
Dee Beingessner Sep 11 2024 at 11:03AM on page 78 The tilted plane is not a roof style but an imaginary line. replies
Dee Beingessner Sep 11 2024 at 10:31AM on page 75 This doesn't make sense. The view line doesn't really apply to the Ridgetop. Everything in the ridgetop is supposed to be the maximum view and we don't site things within the ridgetop as far from the view line as possible. Siting far away from the view line only applies in the foothills. Also it really should apply even outside of the foothills because there are odd cases where there is ridgetop but no foothills surrounding it. If the property contains any ridgetop, they should still site the home as far from the view line as possible. replies
Dee Beingessner Sep 11 2024 at 10:27AM on page 75 The old code says they can have an alternate site inside the foothills subdivision that is closer to the view line but still within the foothills and this has been removed from this section. The title says "buildable site outside the Ridgetop" but doesn't have this allowance and then proceeds to talk about a buildable site inside the ridgetop with an alternate means of compliance. Something has been missed in this rewrite and needs to be added back. replies
bubble to view comments.
Loading Glossary…
Comments
Close