HomeMy WebLinkAboutArchitectual Report.pdfWARREN L. PALMER, ARCHITECT 10 October 2013 Ken Roberts # 12 Mariposa Aspen Glen Lot GV7 Carbondale, Co. 81623 EMAIL: kroberts@holycross .com BOX 767 RE: Rake wall flashing details on
Aspen Glen project, permit #BLRE 2406. Dear Ken: BASALT, CO. 81621 As per our phone conversation yesterday, I stopped by the project to look at the rake wall flashing detail, where it
intersects with the fiberglass shingle roof. You had indicated that the Garfield County Building Department, upon inspection, found the detail as constructed, to be ' not to code.' The
2009 International Residential Code, section R90S .2.8.3, Sidewall Flashing, states that at the vertical sidewall, where interfacing with asphalt shingle, shall be step flashed with
minimum 4-in high x 4-in wide flashing. On your project, they used 6-in x 6-in straight flashing from bottom to ridge. It is my understanding, that if I find the constructed detail acceptable
and I'm willing to write a letter to this effect, Garfield County will waive tills requirement. I contacted a number of Contractors and Roofers, to get some input on this detail. It
is worth noting that previously, before this was a code issue, Contractors were split on how to do this detail. A lot of them felt that the straight flashing was better, because it lacked
the numerous seams required in the step flashing. Others felt the step flashing provided multiple layers of protection and was an improvement over the straight flashing. I don't pretend
to be a Contractor or a Roofer, but have been part of numerous discussions on this detail. (Not unlike the plastic pipe vs. copper pipe discussions) On your particular project, there
are a couple reasons I feel the straight flashing as constructed is acceptable, although still 'not to code.' I. The intersecting wall and roof arc short in length, in all conditions.
2. The intersecting roofs arc a very steep 12112 configuration. 3. The Contractor did use a larger 6 x 6 flashing. 4. All the horizontal -vertical joints have a Bituthene waterproofing
membrane, which is the real protection. I would find the detail, as constructed to be acceptable, though as noted ' not to code.' Please ive a call if you have questions. \J;;!en P Imer
Copies: Garfield County Building Dept., Ken Melby Construction