The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCorrespondenceDavid Argo From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Mark McLain < mark@confl uencearchitecture.com > Thursday, June 01, 20L7 12:02 PM David Argo 'JayDee Billingtorr' RE: Billington - Pinyon Mesa, Lot 1- Dave, Thanks for the clear explanation of how you calculate building height' This technique is different that the method I was using. Your calculation is more forgiving and I calculate that we are under by more than 12" now Mark From: David Argo [ma i lto:da rgo @ga rfield-co u nty.com] Sent: Thursday, June OL,2OL7 L1:26 AM To: mark@confluencearchitecture.com Cc: JayDee Billington <jdbcon@yahoo.com> Subject: Billington - Pinyon Mesa, Lot 1 Mark: Just wanted to let you know that today I reviewed the proposed changes to Jay Billington's new residence in Pinyon Mesa. Although Jay dropped off the revised plans on May 18, I was out of the office from May 22-29. As you know, these revisions address changes which resulted from encountering bedrock at a shallow depth during excavation, including moving the house upward by 24". We have approved these plan revisions, but I wanted to let you know that you may want to take a little closer look at the issue of building height. It appears as though the revised building height still complies with the 28' height restriction in Pinyon Mesa, but not with much room to spare. As a result, we have attached to the updated site plan a conditional requirement that an elevation survey be provided at framing inspection by a Colorado licensed surveyor. Just wanted to give you a head's-up that you may want to double-check your height calculations to confirm that your design meets the County's height definition. As you know, if there are any issues, it's best to address them sooner rather than later. For your information, l've enclosed a couple of attachments: o Garfield County's definition of "building height" and method of calculation. . Copy of redlined site plan with "average natural grade plane" calculations for Billington's revised building elevation height. Please let me know if you have any questions. Dave Argo Plans Examiner Gsrrteld Cuuttly Community Development Department 708 'th Street, Suite 407 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 David Argo From: Sent: To: Cc: Attachments: Subject: David Argo Thursday, June 01, 20!7 lL:26 AM 'mark@confluencearchitectu re.com' 'JayDee Billington' Billington - Pinyon Mesa, Lot l- Bldg Ht Calculation.pdf; Billington Site Plan,pdf Mark: Just wanted to let you know that today I reviewed the proposed changes to Jay Billington's new residence in Pinyon Mesa. Although Jay dropped off the revised plans on May 18, I was out of the office from May 22-29. As you know, these revisions address changes which resulted from encountering bedrock at a shallow depth during excavation, including moving the house upward by 24". We have approved these plan revisions, but I wanted to let you know that you may want to take a little closer look at the issue of building height. It appears as though the revised building height still complies with the 28' height restriction in Pinyon Mesa, but not with much room to spare. As a result, we have attached to the updated site plan a conditional requirement that an elevation survey be provided at framing inspection by a Colorado licensed surveyor. Just wanted to give you a head's-up that you may want to double-check your height calculations to confirm that your design meets the County's height definition. As you know, if there are any issues, it's best to address them sooner rather than later. For your information, l've enclosed a couple of attachments: o Garfield County's definition of "building he¡ght" and method of calculation. o Copy of redlined site plan with "average natural grade plane" calculations for Billington's revised building elevation height. Please let me know if you have any questions. DøveArgo Plans Examiner Garfield Caunty Community Development Department 708 9th Street, Suite 407 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Tel: 970-945-8212 Emoil : d o rg o @ ga rfi eld-cou nty, com Web : go rfield-cou nty, com CONFTDENTIALITY NOTTCE: This email communication and ony files transmitted along with it ore intended only for the person or entity to which it ¡s øddressed. tf you hove received this email in error, pleose immediately notify the sender by email and delete it from your files, 1 Garfield County COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 108 Eighth Str€et, Suite 401, Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 '';el: (970)945-8212, Fu: (970) 384-3470 Building Heigh t Definition and Calculation Procedure As defined in Garfield County Land Use & Development Code (Article 1.5, Definitions): Height, Buitding - The distance, measured vertically, from the averoge undisturbed or natural ground grade horizontal plane of a structure footprint to the top of a flat roof or mansard roof or to the mid-point between the eave line and the peak of ø gable, hip, shed, or similar pitched roof. ln order to measure distances and calculate building height according to the preceding definition, one must first establish the averøge naturøl grade plane of the subject project site. Subsequent calculations of building height all reference this benchmark, and this flat plane elevation is determined by averaging out the existing site grades (typically illustrated as topographic contour lines) on the site plan. Using a simplistic rectangular floor plan as an example, existing site grades at all four corners of the building footprint are added together and divided by 4, thereby establishing the average natural grade plane elevation (see ill ustration belowl. ?Z-.. .- _ ?¿'*----.,_ 46îlñ6 ffa€-.4}J 9Þr^¿T¡ 0 ¡r, 6oìJmr¡F.9 @. 9t1t +<lt ?5 *--.-.- 'T+ -. +44:r5 t4z - '--,"-" "?-'-,- "e gç¡¡oltJb rurrrl"¡üT "Averoge Naturøl Grade" is used in calculating Building Height W¡th more complex building footprint configurations, a greater number of building corners will be employed, but the intent remains the same: to define the average natural grade elevation within the confines of the building footprint. Flatter lots will see very little difference between existing site grades at the building corners, whereas steeply sloping lots will have greater variation between building corners. However, the result in both situations will be establishment of a flat horizontal plane which represents average pre-construction grades at the project site prior to any proposed development. Calculating Average Natural Grade: Corner A = 94.75 Corner B = 96.0 Corner C = 93,0 Corner D = 92.0 Total = 375.75 Average Natural Grade Elevation 375.75 / 4 =93.9375 Measuring Building Height above Average NaturalGrade Plane To the extent that the designer provides clear delineation of the existing natural grade plane and measurements to roofs above, it will help facilitate speedy review and confirmation of building height during the plan review of the project. Design drawings that illustrate building height most clearly will typically include exterior elevations and building sections. A couple of basic illustrations for measurement of building height are provided below &0Lo e¡br' Lbl o ETEVATION VIEW * Note: Refer bock to the definition oJ "Building Height" on page one to verify specific measuring points for the vorious types of roofs including flot or monsard vs. shed, hip or gable pitched roofs. ¡l -- 9"**t*< {þ'<"rlf ld,0 ?o,*r Þ.¡{¡( f" F+ør tl.lrgþrr*r ?¡¡*¿ Qca* Àr¡e*qa T*nzr,,t, Quør Ê*"¿ É*rcnuç 6rnpla- 3.D VIEW It is recommended that all buildings be designed a minimum of several inches lower than absolute maximum building height, as there are design and construction tolerances which must be accounted for in any project. lf design drawings indicate that roofs are within 12" of the maximum building height, the Building Department will require a Building Height Survey (aka lmprovement Location Certificate) at framing inspection, sealed and stamped by a Colorado licensed professional Surveyor to insure that the building has, in fact, been built in compliance with building height requirements. IL' A^"r¡1 e urdt >þ,'þe r!.þ iløn I grad u e I ghrr lr.tre/ È-l frjø/ l4ttgn4* øtdq rlt .-".-#,...4,^4 ,'g/lII,= g + g'11ç'lÇ?quwqtØ'rH9t3H gNrollnS IVnFV ^J|U3A Or NoltfldsNl 9Nlt lvul IvoSutnD3u st 'uo^t^uns cSsNlltl ocvuolof v ^g o3lvls '^3Auns NolIVA31l NV4"wo'tlØ7-4'VçEi,¿It- -- --Z+Êh - ryv'toafud?,Ittt)4 W.¿l'x\ol*(îY71ile^q Þas o^oqÞ,9'90091o up!+o^ele l! !3=,û,00[.lo uo{D qenom¡ce¡lqc]VIII¡IIIIt:?a/f-'IIIIlltltlt!lltt,I l:Itrl_t I/ll¿-11---.Ir-r-IoIIIIl.,1/lIIILIIIIIIIIIIItIII¡I!..I¡II-a-T---,trl.t.¡'!tIL----------II¡.¡,¡.t.i.t..1'I\rï,\\\\\1:?,6-,L\\i/f.i\QIILq\II¡II..t.IIIIII¡I¡.'.',,,IIIIItII..1IIIIIIt.IIIIIIIIII¡IIl.1esnoa,{Hpesllutvl--ijì-'La!;:Ç.'Lt+I,V1Ll2'ËI!¡frt9I David Argo From: Sent: To: Subject: David Argo Tuesday, May 16, 2017 6:52 AM ' mark@conf luencearchitectu re.com' RE: Billington Lot LL Pinyon Mesa Change Order Mark: There is not an easyvariance process for limiting roof overhangs beyond the l¡mits of a platted "building envelope" as found on lots within Pinyon Mesa. There's a distinction made between setbacks, which allow for up to 18" of roof overhang into them vs. "building envelopes" which are purposefully more restrictive in nature. Although there is a variance process available, I don't believe this request will receive planning staff support or a favorable "Director's Determination". lt would also probably involve at least 2 months of time to even get it before the Zoning Board of Adjustment (in all likelihood without staff support)' Dave Argo Plans Examiner {íarfield CCIunty Community Development Department 708 8th Street, Suite 401. Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Tel: 970-945-8212 Em a il : do rg o@ go rfi eld-cou nty. com We b : ga rfi eld-cou nty. com CONFIDENTIALTT{ NOTTCE: Thís emoil communication ond any files tronsm¡tted along with it ore intended only for the person or entity to wh¡ch ¡t ¡s addressed. If you hove received this email in error, pleøse immediotely notify the sender by emoil ond delete it from your files. From: Ma rk McLain [mailto: mark@confluencearchitecture.com] Sent: Monday, May 15,2OL7 2:03 PM To: David Argo <dargo@garfield-county.com> Subject: RE: Billington Lot 1.1 Pinyon Mesa Change Order Thanks Dave. Is there a variance procedure for allowing an overhang to project outside the envelope? If not, we are going to shorten the overhangs on the south side. Mark From: David Argo Imailto:darso@garfield-countv.com] Sent: Monday, May 75,2OL7 \2:22PM To: ma rk@confluencea rchitecture.com Subject: RE: Billington Lot 11 Pinyon Mesa Change Order Mark: Typically, we consider the outermost fascia board to be the maximum extent of the roof projection, and that must be located inside of the building envelope. 1 Gutters aren't subject to that same restriction, but thanks for asking the question Dave Argo Plans Examiner Garficld County Community Development Department 708 gth Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Tel: 970-945-8212 Ernolli da rgo@ga rf ield-cou ntv.com W eb : g o rf i e ld -co u nty. co m CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This emoil communicotion ønd any files tronsmitted olong with it are intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed. lf you have received this email in error, pleose immediotely notiÍy the sender by emoil ond delete it from your files. From: Mark McLain [mailto:mark@confluencea rchitecture.com] Sent: Monday, May L5,2OL7 10:03 AM To: David Argo <dargo@garfield-countv.com> Subject: RE: Billington Lot 11 Pinyon Mesa Change Order Dave, We are looking at overhangs for the Billington job at Pinyon Mesa- we know projections cannot extend beyond the envelope/setback, but do we need to leave room for gutters too? Mark From : David Argo [ma i lto:da rgo@ga rfield-cou ntv.com] Sent: Thursday, May Lt,2OI7 2:38 PM To: mark@confluencearchitecture.com Cc: JayDee Billingtun <idbco!@yshoo.com> Suhject: RE: Billington Lot LL Pinyon Mesa Change Order Mark: Thanks for providing us with this information related to raising Jay Billington's new residence by 24" because of bedrock found at the site during excavation. Because this revisions represents a substantive change to the original design drawings, we need for you to provide us with (2) full-size copies of the revised site plan (Sheet 41.0) showing both existing and proposed topography so that we can update our approved plan sets. Also, please submit the other information included in your previous 2 emails - but the only sheet we need printed at full-size is the site plan. We'd like for Jay to submit (2) copies of these amended drawings to our office like he did for the structural foundation revisions. Thanks again for your assistance with these changes. Dave Argo Plans Examiner 2