HomeMy WebLinkAboutCorrespondenceAndy Schwaller
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Steve Novy < snovy@greenlinearchitects.com >
Thursday, July 26,2018 4:49 PM
Andy Schwaller; Isaac Ellis
Fwd:ACES I Frost Protected Shallow Foundation (NAHB)
Screen Shot 2018-05-11- at 2.06.35 PM.png; Fig 1-A.png; Fig 1B.pn9; GLA-jpg; FPSF
Narrative.pdf; Revised Builder's Guide to Frost Protected Shallow Foundations.pdf
HiAndy,
Getting close with getting this one issued. What is the heating for the building?
I'm checking with Brad on this...
Also, I will redline with a requirement for the architect to provide a t hour rated wall and floor assembly as per Sec 420,
708 and 711. The wall will need to be continuous from the rated floor assembly to roof deck (needs to miss the
truss). The walls/columns supporting the t hour floor will also need to be rated.
OK, sounds good.
You might help him with the insulation for the shallow frost protection also. lt is in the IRC or ASCE 32. Our air freeze
index is 2500 deg day.
We recently had a similar discussion about the IRC and SFPF systems with John Plano in Carbondale!
I understand the desire to be conservative with these designs, but 2500 degrees? I show Glenwood Springs at
1 180 degrees. (see attached screen shot and overlay of the map of Colorado with the NOAA air freezing index
(Figures 1A and 1B)
Brad's is a consistent and flat site, so we feel that building is well suited for a SFPF design. We are also
pursuing as many cost saving measures as possible with this design, and hoping the SFPF system will keep
excavation and concrete and to a minimum.
If you are open to our demonstrating Alternative Compliance, we can do so by showing you the "detailed
design" as provided for in the NAHB Guide to SFPF Systems with2250 degrees, which is still very
conservative. (see attachments for Carbondale house)) We can make it work with 2" of XPS on the vertical leg
only, which we feel is safer since the skirt insulation can easily get damaged by landscape work and root growth
from plantings.
Please see our narrative and calculations and worksheet for the detailed method found in the Frost Protected
Shallow Foundation Q{AHB) document, and let us know if you are willing to consider alternative compliance.
Thanks,
Steve
Dave Argo
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Follow Up Flag:
Flag Status:
Andy Schwaller
Monday, July 23,2018 4:51- PM
Steve Novy
Dave Argo; gavette@carbondalefire.org
RE: Confirming set backs for 6698.
Follow up
Flagged
Common Path to 75 ft. That is not from the door down the balcony to the ground. lt would be from inside the building
through the door down the balcony, stairs and then to the ground. I think 2 exits are in order which also limits a dead
end corridor or balcony to 25 ft. IO20.4. lt is awkward since the code assumes the residential is Sprinklered. We have
the L000 sq.ft exemption not requiring a sprinkler, so the egress better be right. I don't think it needs a sprinkler but
check with Bill Gavette. A second stair from second floor I think needs to be included, unless I am missing something
which is entirely possible.
Andy
From : Steve Novy Ima i lto : snovy@gree n li nea rch itects.com]
Sent: Monday, July 23,2Ot8 3:51- PM
To: Andy Schwaller <aschwa I ler@ga rfield-county.com>
Cc: Dave Argo <dargo @garfield-county.com>
Subject: Re: Confirming set backs for 6698.
Ok, so I think I understand. if we reduce the balcony to 75 feet or less in length and the ADU to 1000 sq. f.t or
less, we will not need to be sprinkled, correct?
Please see attached revised floor plan.
Thanks,
Steve
On Mon, Ju|23,2018 at2:35 PM, Andy Schwaller <aschwaller@garfield- wrote:
Hell, I don't know. I am just the building official. Travel Distance is different from Common Path. Both need to work as
well as occupancy load. See attached cheat sheet. I am just guessing but extra stairs and a smaller
residential component might be cheaper than a L3 system on a well. I don't know if a storage tank or 3 phase fire
pump is needed. You might want to get a bid from a sprinkler installer and verify the water requirements.
From: Steve Novy [mailto:snow@greenlinearchitects.com]
Sent: Monday, July 23,20181:49 PM
To: Andy Schwaller <aschwaller@garfield-countv.com>; Brad Reed Nelson <brad@boardbvdesign.com>
Cc: lsaac Ellis <isaac@greenlinearchitects.com>
Subject: Re: Cofirming set backs for 6698
I:---s/+-(!-)cNELgON CARAGEbøaa HUY a2¿¡IÆNIUOðÞ 3PRIN6â. c,ùæ,AÞ¡Oft?er:! å+!: [etE nl9g ;fg ¡ alIIJILl,I'rt,IiIIt,il!{Èd{{-Ê:;çtfnfìnÞËT| $*!t pnr$ àÞñ
,+, Tzt'rs
5* /oo4 *'þP7¡*Í'w*'tn KW*,
I o.L,
z,8n /ooç II Q
Tnaú' roob zt Sffih *?*,
T*aa /006. lzû\ -\:Z y;
f*øu lôoþ' 3' zQ) - fæetrs*
+
Grrür"rf+àî¿/
þ. 3n" t Dt1 TP"n¡r'
ù. À^r¡Ads 0oo^*
),s2.
tA,ç - þ¿vtr A*^U
Dave Argo
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Dave Argo
Thursday, April L9, 201-8 2:06 PM
'Steve Novy'
RE: Nelson garage
Setback Projections.pdf
Steve:
Sorry it's taken me a while to get back to you on this, but wanted to make sure I was giving you the correct info. Our
intuition was correct in that the southern property line (abutting the Cloud's property) is considered as the "Front Yard"
and is therefore subject to 25-foot setback - which I believe is what your site plan indicates.
As far as encroachment of decks into this setback goes, the answer depends upon whether the deck is 30 inches or less
above grade or not. lf more than 30 inches above grade, then it is viewed as a "balcony" as noted in the attached Table
3-202 taken from Garfield County's Land Use & Development Code. As you can see in this table, there are different
requirements for these 2 types of decks, as well as differences due to front/rear/side yards.
Hope this info helps you along with this project, and let me know if you have any other quest¡ons.
Dave Argo
Plans Examiner
Gnrfield County
Community Development Department
708 9th Street, Suite 401
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Tel: 970-945-8212 Ext. 1670
E m ø i I : d o rg o @ g a rf i e I d -co u nty. co m
W e b : g a rfi e I d -co u nty. co m
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This emoil commun¡cot¡on and ony files tronsmitted olong with it ore intended only for the person or entity to which ít is
addressed. lf you hove received this emoil in error, pleose immediotely not¡fy the sender by emoil and delete it from your files.
From: Steve Novy [mailto:snovy@greenlinearchitects.com]
Sent: Thursday, April L2,20tg L2:L2 PM
To: Dave Argo <dargo@ga rfield-county.com>
Subject: Nelson garage
Thanks Dave!
Steve
3.202, GËNERAL AND
A. Frontage.
Unless othenruise provided by this Code, each lot shall have a minimum of 25 lineal feet
of frontage on a dedicated street or road right-of-way providing access.
B. Through Lots.
On lots extending from 1 street to another paralleling street, both streets shall be
considered as front streets for purposes of calculating front yard setbacks.
C. Corner Lots.
On lots bordered on 2 contiguous sides by streets, the required front yard setback shall
be observed along both streets'
D. RowHouse.
For purposes of setback calculations, only those row houses that do not share a
common wall with an adjacent row house need to observe the required side yard
setback for the district.
E. Partially Developed Frontages.
On a vacant lot bordered on 2 sides by previously constructed buildings that do not meet
the required front yard setback for the district, the required front yard setback for the
vacant lot shall be established as the averaged front yard setback of the 2 adjacent
buildings; where a vacant lot is bordered on only 1 side by a previously constructed
building that does not meet the required front yard setback for the district, the required
front yãrd setback for the vacant lot shall be established as the averaged front yard
setbaðk of the adjacent building and the minimum front yard setback for the zone district.
A. Use Restrictions in the Floodplain Overlay.
The following use restrictions shall apply to areas within the Floodplain Overlay:
1
F. Projections.
Every part of a required yard shall be unobstructed from ground level to the sky except
for projections as shown in Table 3'202'
1 Foot I Foot 1 Foot(e.9. Cornice or sills)Architectural eatures
18 lnches 18 lnches'tS lnchesRoof Eave
No Restriction No RestrictionNo RestrictionAt-Grade Uncovered Porch, Slab, Patio'Walk, Steps
'18 lnches 4 Feet4 Feetot Used as PassagewaYs)Fire Balcony
No RestrictionNo Restriction No RestrictionPorch and Deck (Less Than 30 lnches in Height)
DIVISION 3. OVERLAY DISTRICT REGULATI ONS
G¡nneto Cou¡¡rv L¡1,¡o Use AND DEVELopme¡¡r Gooe 3-6
Accounl ROl 131éOwner NELSON, 8RAD REED & BRUMBY, ANN RPhysicol Address 6698 82 HWYGLENWOOD SPRINGg 81 ÉO'Ifiloiling Address 1949 DOLORES WAY UNn CZCARBONDALE, CO 8]623Ac¡es 0.75O20t7 llil lew 72-2900¡, Aj.,æm@a*a,tP¡N 23950nmOt7Êneport ÊDeto¡sx$tox Erls Eemr¿{tÉT',:*{,x,IÍs""fu* *ifFçilûtr'4Í¡1't*-uffieì.t+.ò.r,{'tO't n-l-ìffip$Írì#"Ç1¿st".r'fi*'?1iÜ¡..¡fi¡rPfrBÐH't
U)=mllt-z\Éq\E[ìgô\:E\å1rEA\Erlåþrå-çoTIçiB?TBBÉ.e?hfil.ååEÊr1,- ..-í):)-¡"-;i)u1ï¿ù\...À\,,-: ...,'e,ê3åäTsI0!ûi Pnr:r4 2 lã r¿ RRfi ÑÉ, ôÙnn'¡To*It*å81-dç\gå T"É?Fþt-";--"-qÞBgÊcbqEÉ4èÍrç.IrzÈ,4ae'Éþþ/-aFþ"r'a.-2?áúÈBsSASIS OfNELgON GARA.g/Eøb1a HWf a2GLENUJOOD gPRING9, COLORADO¡ã3aãsq-åËggzñ-oÂ:Þı¡!ÞGIño-lÞôo@tþaEIo'9.- -l-r ,¡LEqr3ItrIr0mÎDoıIoz@ØIr!¡ızÞIl-,oIfitaçz\-aoooÐc)EñC)
w#;ES',.,"##sf;d"H*ffi;'ffiËeqfft+.ld¡o.å#ro.dc¡{|Sit'dffi'*g,ao.5#r¡uu¡¡ar¡S*J#Éo'¿Vrâ,:,...,',. ;t,'',1. :.'''""..,''orsdltrÑê,i:-Js,:'-/ ..1'a:")t.#ËeBdt¡cr\\\\\\\\,.,tsdÉÉdúT"ffi#ffi*\\9.ods#"./^ srTE PLANet*ÉiðécJgútæ\\\\#$f!¡rttgs.2T-ËË5r.n*\"f\\61\1.t,1.I':\åâ\'NEII, CÂRACE2,44fiã\1.191 Àcres ÈSs.o9I':.o''; /l',.L"1i.l': - .,,' ?a' .,.'ffi/'11\'.\\l'ss"o...'.:'\\\\i,¡"',\rl,\qó\r*\vSCALÊ: 1' = 20'