The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCorrespondenceDave Argo From: Dave Argo Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2017 1:44 PM To: 'kurt@hinge-architects.com' Cc: 'montyaspen@gmail.com'; 'bmmcbride@hotmail.com' Subject: Ensign Residence - Permit #BLRE-08-17-4868 Attachments: Ensign Permit #BLRE-08-17-4868.pdf; Bldg Ht Calculation.pdf Kurt: I am currently reviewing the Ensign Residence located at High Aspen Ranch, Lot 23, and I've come across a problematic aspect of the building design. Based on our calculations, it appears that this residence exceeds the 25 -foot maximum building height limit in several locations. Please refer to the attached redlines of your exterior elevation drawings illustrating these problem areas. As you are probably aware, the 25' height limit is established in Garfield County's Land Use & Development Code for the Rural zone district. Our maximum building height definition is predicated on use of "average natural grade plane" as the baseline and key determinant of building height, and all proposed roofs measure back to this baseline elevation for building height compliance. For your information and use, I have attached a 2 -page description with simple sketches illustrating the County's building height definition. Our calculations place this preconstruction natural grade plane at elevation = 8469.75' (or exactly 2 feet below main level finish floor). The dashed red line on the attached elevation drawings shows the location of this grade plane. In addition, dimensions are shown at all problematic roofs which are also highlighted in orange. Please review this attached information and contact me if you have any questions. Before we can approve this application for building permit we will need to see drawings compliant with the 25 -foot maximum building height. Please advise us as to how you'd like to proceed, and in the meantime we will place this application in our "Pending" projects file. Thanks for your prompt attention to this matter. Dave Argo Plans Examiner Garfield County Community Development Department 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Tel: 970-945-8212 Email: dargo@garfield-county.com Web: garfield-county.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email communication and any files transmitted along with it are intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify the sender by email and delete it from your files. 1 Fbr;-rpi of bs",`td"v wk{61.4 Pi�cc .cam 25F_ow x,,,,44;,,,1 Ht. 1;mi+ .,S ZINC METAL WRAPPED FASCIA: TTP HW 1A'M SPRE TO MATCH WINDOWS; TV'. IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIJIII1IIIIIII1IIIHIIIIIIIHIIIIIII ItIlIIIlIIIIIIII1I1I1II - -I- - - -1- - hill IIi1liIIII1I 11111111111 1'11111111 11111111111111111111111111111111 NOv+14 61/AA-tow VE, 144-TURAl. 6RAL£ ZINC METAL WRAPPED FASCIA;TYP VERDCAL METAL SIDING TYP woos TRUSS KILMLMNIELIPARII ZINC METAL WRAPPED IIIIII111111111111I IIIIII111111IIIIII 11111111111111111 1111111111111111111 111111111111111111 1111111111111111111 11111111111111111 11111111110111111 111111111111111111 11111111111 111111 ied 111 III 111 ►� r ►,1 70 MATCH WINDOWS. TIT MINIMAL SIAM SfkIT =_—_ — _mEr._- 1111 11111111111111111111 111 1 13111111 —� 1I1 .: 'sem Ie=>E, 35 H r r 1—? -r-t-1\ H 7-1-4 LOW WINDOW136 BEYOND; SEE WINDOW SCHEDULE • YY* ■ 7-1i4 ' 1-4 7-1-4 1 \ tow woiDows I `13i 1 BEYOND: SEE • • SCHEDULE 26 w - r -k >—EIREPLACS Sn4f14 1-Gv6v('idl'1 i STEEL POSTS & BEAMS -UAHJi V'�k o.ANdr AWNGR. 24 1 • -rlr mi,••••=� MINIMAL SEAM SHEET METAL 1 PO uUn. awpp••g2. ZINC METAL WRAPPED FASCIA; TVP. VERTICAL WOOD SIDING: TYP VERTICAL METAL SIDING: TO LINE OF r ■I 'I!II I � I lc) si 1111111 II1111MNlllll1Ed pill ill I I WEST ELEVATION SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0' Tho -------- --— - -- --- u- LEV PPER V$NITCSL WOOD SIDING; TVP, VERTICAL METAL SIDING, TYP. Q ORV STACK STON VEHEER: TYP. 71 MINIMAL SEAM SHEET METAL TO MATCH WINDOWS TYP St L vanoh HPIE OF FINAL GRADE T.B D. MAIN LEVI LOWER LE Garfield County COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 108 Eighth Street, Suite 401, Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Tel: (970) 945-8212, Fax: (970) 384-3470 Building Height Definition and Calculation Procedure As defined in Garfield County Land Use & Development Code (Article 15, Definitions): Height, Building — The distance, measured vertically, from the average 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 a gable, hip, shed, or similar pitched roof. In order to measure distances and calculate building height according to the preceding definition, one must first establish the average natural 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 illustration below). yj. 72. ------ 95 - 5ISrosx. flz6-copsrikuictioi0 ColJT0t'tR 9 (?, sire +q(0. +014:75,41�..� 95 $UILDIN6 -" rooTrrtlur 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 "Average Natural Grade" is used in calculating Building Height With 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. Measuring Building Height above Average Natural Grade 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: 45/ 4 ti•I Fs L 0 L0 AverAle aorlihr4Ferl1044arel genic o f 9/ c /are /4..117,-)0/ Iorrn/ ELEVATION VIEW *Note: Refer back to the definition of "Building Height" on page one to verify specific measuring points for the various types of roofs including flat or mansard vs. shed, hip or gable pitched roofs. 'titi5nt 4 lRApTL 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. If design drawings indicate that roofs are within 12" of the maximum building height, the Building Department will require a Building Height Survey (aka Improvement 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. I 1/p W.••••••••••••.m../OVP7 1 ti F. _ .1 70 IK LOCATED vanemG IIMIE/11CP AT P. FUTURE we. ,25 UraftmlaNejt -46‘ (6417P' 70_ 1 G Gofrw.A.r9 73.5 5 . 5 .7I 7 Foe 1 10 WITHIN QNINWEINIOP ATAf UNE WOE „iv* Mr 6? -76.05 70.25 70.75 -7n. e5 64.20 14 Cov vi ArS 535 418.25 - q74.6, 14 0.614 moi.614 />N a 0 -84 alt '-'1W711111101i1EgrAl• Dave Argo From: Dave Argo Sent: Friday, September 15, 2017 8:59 AM To: 'Kurt Carruth' Subject: RE: Ensign Residence - Permit #BLRE-08-17-4868 Kurt: Ideally when we have projects that are very close to max. building height we prefer to have the Architect's height calculations — including building ht. dimensions as shown on exterior elevations, as well as a site/footprint plan superimposed with existing site grades illustrating the Average Natural Grade Plane calculations—to provide us with documentation/back-up for the project file and/or drawing sets. If you like, you can submit this information as a digital PDF file for support of the plans. But we will need to receive (2) copies of any drawings illustrating addendum revisions (i.e., exterior elevations, building sections, etc.) If you submit (2) full-size sheets of any revised/updated drawing sheets, I can insert into the (2) sets of drawings we originally received as part of the building permit application. Thanks — Dave Argo Plans Examiner liGarfield County Community Development Department 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Tel: 970-945-8212 Email: dargo@garfield-county.com Web: garfield-county.com CONFfDENTIALITY NOTfCE: This email communication and any files transmitted along with it are intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify the sender by email and delete it from your files. From: kurt.carruth@gmail.com [mailto:kurt.carruth@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Kurt Carruth Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2017 12:45 PM To: Dave Argo <dargo@garfield-county.com> Subject: Re: Ensign Residence - Permit #BLRE-08-17-4868 Hey Dave: What do you need from me for the elevation resubmittal? 2 copies of elevations, full size, to insert? Thanks - Kurt Carruth, architect hinge ARCHITECTS, Ltd. 812 grand avenue, ste. 201 1 Dave Argo From: Dave Argo Sent: Monday, October 02, 2017 8:00 AM To: 'Kurt Carruth' Cc: Matt Provost; Jim Wilson Subject: RE: Ensign Foundation soils test Kurt: Thanks for providing this updated information. If the foundation plans & details have changed from the originally approved plans, we need for the following items to be addressed: a Provide a detailed description of what items have been revised and/or cloud the drawings in the appropriate locations so that we can clearly see what has been changed from the original plans. b. Provide our office with (1) full-size copy of the structural changes & keep another full-size copy of sheets w/revisions and attach to the FIELD COPY of the approved set of plans so that our Building Inspector can review when called out to the job site for inspections. Both sets of revised drawings need to have Engineer's wet seal/stamp on them. If current information isn't available at the job site at time of inspection, you run the risk of incurring a re -inspection fee of $50 and a potential hold-up of construction activities as a result. Thanks for your assistance on this matter. Dave Argo Plans Examiner C. Garfield County Community Development Department 108 8t^ Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Tel: 970-945-8212 Email: dargo@garfield-county.com Web: garfield-county.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email communication and any files transmitted along with it are intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify the sender by email and delete it from your files. From: kurt.carruth@gmail.com [mailto:kurt.carruth@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Kurt Carruth Sent: Friday, September 29, 2017 2:43 PM To: Dave Argo <dargo@garfield-county.com> Subject: Fwd: Ensign Foundation soils test Dave: Not sure if this needs to come to you or to whom. Attached is: 1 1. HP Kumar report - Excavation observation report. We are scheduled to pour footers next Thursday, October 5th. 2. New Foundation plan from Kollar Engineers. Thanks - Kurt Carruth, architect hingeARCHITECTS, Ltd. 812 grand avenue, ste. 201 gws, co. 81601 c:970-309-4432 www.hinge-architects.com Forwarded message From: Monty Thompson <montyaspen@gmai1.com> Date: Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 10:04 AM Subject: Ensign Foundation soils test To: Phil & Lisa Ensign <phiiensign@gmail.com>, Kurt Carruth <kurt cr hinge-architects.com>, Ernie Kollar <erniekollar@a,sopris.net>, montyaspen@gmail.com Kurt , please send to building dept with updated structural revisions. 2000 psi bearing documentation must be on file with them before footers can be inspected, Any concerns please contact me? Monty Sent from my iPhone 2 Dave Argo From: Dave Argo Sent: Friday, October 19, 2018 8:21 AM To: 'W. John Hufker III, AIA' Subject: RE: 683 Overlook Drive John: Since this is an existing building permit (Permit # BLRE-08-17-4868) we will need to have any changes to the already approved plans submitted as "Amended Plans" ... similar to the process you recently went through for Double D. Please cloud any areas and/or provide narrative description of what has been changed and use the same single -page sheet that I sent to you for Dean's project. Thanks, Dave Argo Plans Examiner C. Garfield County Community Development Department 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Tel: 970-945-8212 Ext. 1610 Email: dargo@garfield-county.com Web: garfield-county.com From: W. John Hufker III, AIA [mailto:john@hufkerdesign.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2018 11:20 AM To: Dave Argo Subject: Re: 683 Overlook Drive Dave, The parcel ID is 2911 024 00017, and the owner is Phil Ensign. The address is 683 Overlook Drive, Missouri Heights. Thanks, W. John Hufker III, AIA Architect PO Box 8925 1 Dave Argo From: Dave Argo Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2018 8:54 AM To: 'W. John Hufker III, AIA' Subject: RE: 683 Overlook Drive John: I've been out of the office for the past week, so sorry for my delayed response. We do not require (or even accept) digital drawing submissions, and your best bet is to get a copy of the previously approved plans from the contractor. Please clearly mark-up any proposed changes to the original plans before submitting to our office as "Amended Plans" for review. Thanks, Dave Argo Plans Examiner CGarrfreld County 1 Community Development Department 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Tel: 970-945-8212 Ext. 1610 Email: dargo@garfield-county.com Web: garfield-county.com From: W. John Hufker III, AIA [mailto:john@hufkerdesign.com] Sent: Monday, October 22, 2018 12:09 PM To: Dave Argo Subject: Re: 683 Overlook Drive Dave, I just spoke with the builder about the changes that have been discussed and it occurred to me that I do not have the a copy of the official permit submission drawings on file. Can you send over a PDF of what you have on file so that I can go through the set sheet by sheet to identify changes? Thanks, W. John Hufker III, AIA 1