Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCorrespondence with Fire Dept and Correction Notice ItemsColleen W¡rth From: Sent: To: Subject: Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: Bill Gavette < gavette@carbondalefire.org > Wednesday, March 16,202212:41 PM Colleen Wifth RE: [External] 360 Cerise Ranch Road - Driveway Plan Follow up Flagged HíColleen, I don't have a preference on when we get the turnaround design. l'm happy to wait and do a separate approval for it. Feel free to handle it the way that works best of you. Thanks, Bill Gavette Deputy Chief Garbondale & Rural Fire Protection District 300 Meadowood Drive Carbondale, CO 81 623 970-963-2491 Main 970-963-0569 Fax www,carbondalefire,orq3u¡'* From : Col leen Wi rth [mai lto : cwi ft h @ ga Úield-cou nty.com] Sent: Monday, March 14,202211:47 AM To: BillGavette Subject: FW: lExternal] 360 Cerise Ranch Road - Driveway Plan HiBill, Hope you are well, this feels clumsy. Basically trying to perform tríage and keep on top of things as the corrections come back in following Dave Argo's departure. FYl. On Friday, I was directed by Sheryl Bower, Community Development Director, to re-send JVA consulting engineers "corrections" back out to Chris Hale (Mountain Cross Engíneering), Garfield County's Referring Cívil Engineer who provided the original correction comments to Dave Argo for GRAD-12-21"-727t360 Cerise Ranch Rd (Baker-Obleski Driveway). From the below email string, l'm concerned whether or not details are adequate for your need (or hammerhead could be deferred to future resídential building plans as they suggest)? I do not want this 2nd referral to Chris Hale to be premature, if there is to be a corrected set of plans to view soon. Should I hold off on sendíng received corrections to Chris Hale? Or send the response received in our office on March L0-11? 1 Colleen Wirth Plans Examiner Garfield County Building Division 108 8th Street, Suite 40L Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 cwirth @garf iel d-cou ntv.com otfice (970) 945-L377 ext. 1610 From: Quinn D. Harnett <qharnett@jvajva.com> Sent: Friday, March I1",20221":08 PM To: Bil I Gaveüe <gavette@carbondalef ire.org> Cc: J. R. Spu ng <jspu ng@jvajva.com>; Dave Argo <dargo@garfield-cou nty.com> Subject: REr lExternal] 360 Cerise Ranch Road - Driveway Plan Bill, We are planníng to design a turnaround at the top of the driveway, and to provide more details of the upper driveway and parking area in general during the building permit process. For now we are only submitting for driveway and grading permits. ls this turnaround something you can wait for or do we need to work on incorporating it into the driveway plans now for your approval? Thank you, QUINN D. HARNETT I Design Engineer JVA, lncorporated 817 Colorado Avenue, Suite 301, Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 ñl-^^¡, 4^ı ^84 4 l^ I ^t¡l^^. ô^ı i t A 4^È¿rJiltrut. JUJ.VJ I. tU+O | \JiltLC. JUJ.+++. l I www.jvajva.com I Linkedln I Twitter Boulder I Fort Collins I Winter Park I Glenwood Springs I Denver From : Bil I Gavette <gavette@ca rbondalef i re. org> Sent: Frida¿ March tI,2022 9:1-6 AM To: Quinn D. Harnett <qharnett@ivaiva.com> Cc: J.R. Spung <iqp!10å@jv3jva.çom>; Dave A.rgo <darno@garfield-countv.com> Subject: RE:360 Cerise Ranch Road - Driveway Plan Quinn, Are there any plans for a turnaround at the building envelope? The driveway is unusable for the Fíre Department if we can't turn our apparatus around at the top. Thanks, 2 L r-Ì¡J5lJ t ì I l',1 Ú ¿ l!û I ¡¡ I I Fl -.. *]ll,iilt f U,1/tl . ( 'Jil. . l.i.l'r1fÌ{.IU,','ii.,/l,i¡l Bill Gavette Deputy Chief Garbondale & Rural Fire Protection District 300 Meadowood Drive Carbondale, CO 81623 970-963-2491 Main 970-963-0569 Fax www,carbondalefire.orq From: Quinn D. Harnett [mailto:qharnett@ivaiva.com] Sent: Thursday, March L0, 2022 5:45 PM To: Bill Gavette Cc: J.R. Spung Subject: RE: 360 Cerise Ranch Road - Driveway Plan Bill, We had you review an early set of plans for this project for the lot at the back of Ceríse Ranch, and received a few comments from the county regarding fire approval. We have done additional design since you last saw these plans, including reducing the slopes of the road in a number of places to maíntaín L2o/o maximum slope on the drive. The alígnment of the road also changed slightly. The main question we need addressed by you is whether or not you are okay with a driveway that holds 1-2% slopes for over 700 contÍnuous linear feet, see yellow below: 3. Fíre Distrlct Approvals - a. Local fire jurisdictio¡1¡ typically have a 1096 maximum grade for fire and emergencl veh¡t|e¡; 1296 may þe allowed for short distances, typicelly e fÊw hundred feet. This Froposel is over 700 feet ín length ãt 1296 grâdÊ. Applicant lo confirm driveway design requirements with Bill 6avelte, Carbondale's Fire Marshal and modify Flaï: accürdingly. b. With a 12' driveu¡ay widlh, pull-outs årè necersåry for vehicles tÕ päss €åch Õthêr, or provide rections al20'drivewav width. Verify Fire Dirtri:t approv*ls with Bill 6avette, and modifu plans accürding ta Fire District's requirÊm*nts. lf you could let us know your thoughts on designing the drive at t2Yo slope for as long as we have shown, as soon as you can, that would be very helpful. Thank you, Quinn Harnett QUINN D. HARNETT I Design Ëngineer JVA, lncorporated 817 Colorado Avenue, Suite 301, Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Direct: 303.951.104ô | Office: 3A3.444.1951 www.jvajva.com I Linkedln I Twitter Boulder I Fort Collins I Winter Park I Glenwood Springs I Denver 3 dtfJtu [- T ri'¡ G E r,rö r tl E t ftl 1f ß\J.(. IUíì^t . Llvi[.' IN'f I ll{.}1.1,(/l l,',/1¡ L From: J. R. Spung <ispung@ivaiva.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 3,20218:46 PM To: gavette @carbondalef i re. org Cc: Quinn D. Harnett <qharnett@ivaiva.com> Subject: FW:360 Cerise Ranch Road - Driveway Plan Bill, We are working with the homeowner on this lot at the back of Cerise Ranch. Attached ls the previous engineer's plans. The driveway seems to have been constructed mostly as shown and our plan is to show mostly the same layout. Will this layout work for the FD? We are tryíng to get some high level costs together for the homeowner before they commit to moving forward with construction and are just making sure there are no fatal flaws in our plans. Feel free to give me a call with any questions on this. Thanks, J.R. SPUNG I Senior Project Manager, Regional Engineering Manager JVA, lncorporated 817 Colorado Avenue, Suite 301 , Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Direct: 970.404.3085 | Mobile: 970.366.0825 | Phone: 343.444.1951 www.jvajva.com I Linkedln I Twitter Boulder I Fort Collins | \Mnter Park I Glenwood Springs I Denver g{}Ét(I E1{R lllountain $taleq lo? 0ttå¡t tril¡ 4 Colleen W¡rth From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: J.R. Spung <jspung@jvajva.com > Thursday, March 10,2022 5:47 PM Dave Argo Steve Anthony; Colleen Wirth lExternal] RE: Cerise Ranch Lot 52 Grading Permit correction Notice 2022 0310 - GRAD-7271 Correction Notice - JVA Responses.docx; 20220310 - 360 Cerise Ranch Road - Permit Set-Reduced File Size.pdf Follow up Flagged Dave, Attached are the updated plans and comment response letter The owners are anxious to break ground on their project. could you give us a time frame on when you will be able to review these responses? Thanks, J.R. SPUNG I Senior Project Manager, Regiona! Engineering Manager, Associate JVA, Incorporated 817 Colorado Avenue, Suite 3Û1, Glenwood Springs, CO 8'1601 Direct: 970.404.3085 | Mobile: 97û.366.0825 | Office: 3t3.444-1951 www.jvajva.com I Linkedln I Twitter Boulder I Fort Collins I V\finter Park I Glenwood Springs I Denver From: Dave Argo <dargo@garfield-county.com> Sent: Monday, FebruarY 7, 20223:00 PM To: J.R. Spu ng <jspung@jvajva.com> Cc: Steve Anthony <santhony@garfield-county.com>; Colleen Wírth <cwirth@garfield-county.com> Subject: Cerise Ranch Lot 52 Grading Permit Correction Notice please reference the attached "plan Review Correction Notice" for the Grading Permit submitted on behalf of Cerise Ranch, Lot 52 Owners. Engineering review of the submitted plans was conducted by Chrís Hale, P.E. of Mountain Cross Engineers who is Garfield County's consulting Engineer for review of major grading permíts. please follow-up by addressing these corrections at your earliest convenience with submission of any supplementaUamended plans or other correspondence addressing all outstanding íssues. our office cannot issue the Grading Permit until we have received response to these items. ln addition to Ëngineering revíew items included in the attached Correction Notlce we also urge you to contact steve Anthony, Garfíeld County,s Vegetation Manager, to determine specific requirements related to weed control, erosion control, and reclamation of all disturbed areas affected by regrading of thís property. You can reach steve at the following - 1 ( {i.r¡1u i 1 rr'J Ú t ¡J{; 1t¡ t t R! ',llìi,l: ttlll/rl . {'J [' !ll!l¡{Ì}U"'Ìl',ifÅl Tel: 970-945 -1377 x4305 or Emall: santhony@sarfield-coVntv.com Tlrnnk you for your åttention to this mat.ter. Dave Argo Chîef Buildingffilclal Canrrry Building Department 708 gh Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81607 Tel : 970.945. 7377 x156O Emoil : d o roo @ o a rfi eld-cou ntv. com Web: garfîeld-cou nty.com 2 Gurfield County BUILDING DEPARTMENT 708 E¡ghth Strcet, Sulte 407, 6lenwood Springs, Co 81æ7 Tel: (970) g5-8212 CORRECTION NOTICE - trVlaÏol" Cr6 dÍng Fermit Permit No. G RAD-1 2-21-7 27 t Date: FebruarY7,2O22 Location: 360 Cerise Ranch Road, Carbondale Review Comments By: Chris Hale, Mountaín Cross Engineering JVA Responses - 31L012022 The following plan revíew comments are to be addressed prior to issuance of this Grading Permít. Please provide narrative description, revised, supplemental or amended plans and/or specífications addressing the following comments or questions so that we can finalize our review and issue the Grading Permit. l-. Easements - a.A 4o-foot-wide "Access Easement" is labelled on drawings as being for use of Lot 52 - and it,s assumed that 360 Cerise Ranch Road is Lot 52 - but we cannot not verify this. Uphill of the hairpin turn, access easement is labelled as "Proposed O-foot Access Easement". Has this easement already been created & recorded, or does it still need to be obtained? Provide clear and detailed evidence of a legal access easement for Lot 52. Easements are in the process of being recorded. Separate Easement plan will be included in the engineering plan set to clearly label each proposed easement' Similarly, the construction easement is called out as "Proposed". Evidence of a legal easement is required. Easements are in the process of being recorded' Separate Easement pfan will be included in the engineerÍng plan set to clearly label each proposed easement' Utilities are shown leaving the driveway and paralleling Lot 54/53 Property line. However, no utilities easement is shown on the subject property. Provide evidence of a legal easement for utilities. Utility easement will be dedicated as-built' 2. Driveway Design & Alignment - a. The driveway is perched above steep slopes. Guardrail(s) should be provided to protect errant vehicles from leaving the driveway, especially around the hairpin turn. lllustrate location of guardrails & provide details by Engineer. JVA incorporated a guardrail 60' long immediately downhill from the hairpin turn' b. Engineering rules of thumb suggest 6% is a maximum grade for safely negotiating around a curve during snowy and icy conditions. The Applicant should consider flattening the grades around the hairpin turn. Designing the road to 6% around the turn will require too much cut, approximately 1"5' of cut where now there is only about 7.5' of cut. Slope of the drive will be maintained al t2%. Addition of the guardrail downhill of the turn will improve the safety of the turn' c. Extents and placement of driveway surface materials (gravel vs. pavement) are not clearly illustrated. provide clarification on plans. Owner is in the process of determining limits of gravel and asphalt, pending HOA approval of gravel surface. Plans have been updated to show gravel paving for the entire drive length. The shared drive below the proposed gravel drive will be Paved with asPhalt' d. Gravel road section does not include thicknesses. Revise detail(s) to provide specifications. Detail has been revised to include thícknesses' b 3. Fire Distr¡ct Approvals -a. Local fire jurisdictions typically have a LOTo maximum grade for fire and emergency vehicles; L2% may be allowed for short distances, typically a few hundred feet. This proposal is over 700 feet in length alt2% grade. Applicant to confirm dríveway design requirements with Bill Gavette, Carbonclalers Fire Marshal ancl modlfy plans accordlngly. The fire marshal has given preliminary approval of the design concept. See attached email summarizing a meeting between: Bill Cavette, Carbondale Fire Marslral ¿nd Scott Dewirrcl, contrdctLlr ful Lhe project. iVA will çotltaç! B-ill Gcvetle,to r-ellucét aBpra-valaf the 1Z% drlveway jlapeË qlro_w¡_ot tl¡e Plans. b' With o 12' rJrivcway width, pull-outs are necessary for vehicles to puss each other, or provide sections of 20' driveway width. Verify Fire District approvals with Bill Gavette, and modify plans according to Fire District's requirements. The current design incfudes a section of 20' wide driveway 80' long at the switchback whích acts as a passing lane or pullout. Bill Gavette requested the adclition of a fire truck turnaround at the top of the drive near the house. This turnaround wilf be designed in the future for building permit. 4. Water Serv¡ce L¡ne a. For the water line bury, 4.5' of cover is typically not sufficient for frost protection at this altitude. Bury depth should be increased to match Carbondale's water serviee line requirements. Contractor ís planning on dígging a 4' deep trench with 2" of blueboard, equatíng to a 6' bury depth. JVA will review Carbondale's water service line requirements ancl request additionaf blueboard insulatíon if necessary. 5. Reta¡n¡ng Walls - a. Call out maximum wall height on each detail and at each tier. Updated detail from structural engineer added to cívíl plans. b' lnclude minimum offset distances between tiers of walls on the details. Updated detail from structural engineer added to civil plans. c' Will there be a cut ditch above the highest wall tier or is water okay to cascade over the face ^{aL^..,^ll-? tf ^^+ J-^;*^-^ I^-t..-^- -L^.,- rt-- ,..-rt- -r-,-"r-r r-- -r- -.--.- --- -rvr rtrç warrr¡ rr IluL, ulcllllclË,s lËclLursS clUQVe LIle WdllS SIlOUlU Ug sflowfì On plan5. l{ CUIOrI d¡tch has been deigned uphill of the wall and existing road cut disturbance where it is practically constructable. Runoff below this ditch is permitted to pass over top of the walls. d. Drain mat and perforated pipe daylight locations should be shown on plans. Will the drain for' upper tier daylight on top of the lower tier? Or will it be piped to the culvert? Updated detail frorn structural engineer added to cívil plans. 6. Stormwater D¡scharge - lt appears that storm flows from daylight end of the culvert discharge into the irrigation ditch. Applicant to verify that this situation is acceptable wíth the irrigation company by providing evidence of approvals. lf not approved by the lrrigation Company, then provide drawings & specifications illustrating how storm flows tie into the Cerise Ranch Road drainage system. Storm runoff has been rerouted into the, existing stormwater ditch to the east of the irrigation ditch. Weed Management & Site Reclamat¡on Requirements: ln addition to the Engineering comments/questions as described above, the following items also need to be addressed prior to issuance of the Grading Permit: ' Control all noxious weeds. Treat existing weeds prior to relocation plants and seeds.. Re-vegetate all disturbed areas not part of a road or non-seeded area.. Provide erosion controls until seeded areas can be established. ' Contact Steve Anthony, Garfield County Vegetation Manager for all weed management and site reclamation requirements. (Tel: 97G945-4305 or Email: santhony@garfield-county.com) El osion control and revegetation notes will be added to the engineering plansel.