The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCorrections and ResponsesJohn Plano To: Subject: Margaret Richard RE: Deck Replacement/expansion 3490 CR117 Hi Margaret, Betow is more ctarification... John Plano Chief Buitding Officiat Garfietd County Buitding Department 108 8th Street #401 Gtenwood Springs, CO 81601 (970) 945-1377 Ext. 1560 From: Margaret Richard <margaret@mlrcp.com> Sent: Monday, August I1,202510:13 PM To: Jo h n Pla no <j pla no @ garfieldco u ntyco.gov> Subject: Re: Deck Replacement/expansion 3490 CR117 Hetto John, Thank you very much for the quick reply and feedback. See below responses in btue. I am also available to discuss iflas needed in a brief phone catt. Thank you, Margaret Richard Principal 518.651.1714 Margaret@mlrcp.com l9TWoodtand Pkwy. Suite 104 #897 San Marcos, CA 92069 MI _R From: John Plano <iplano@garfieldcountyco.eov> Sent: Monday, August 1.L,2025 12:50 PM To: Margaret Richard <margaret@mlrcp.com> 1 Cc: trov@dongen neeflns.com <trov@dongenginee >; Colleen Wirth <cwirth@garfieldc > Subject: Deck Replacement/expansion 3490 CR117 HetLo Margaret, I am reviewing the proposed deck reptacement/expansion at the above address. I witl need more ctarification to complete the review of the apptication. The survey supptied is too smat[ to read. Ptease submit a futt-sized survey. This can be drafted in CAD; however, the original surveywas inctuded to be sure atl originat detait captured. Witt a CAD-drafted site pl,an with the required detait be acceptabte? [Surveyor did not provide fite in other form. Survey was conducted as part of the purchase in 2O21.1 The survey states a setback dimension to the road. The setback is required to be measured from the front property [ine. There was a variance approved in the past to reduce the 50' setback to 25'. Ptease ctearty show the distance from the edge of the new deck to the property tine. Correct, this variance was considered. Ptease see attached hightighted A200 and snapshot from drawing A200 inctuded with permit submission, catling out the setback dimension. Ptease advise what further information we shoul,d provide to clarify intent? The setback is measured f rom the property line not the road. I need the dimension from the deck to the property [ine, not to the road. a a !. i 2 Scale: 3/1 6" = 1' a NEW OFFSET .-36'-2" EDGE DECK TO S ET The survey appears to expand the deck further than portrayed in the working drawings. Ptease coordinate. Confirmed the portion in blue marked on the survey reftects the intended deck and corresponds with dimensions in the drawing. Ptease advise where the conftict in the working set is visibte and we will correct. The survey shows the deck depth expanding to the bottom on the existing stairs, where the ptans show the deck width to the top of the stairs. The ptans are catling out (2) 12" LVL's as the support beam. LVL's are not listed for exterior exposure, please address accordingty. Noted, intention was for pressure-treated LVL's, wi[[ reviewwith the team and come backwith response/resolution. I'm not aware of pressure treated LVL's, there may be some off chute companies that do it. The deck support from the driveway for approximate the first 10' of deck is not shown. lt appears the beam and joist woutd be below grade to accomptish the transition from the deck to the driveway. Ptease ctearty show how the joist and beam witt be supported with proper ctearances to grade. Noted, will review and come back with response/resotution. Note: lt appears the 36" door accessing the deck is the required egress door from the residence. With the removat of the stairs, the deck is required to have access to grade. See snapshot from A300 incl,uded with permit working set; itlustrates the deck terminating at grade. Deck is being replicated in this condition where previous deck meets the existing concrete drivewaylgrade. Noted An asbestos report is required for the interior remodet. Please suppLy a testing report from a state licensed asbestos testing company. lf asbestos is found over the state [imits, a state mitigation permit is required. Noted, for clarification; scope visibte in the ftoor plans was drawn in Aprit/May for budgeting/planning purposes; however, is not yet proceeding. Beyond new paint and replacing (3) exterior tight fixtures and (4) interior tight fixtures, we have deemed 3 a a -- ,lrl ililill illlirlr rl' ,l il rl ;TiI I I ltlrltltlll I I till]ltil I I lilillllil r I litilllilir r r rill]tl]r r r ririrlrlrlr Ilill llllll,l l]rir r illlil r llilil llrlrir r r a remaining potential scope at interior wi[[ not move forward at this time. Scope proceeding is renovation of deck and exterior paint, ptease confirm if asbestos report is stil,t required. lf the interior work is not planned, it needs to be removed from the submitted drawings. I question one 3/8" tag at 32" OC to support the tedger. Noted, witl review and confirm. Witt confirm existing lag spacing, betieve were -18" staggered ptacement, wi[[ confirm intent to fotlow per IBG as joist span is <10'. Thankyou. Ptease provide written response to the comments and detiver revised paper copies to the office John Plano Chief Buitding Officiat Garfiel,d County Buitding Department 108 8th Street #401 Gtenwood Springs, CO 81601 (970) 945-1377 Ext. 1560 a Staff emaiI addresses have shifted to end in @garfietdcountyco.gov. Ptease update our contact information domain. Staff email addresses have shifted to end in @garfietdcountyco.gov. Ptease update our contact information domain. 4 John Plano To: Cc: Subject: margaret@mlrcp.com troy@dongengineering.com; Colleen Wirth Deck Replacement/expansion 3490 CR1 17 Hel,l.o Margaret, I am reviewing the proposed deck reptacement/expansion at the above address. I wil.l, need more ctarification to comptete the review of the apptication. o The survey suppl,ied is too smat[ to read. Ptease submit a futt-sized survey. o The survey states a setback dimension to the road. The setback is required to be measured from the front property l,ine. There was a variance approved in the past to reduce the 50'setback to 25'. Ptease ctearty show the distance from the edge of the new deck to the property [ine. o The survey appears to expand the deck further than portrayed in the working drawings. Please coordinate. o The ptans are catl,ing out (2) 12" LVL's as the support beam. LVL's are not tisted for exterior exposure, please address accordingty. o The deck support from the driveway for approximate the first 10' of deck is not shown. lt appears the beam and joist woutd be be[ow grade to accomptish the transition from the deck to the driveway. Pl,ease clearty show how the joist and beam wit[ be supported with proper clearances to grade. Note: lt appears the 36" door accessing the deck is the required egress door from the residence. With the removal of the stairs, the deck is required to have access to grade. o An asbestos report is required for the interior remodet. Ptease suppl,y a testing report from a state ticensed asbestos testing company. lf asbestos is found over the state [imits, a state mitigation permit is required. . I question one 3/8" lagal32" OC to support the Ledger. Pl,ease provide written response to the comments and detiver revised paper copies to the office. John Pl,ano Chief Buitding Officiat Garfiel.d Cou nty Buitding Department 108 8th Street #401 Gtenwood Springs, CO 81601 (970) 945-1377 Ext. 1560 1