Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCorrespondenceDave Argo From: Dave Argo Sent: Wednesday, July 05, 2017 2:14 PM To: 'Andi Korber' Cc: Glenn Hartmann; David Pesnichak Subject: Erickson - Cottonwood Hollow, Lot 13 Attachments: BLRE-06-17-4768 Erickson.pdf; Erickson Retaining Walls.pdf Andi: I have reviewed the plans submitted for Chris Erickson's new residence located at Cottonwood Hollow, Lot 13 and there are a couple of issues which first must be addressed before we can issue a building permit for this project. Most importantly, the current site plan indicates there will be (2) retaining walls — including a "Redi-Bloc" upper tier wall and a cast -in-place concrete lower tier wall — both of which extend past the limits of the circular building envelope. Per Garfield County's Land Use and Development Code, retaining walls greater than four feet in height are not allowed outside of platted "building envelopes" and it appears as though these retaining walls range in height from seven to ten feet. There are a couple of different options for you to consider with your client to bring the design into compliance: (A) Relocate the building footprint and uphill retaining walls fully within the limits of the existing Building Envelope, or (B) Pursue the required land -use approvals for establishing a newly reconfigured Building Envelope that fully contains all structures — including retaining walls — as shown on your current plans. For more specific description about these 2 alternatives including additional information we need to receive from you, please refer to the attached "Supplemental Information Request" and after you have reviewed these options, please feel free to contact us with any questions. Although this circumstance involves both building and planning issues, our office can help you and your client through the necessary processes to reach your goal of land -use and/or building permit approvals. For your convenience, I have copied Glenn Hartmann and David Pesnichek, both of whom are senior planners here in our office who may be able to assist you with planning related issues if you choose to pursue an amended final plat. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Dave Argo Plans Examiner . Car/wld 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 Vii. NNW Garfield County BUILDING DEPARTMENT 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Tel: 970-945-8212 SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION REQUEST: Project: Chris Erickson — New S.F. Residence Permit No: BLRE-06-17-4768 Cottonwood Hollow, Lot 13 — Carbondale BLRE-06-17-4769 Date: July 7, 2017 Plans Examiner: Dave Argo Status: APPROVAL PENDING but prior to release of building permit, awaiting submittal of the following required supplemental information: DESCRIPTION: The current plans site plan indicates there will be (2) retaining walls — including a "Redi-Bloc" upper tier wall and a cast -in-place concrete lower tier wall — both of which extend past the limits of the circular building envelope. Per Garfield County's Land Use and Development Code, retaining walls greater than four feet in height are not allowed outside of platted "building envelopes". As a result, there are a couple of different options to bring design into compliance: (A) Relocate the building footprint and uphill retaining walls fully within the limits of the existing platted building envelope, or (B) Obtain the necessary land -use approvals for an amended final plat with newly reconfigured Building Envelope fully containing all structures — including retaining walls — as shown on the submitted plans. If the decision is made to follow Option A by relocating the new residence and retaining walls within the existing Building Envelope, we will need to receive a revised site plan with updated placement of the key elements and addressing the following concerns: • In the current set of drawings the Architectural and Civil site plans don't exactly match up, with respect to the upper tier Redi-Bloc wall (see attached redlines). Also, these site plans don't clearly call out vertical heights of these retaining walls. On any revised site plans, please provide top and bottom of retaining wall elevation heights to facilitate review by our office. • Structural drawings of the lower tier concrete retaining wall don't clearly indicate top/bottom wall elevation heights. Please clarify & coordinate with Architectural and Civil site plans. In discussing Option B with our planners earlier today at our staff meeting, this is a process that will probably take a minimum of a couple months to complete. However, it should be a relatively straightforward process should your clients choose to pursue this course of action. In fact, another lot in Cottonwood Hollow recently went through a similar process, and Glenn Hartmann here in our office is familiar with that particular case if you'd like to visit with him further about the specifics involved. In either case of Option A or Option 8, we will need for the following items to be addressed as well as the items described above: • Geotechnical subsurface testing has evidently not yet been completed. Although we appreciate the 2 -page "preliminary" report by HP Geotech, we will require a full report including subsurface soils testing and also HP's opinion regarding potential rockfall from the natural slope above the building site — which they previously stated in their two-page report "could also be a concern". • HP Geotech's preliminary report also identifies a 25 -foot high cut slope on the high side of an existing driveway on the property which shows signs of raveling and erosion over the ensuing years. Please provide details and/or planned mitigation in dealing with this particular circumstance in your subsequent plan submittal updates. Again, if a structured retaining wall over 4 feet in height is utilized, this will need to be situated within the platted building envelope (or a subsequently amended plat). --------- PROPOSED HOME Fifkiptit mti 3 > . Hot otIou - tD1/1-4061, est (i ;ts of tiAt N. 1.51. of vz-feti► m L, 1l as. 91,40ww ow 9isw c i . &4•.W111 + -hot Lou'k D� Ar66./s1YUdwal oig ( .ples.vls k(At 101Nt.pw911a# A4 1 - / - /, i EDGE OF EXISTING GRAVEL DRIVEWAY EDGE OF PROPOSED GRAVEL DRIVEWAY REDrELOC RETAINING V �_ _ F NI)116 WALLS'j (kill docs frwf vnAtch Up Uri wHe&t4 stiowo 1 St.ia t cf.! EXISTING WELL, TO REMAIN -CONCRETE APRON CONTOUR LINES INDICATE EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY; RE: CML FOR PROPOSED GRADING AND SITE IMPROVEMENTS BUILDING ENVELOPE; RE: SURVEY Dave Argo From: Dave Argo Sent: Friday, July 07, 2017 5:36 PM To: 'Andi Korber' Cc: Jeremy Wussow; Andy Schwaller (aschwaller@garfield-county.com) Subject: RE: Erickson - Cottonwood Hollow, Lot 13 Attachments: Cottonwood Hollow Plat Notes.pdf Andi: My apologies for not getting back to you sooner, but I've spent some time today discussing your project in greater detail with both Andy Schwaller (building official) & David Pesnichek (senior planner) here in our office. In response to your question about what sections in our Land Use Code are pertinent to this issue, the key definitions that come into play here are "Building Envelope" and "Structure" (see Article 15). According to these definitions — and I'm paraphrasing for simplicity here — all structures are confined to the limits of a building envelope, and retaining walls (of any height) are classified as structures. *Note: this would not be an issue if we were simply dealing with setbacks, but Building Envelopes are defined differently in our land use code. However, based on my most recent conversation with Andy, I think we may have reached a more equitable solution for both you and your client on this issue. From a building code standpoint, we believe that we can accept your currently designed site plan — provided that you address a couple of outstanding items related to geotechnical and geologic considerations prior to issuance of the building permit including the following: a. Provide a site specific soils report (not simply a 2 -page preliminary review letter) from HP Geotech that addresses subsurface soils conditions at the site. This report should also address the following items: proposed foundation designs, proposed design of the uphill retaining walls, site drainage, and any geologic hazards such as those noted in the Lincoln — Devore "General Engineering and Geology Study" as referenced on the Cottonwood Hollow Subdivision Plat (see attached PDF for a copy of the relevant plat notes). b. In addition to the items noted above, we believe it to be beneficial for HP to provide an opinion about an existing 25 -foot high cut slope and excavation which has evidently been open for several years. In particular, does this steep cut slope represent any safety issues for Lot 13, the Cattle Creek Road or any adjacent neighboring properties? In regards to the item (b) above, it is unclear to us where exactly this cut slope is located on the site, and Jeremy wasn't able to pinpoint its location when we talked. If, in fact, the cut slope area is actually in the general location of the building footprint, it may be unnecessary for HP to render a separate opinion about stabilization and/or safety hazards that it may represent. Once we receive the requested soils and geologic information described above and any revisions which may be required as a result of HP's findings and recommendations, we should be able to issue the building permit within a couple of days. Please let me know if you have any questions, and thank you for your 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 1 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: Andi Korber[mailto:andi@landandshelter.com] Sent: Friday, July 07, 2017 11:30 AM To: Dave Argo <dargo@garfield-county.com> Cc: Glenn Hartmann <ghartmann@garfield-county.com>; David Pesnichak <dpesnichak@garfield-county.com>; Jeremy Wussow <jeremy@landandshelter.com> Subject: Re: Erickson - Cottonwood Hollow, Lot 13 Dave - Thank you for the direction and and thanks for being in touch with Jeremy. As we sort this out - could you let us know the applicable code section for the 4' limitation. We're looking at 7-2101-B and seeing some info that is perhaps out of date or inapplicable. (It does not appear to have a straight definition of a wall within R zoning). Scan attached — but perhaps we're not looking in the right spot. Whatever revisions we make, we'd like to find the code section that we're revising towards. Thank you very much for pointing us in the right direction. Warm regards, Andi ANDREA KORBER PRINCIPAL, AIA, LEED AP 970.963.0201 I c E L 970.366.1582 2 CO T TONWOOD HOLLOW SUED/V/S/ON A,89'23'of- E FINAL PLAT 03_3. C6' /3 5. 5 r3 ACRES C� fs• COUNTY R.OAO 113 2 txg WV '43 dv -• 2.'h. �"J9.3 E erg pE irf e? 7- YEAR 4 3.025 ACRES 7 -�• CAfCrFv_ Z. �. _ r 4ti • c-,!'-• • �� nc R_ 59;; 68- • - �trv: Es T-21 • J2l:�c -c EA.. EMeh.' 3 \5.141 ACRES • c _ .} , •s c2i +SSC^� as _4 w N•tl, Vit. A w 3.097 ACRES .Yrs-�• B A.. Ta.v. _.-E yr vc LAND USE SUMMARY= Lots (13) Roads Total 69.092 AC. 3. 335 AC. 72.427 AC. f�� f INDICATES BUILD/NG ENVELOPE - 4000 SQUARE FEET DIAMETER = 7I.36 INDICATES NON - BUILDABLE AREA OF BUILDING ENVELOPE NOTE 80UNDARY MONUMENTS HAVE SEEN SET /N CONCRETE AS PER SECTION 5'23-A, GARFIELD COUNTY SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS INDICATES BENCHMARK - RELATIVE ELEVATION 1033. 34 'TOTES : ib j77e?9%6`_ 25..6'-_ i•� 577,284'E 35 £3 OF IO0 - YEAR PLAIN 6.594 ACRES • • I There are severe geologic constraints to development in some portions of this subdivision. Home builders should note= a} That lots may be subject to severe eclogic hazards as noted in the Lincoln - DeYore General Engineering and Geology Study, Jab No. 5C53B-G5. bi That individual sewage disposal systems may have to be designed h; a Colorado registered professional engineer. That the design of allfoundations and associated drainage shall be subject to individual geologic/ soils report and design submitted with the building permit application. di The flood p14 z.n nay 1Ludt some types of individual sewage disposal systems. Se?