The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCorrespondenceDave Argo Sent: lo: Cc: From Dave Argo Tuesday, July 2,2019 2:39 PM ' bruce.bea rcreek@comcast.net' Tim Hagman (tim@hagmanarchitects.com) 84 Puma Lane - Aspen Glen Bruce: Got your voicemail message from yesterday regarding calculation of "fire area" on this project and thought it would be best to respond to both you & Tim Hagman via emailto avoid possible confusion. Basically, the total "fire area" includes total roofed area (including covered decks, patios, porches) plus uncovered wood- frame decks (but not non-flammable patios - concrete, flagstone, etc.) The total fire area therefore includes all interior floor square footage - including garages - as measured to outside face of wood studs or concrete. We do not, however, typically include normal roof eave overhangs in the total fire area calculations. My calculations were based on the footprint size as shown on the building permit drawings submitted with this building permit application. lf you wish to contradict or propose alternative square footage calculations, you will need to submit those calculations to our office for consideration. However, we ask that those drawings/calculation to be prepared and stamped by Tim Hagman, since he has been the Architect of record for the duration of th¡s project (no offense to you, personally, please understand). It's still in your (and your client's) best interests to get together with Bill Gavette to discuss this project, since we will be looking to Bill for local fire district requirements. Dave Argo Plans Examiner GarfieÍd Count¡' Community Development Department 7OB gth Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 87607 Tel: 970-945-8272 Ext. 7670 Ema il : d a rg o @ g a rfield-cou nty.com Web : gø rfi el d -co u nty. com Subject: Dave Argo From: Sent: To: Cc: Subiect: Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: Bruce U pton < bruce.bearcreek@comcast.net> Friday, July 5, 201911:20 AM Dave Argo Tim Hagman (tim@hagmanarchitects.com) [External] Re: 84 Puma Lane - Aspen Glen Follow up Flagged Dear Dave, Thank you for your reply. I am working with Tim to certify the existing and proposed square footage of "fire area" as you described. Unfortunately, the Area Diagram in the submittal set showed the garage area inaccurately. When we confirm the areas, we will submit to you the revised calculations. After we have completed that exercise, we will contact Bill Gavette to discuss the project Sincerely, Bruce Upton 970.948.5716 On July 2,2019 at2:38 PM Dave Argo <dargo@garfreld-county.com) wrote: Bruce Got your voicemail message from yesterday regarding calculation of oofire area" on this project and thought it would be best to respond to both you & Tim Hagmanvia email to avoid possible confusion. Basically, the total "fite atea" includes total roofed area (including covered decks, patios, porches) plus uncovered wood-frame decks (but not non-flammable patios - concrete, flagstone, etc.) The total fire area therefore includes all interior floor square footage - including garages - as measured to outside face of wood studs or concrete. We do not, however, typically include normal roof eave overhangs in the total fire area calculations. My calculations were based on the footprint size as shown on the building permit drawings submitted with this building permit application. If you wish to contradict or propose alternative square footage calculations, you will need to submit those calculations to our offrce for consideration. However, we ask that those drawings/calculation to be prepared and stamped by Tim Hagman, since he has been the Architect of record for the duration of this project (no offense to you, personally, please understand). It's still in your (and your client's) best interests to get together with Bill Gavette to discuss this project, since we will be looking to Bill for local fire district requirements. Dave Argo Plans Examiner Gurfwld Caunty Community Development Department 108 }th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Tel: 970-945-82 I 2 bd. I 61 0 Email : dar go@garfi e I d-c ounty. c om I{eb : gar fi e I d-c olm ty. c o m 2 Dave Argo From: Sent: To: Cc: Subiect: Attachments: Dave Argo Wednesday, June 26,2019 12:25 PM 'bruce.bearcreek@comcast.net'; Tim Hagman (tim@ hagmanarchitects.com) Bill Gavette (gavette@carbondalefire.org) 84 Puma Aspen Glen Lot E-10 - Permit #BLRE-06-19-5784 Aspen Glen Bldg Envelopes Policy 03-13.pdf Bruce I have reviewed the plans for an addition to 84 Puma Lane in Aspen Glen, but before we can finalize our plan review we require additional information including the following items: A. Site Plan stamped bv Architect or Engineer - Roof overhangs must be fully located within the constraints of building envelopes at Aspen Glen (see attached Policy 03-L3 "Aspen Glen PUD Building Envelopes"). Per the submitted plans, it appears as though roof overhangs extend beyond the building envelope. Please provide our office with a clearly dimensioned site plan illustrating all elements of proposed addition - including line of foundation and roof overhangs above - will be fully contained within constraints of the new proposed building envelope. This illustration must be a site plan that is stamped by either a licensed Professional Engineer or a licensed Architect. B. Fire Sorinkler Reouireme & SiEn-Off bv Fire District -The proposed addition to this residence results in a total "fire area" that exceeds 6,200 S.F. which is the maximum allowable size for homes located within the Aspen Glen PUD without an automatic fire sprinkler system. Please note that/r're oreø includes all areas under roof (garages, covered decks & porches, etc.) The Building Dept. requires that you review these plans with Bill Gavette at Carbondale Fire District, and provide us with a sign-off letter or email from Bill for this project. We suggest that you schedule a meeting with Bill at your earliest opportunity to determine whether or not a fire sprinkler system will be required as a result of this new addition. Please address these items at your earliest opportunity so that we can issue a building permit in a timely manner once approvalforthe proposed Building Envelope has been granted from our Planning Dept. ln the meantime, plans will be placed in our "pending projects" file awaiting action on your part and the previously referenced Land Use Change Permit for the amended Building Envelope. Thank you for your attention to this matter Døve Argo Plans Examiner GarfieÍd County Community Development Department 708 gth Street, Suite 407 Glenwood Springs, CO 8L601 Tel: 970-945-82L2 Ext. 1670 Ema i I : d o rgo@ ga rfi eld-cou nty. com Web : ga rfi e I d -cou nty. com 1 Policy 03-13 Aspen Glen PUD Building Envelopes August 5,2OL3 - revised August 28,2OL3 The Aspen Glen PUD was approved pursuant to Resolution 92-056 (recorded at Reception No.436262; Book 835, Page 305). The PUD zone district requirements are contained in a document attached to the approved resolution. ln regard to building envelopes: r Findings 9.f. required that adequate privacy be provided between the dwelling units through lot sizing, building envelopes and architectural control. . Cond¡tion of Approval #17 required that the Preliminary Plan have a building envelope designated for every lot to avoid sinkholes within the PUD and that all building envelopes shown on the Final Plat shall be consistent with those shown on the Preliminary Plan. . Condition of Approval #65 required that all building envelopes be located on lots such that no wetlands would be impacted by foundation, accessory buildings, driveways or other accessory structu res. The PUD guide for Aspen Glen specifically references both Setbacks and Building Envelopes, indicating that these two terms have different meanings. Consistent with the Zoning Resolution of 1978, the generally accepted definition for setback is as follows: "The minimum horizontal distance between the front, rear, or side property line and the front, rear, or side of a structure." Per the same resolution, (the adopted land use code at the time of Aspen Glen PUD approval), and per the Land Use and Development Code 2013 (the currently adopted land use code) setbacks allow for specific projections into a setback depending upon the type of architectural feature (see L978 Zoning Resolution section 2.02.48 and 2.02.54 and LUDC 2013 section 3-202.Gl,. Setbacks create an area in which one can build, but allow for specific types of projections ¡r.¡ti ¡ r-s" Though not specifically defined in the Zoning Resolution of L978, the common understanding of Building Envelope and the adopted definition per the LUDC 2013 is "A designated area within a lot or parcel in llPage which a// structures and development shall be constructed or occur, unless specifically excepted or exempted including but not limited to, excavation, landscaping, building, grading, demolition, or filling. This is consistent with terminology used in the Aspen Glen PUD guide, for example the guide states "Each estate lot will have a predetermined building envelope within which all structures will be confined." ln summary, Building Envelopes are areas in which all structures shall be contained within the deslgnated envelope area. On the other hand, setbacks are allowed to have projections as permitted in the adopted land use code. This does not allow for projections of any kind or structures requiring building permits to be constructed outside of the designated building envelope but does allow for landscaping and other similar types of improvements. Because the Aspen Glen approvals incorporate both Building Envelopes and Setbacks, the more restrictive designation controls. Historically, the County has not reviewed or limited the types of activities that have occurred outside of the building envelope, including improvements such as landscaping, patios and walls, so long as they do not require a building permit. The County will continue to leave up to the discretion of the Aspen Glen Design Review Committee what type of improvements can occur outside of the building envelope so long as they do not require County review and issuance of a building permit. Within the Aspen Glen PUD, where it is known that there are designated building envelopes, both the Plat for an individual lot as well as the PUD guide should be reviewed before approving any building permit to ensure that both the building envelope and required setbacks are being met. Any request to amend a building envelope shall be processed as an amendment of a final plat. Building Envelopes create an area in which all building must be contained, Ðo8 tR fôAT DSRIF¡il I æ 2lPäge Dave Argo From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Dave Argo Wednesday, June 26, 2019 12:26 PM Bill Gavette (gavette@carbondalefire.org) 'bruce.bearcreek@comcast.net'; Tim Hagman (tim@hagmanarchitects.com) 84 Puma Aspen Glen Lot E-10 - Perm¡t #BLRE-06-19-5784 Bill We are currently reviewing a new addition for an existing residence located at 84 Puma, Aspen Glen Filing L, Lot E-10. According to the records from the Assessor's office, this proposed addition will result in an overall size exceeding the 6,200 maximum area allowed within Aspen Glen PUD without a fire sprinkler system (see summary below). Existing Residence 3,995 Existing Garage I,725 Existing Covered Deck/Patio 375 New Addition 655 New Covered Patio 100 TOTAT F|RE AREA 6,850 I have asked Bruce Upton, the General Contractor, to contact you to review this project so that you can provide them with specific direction andlor l.F.C. requirements. Please contact me if you have any questions. Dave Argo Plans Examiner Garfield Coanty Community Development Department 708 9th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Tel: 970-945-8272 Ext. 1610 Ema il : do rg o@ go rfield-county.com Web : go rfi eld-cou nty. com 1 CIaire Dalby From: Sent: To: Cc: Subiect: Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: Tim Hagman <tim@hagmanarchitects.com > Monday, June 3, 2019 5:03 PM Claire Dalby bruce.bearcreek@comcast.net [External] RE:Aspen Glen Lot E-10 Amended Final Plat Flag for follow up Completed HiClaire, Doing well, thanks. And thank you for getting back promptly, hope the list below is what you need i,. I did include a letter, 3 copies, from Terry Butler saying: "1, Terry Butler, give Tim Hagman authority to act on my behalf during the permitting process." ls there some other form you would like from her? 2. Bruce Upton will be providing the Mineral rights information. 3. The wall shown on the Plat is an existing boulder wall that was built when the home was originally constructed, in 2002. No changes to it are planned. 4. The roof overhangs will be within the revised envelope. I first checked with Deborah Prince, she said that OH's need to be within the enveloPe. I think we are in good shape with everything, let me know if you have any further questions or requests Tim Hagman From : Cla i re Da I by fma i lto : cda I by@ga field-cou nty.com] Sent: Monday, June 03, 2019 2:51 PM To: Tim Hagman Subject: Aspen Glen Lot E-10 Amended Final Plat Good afternoon Tim, Hope you're doing welll I just finished my review of your amended final plat application - attached you will find the "Not Technically Complete" letter outlining just a few more things we need from you. Since we last met, the attorney's office has approved a new mineral rights research form that we hope will make things easier for applicants in terms of mineral rights research. I have attached this form that you can fill out as well as a memo detailing mineral rights research. Please don't hesitate to give me a call about any of this - | will be out of the office this week Wednesday through Friday but am available to answer questions today and tomorrow. Thanks, Claire Claire Dalby, Planner Garfielcl County Comm unity Development Department cd a I bv(Ðga rfie ld-co u ntv.co m 970-945-1377 Ext.1630 Gørfield Coulnty Community Development Department June 3, 2019 Tim Hagman 6L8 Sopris Ave. Carbondale, CO 816L1 RE: Aspen Glen Lot E-10 Filing No. l- Amended Final Plat (FPAA-05-19-87321 Dear Mr. Hagman, Thank you for your application for an Amended Final Plat to amend the building envelope on Lot E-10 located within the Aspen Glen PUD northwest of Carbondale, CO. Our technical completeness review included input from the County Attorney's Office and has identified serveral items that need to be addressed or clarified pr¡or to a determination of technical completeness. Please respond to the following items: L. The property owner must sign the authorization letter (she can sign the submitted email authorization). Z. please provide certification that mineral rights research for the parcel was done in compliance with the Land Use Code (memo and form attached)' 3. The plat shows a wall built outside of the bu¡lding envelope. Please clarify the purpose of the wall, its height and building material. 4. The plat shows the house (existing and proposed) built to the building envelope boundary. Please clarify whether the building envelope (existing and proposed) includes roof overhangs. Once the above topics are addressed, we can finalize our completeness review and schedule a date for the Director's Decision. Please note that the Garfield County Land Use and Development Code requires that the technical completeness issues be resolved within 60-days of the date of this letter. lf not resolved 1-08 Eighth Street, Suite 40L Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 (970194s-82L2 in that timeframe, the application will be deemed withdrawn, unless a request for extension is submitted and approved. Please feel free to call or request a follow-up meeting with staff to address any quest¡ons you may have regarding the above items. You may reach me a cdalbv@sarfield-countv.com or 970-945-1377 ext. 1630. Sincerely, U^W Claire Dalby, Planner 108 Eighth Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 (970l.94s-82r2 ASFEN GT,EN Ilomeowners Association at Aspen Glen, Inc. i|d:ay 7,2019 Ms. Tricia Parish Garfietd County Building and Planning Departmerf 108 8tl'Street, Suite 201 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 via email Re: Referral for the Proposed Aménded Plat for Lot E-10 / 84 Puma Aspen Glen Dear Tlicia, This letter is to confirm that the Aspen Glen Design Review Committee (DRC) review'ed the proposed plat amendment to adjust the building envelope on lot E-10, to accommodate the addition of an enclosed living space and overhang within an adjusted building envelope. The DRC reviewed the plat amendment at the April3rd,2019 regular meeting. The DRC noticed property owners within the vicinity of the property and there were no objections. The DRC reÇommends approval to the Garfield County Board of County Commissioners with the following conditions: 1. A copy of the recorded amended plat shall be provided to the Aspen Glen DRC. 2. It is the responsibility of the property owner to ensure that this building envelope adjustment does not negatively affect the drainage easement or the pond. 3. The DRC is with the understanding that the architect, Tim Hagman, reviewed the project with the groundskeeper, Jake Falke at ClubCorp, on 4lI5lI9 and received approval in regard to proximity to adjacent pond. 4. The DRC has only approved the building envelope modification. Any further improvements to the property require final DRC review and approval. Reference: Lot E-l0Improvement Survey Plat dated 416195. 0080 Bald Eagle Way Carbondale, CO 81623 Tel: (970) 963-3362 Em ail : dpr in ce@as p engl enho a. cont I If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincereiy, Deborah Prince, Administrator Aspen Glen Design Review Committee CC: DRC Tim Hagman, Architect Bruce Upton, Builder Teny Butler, Lot Owner 0080 Bøld Eagle llray Carbondale, CO 81623 Tel: (970) 963-3362 Emaí I : dpr in c e@øsp en gl enho a. ca m 2