Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCorrespondenceDave Argo From: Dave Argo Sent: Monday, August 5, 2019 11:01 AM To: 'aspenlaw@neileylaw.com'; 'tkga@tkga.net' Cc: Glenn Hartmann; Andy Schwaller (aschwaller@garfield-county.com) Subject: Black Bridge Condo Unit #1 - Permit #BLRE-07-19-5830 Rick & Ted: We have reviewed plans submitted to our office for a remodel/addition of an existing A -Frame structure located at 4412 County Road 154 in Glenwood Springs (aka: Black Bridge Condos, Unit #1). However, because of a few problematic issues, we cannot proceed with approval of this application. As part of our plan review for building permit we have reviewed documentation related to the recently Amended Final Plat for this property, including a Director's Decision Letter dated 2/15/19 and a previous Board of Adjustment Resolution 02/2018, as well as the Plat itself. Submitted plans for a proposed remodel and addition to Unit #1 do not appear to comply with conditions contained in the Director's Decision (more specifically, Conditions #2 and #3). Our concerns include the following: • Building Footprint and Size — Approval for the (4) existing A -Frame structures was granted but it was specifically contingent upon the existing structures as "limited to the surveyed dimensions and existing square footage". The proposed Unit #1 addition/remodel expands both building footprint size and overall square footage, which is not allowed. Even more problematic is that the resulting enlarged footprint encroaches further toward the rear property line adjoining the Rio Grande recreational trail. Since no dimensions are provided on the site plan, we are left to scale off this drawing, and by our calculations the original A -Frame was about 5 feet off the rear property line and the proposed building footprint will encroach to within 2 or 3 feet of the property line. For reference, today's Land Use Code requires a minimum rear yard setback for this zone district of 25 feet. With a proposed 2 -story "Pop -Top" design, the proposed area calculations for Unit #1 equal 845 square feet (S.F.), which is an increase of 51 S.F. from 794 S.F. as listed in the Assessor's Office records. • Partially Demolished Structure — At the present time, the existing structure appears to be substantially demolished with only a partial shell of the original A -Frame remaining in place, and we presume that demolition has occurred in anticipation of receiving a building permit. However, the fact that this structure is now more than 50% demolished, it could be considered as "destroyed" under Condition #3 of the Director's Decision and as also described in Plat Note #9 of the recently approved Amended Final Plat. These requirements state that if a unit is "destroyed" it shall be permitted to be rebuilt, but the new structure shall comply with "all setback requirements including rear yard setbacks" (25 feet as noted above). Given these outstanding issues, the Building Department cannot finalize our plan review nor issue any permits for this work. I would suggest that your best course of action is to schedule a time to come in and meet with Glenn Hartmann, our principal planner, to discuss viable options to addressing these issues. I have spoken with Glenn at length regarding this permit application and he is happy to assist you determine possible avenues for moving forward. Unfortunately, Glenn is on vacation and out of the office this week, but he is expected back in the office next Monday. Until these issue have been resolved with Glenn's assistance and guidance, we will place this permit application in our "pending" projects file. Thank you for your prompt attention to these issues. Dave Argo Plans Examiner 1 Dave Argo From: Dave Argo Sent: Monday, August 5, 2019 11:03 AM To: 'tkga@tkga.net' Cc: Glenn Hartmann Subject: Black Bridge Condos Unit #1 - Permit BLRE-07-19-5830 Ted: In addition to the planning issues identified in a separate Plan Review Correction Notice sent to you earlier today, there are some other issues that need to be addressed on your plans before we can approve them for a building permit. More specifically, it appears as though not much time was spent by your office in looking over your general notes & specifications as shown on Sheet S0.1 Specific examples of items that need to be corrected or updated include the following: • Project ID Reference on Sheet SO.1 — Obviously, this project reference information needs to be updated to reflect the correct information. • Wind Load Requirements — In line with the 2015 I.R.C., Garfield County's minimum wind Toad requirements = 115 mph Ultimate Speed (not 80 mph as shown). • Building Code Reference — It's been more than 25 years since our office has used the 1991 UBC and this needs to reference the 2015 I.R.C. instead. • Structural Specification Sections — All sections include (in bright red ink) "Not Verified" which is obviously either a lack of review and correction or proofreading/editing. Please review these specifications and only include pertinent sections for this project. In addition to these more rudimentary corrections and/or edits, once you have resolved issues related to the placement of the building footprint on the property with Glenn Hartmann (see other Correction Notice) the Building Department will require a Surveyed Site Location Plan as prepared by a Colorado Professional Licensed Surveyor. Thank you for your prompt attention to correcting these items. Until such time as we receive an updated building permit application from you — including addressing items included on the other Correction Notice — we will place this project in our "pending" file. Dave Argo Plans Examiner . 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 1 Dave Argo From: Neiley Law Firm, LLC <aspenlaw@neileylaw.com> Sent: Monday, August 5, 2019 3:10 PM To: Dave Argo Cc: Glenn Hartmann; Andy Schwaller; Theodore Guy Subject: [External] RE: Black Bridge Condo Unit #1 - Permit #BLRE-07-19-5830 Attachments: Black Bridge Condo Plat Map Rec #918536.pdf Dave: I am in receipt of your email of today's date. I am not sure where the disconnect exists, but we are not expanding the building footprint size, we are not increasing the overall square footage of the building beyond 794 square feet, and we are not increasing the encroachment into the rear yard setback. Building Footprint and Size - We are utilizing the same footprint of the building that existed when we recorded the attached Condominium Map this past spring —18'X36'. We are not re -locating the footprint and it is not being expanded. I went out and measured it this morning and it remains as depicted on the Condominium Map both as to size and location. As shown on the Condominium Map, which is a survey, the rear yard setback is approximately 3' — that has not and will not change. Based upon the plans submitted, the main level habitable horizontal square footage is 17.1' X 32.3" = 552.33; the second level habitable horizontal square footage is 17.1' X 11' = 188.1, plus a 2.6' X 3.3' closet space = 8.58. The total second floor square footage (excluding the staircase, as Floor Area is defined in the LUC) is 196.68. The total floor area is 749.01 square feet. Even if you count the stair case as part of the upper level floor area ( the LUC definition of Floor Area instructs us to delete the staircase), the total is still less than 794 square feet. I do not know where your number of 845 square feet comes from but when we measure the plans, we do not come up with that. If you need me to come in and review the submitted plans with you, I would be happy to do so. Partially Demolished Structure — Yes, demolition of a portion of the building occurred in anticipation of receiving a building permit. However, we have not demolished more than 50% of the building. Twenty feet (20') of the original roof structure remains. 100% of the floor framing and decking remain. 100% of the foundation remains. All utility connections remain as do all utility lines. The skirting around the non -habitable crawl space has been removed and will be replaced in the same location. We retained the entire building foot print, 648 square feet, more that 50% of the total square footage. The value of what has been removed is well less than $25,000. Perhaps more important, this is the same design and same procedure we used when we rebuilt Unit number 3 (4416 County Road 154) for which Garfield County issued building permit #BLRE-06-16-4284. The provisions of the Land Use Code regarding non -conforming structures have not changed since that time and the Director's Decision Letter simply reflected that code language. As we are using the same plans for both buildings, the extent of the demolition is identical. I am happy to meet with Glenn next week but I do not think it should be necessary. We are using the same plans and same procedures that Garfield County approve for Unit 3 in 2016. We relied on those approvals in creating the condominium regime and in proceeding with the current project. Under the circumstance, we respectfully request that Garfield County complete the processing of our plans and issue our permit as expeditiously as possible. Thank you. 1 Rick Neiley Richard Y. Neiley, Jr. Neiley Law Firm, LLC aspenlaw@nelleylaw.com Glenwood Office: 6800 Highway 82, Suite 1, Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Aspen Office: 420 East Main Street, Suite 230, Aspen, CO 81611 (970) 928-9393 Telephone (970) 928-9399 Fax (Please mail correspondence to Glenwood Springs address.) From: Dave Argo [mailto:dargo@garfield-county.com] Sent: Monday, August 05, 2019 11:01 AM To: Neiley Law Firm, LLC <aspenlaw@neileylaw.com>; tkga@tkga.net Cc: Glenn Hartmann <ghartmann@garfield-county.com>; Andy Schwaller <aschwaller@garfield-county.com> Subject: Black Bridge Condo Unit #1 - Permit #BLRE-07-19-5830 Rick & Ted: We have reviewed plans submitted to our office for a remodel/addition of an existing A -Frame structure located at 4412 County Road 154 in Glenwood Springs (aka: Black Bridge Condos, Unit #1). However, because of a few problematic issues, we cannot proceed with approval of this application. As part of our plan review for building permit we have reviewed documentation related to the recently Amended Final Plat for this property, including a Director's Decision Letter dated 2/15/19 and a previous Board of Adjustment Resolution 02/2018, as well as the Plat itself. Submitted plans for a proposed remodel and addition to Unit #1 do not appear to comply with conditions contained in the Director's Decision (more specifically, Conditions #2 and #3). Our concerns include the following: • Building Footprint and Size — Approval for the (4) existing A -Frame structures was granted but it was specifically contingent upon the existing structures as "limited to the surveyed dimensions and existing square footage". The proposed Unit #1 addition/remodel expands both building footprint size and overall square footage, which is not allowed. Even more problematic is that the resulting enlarged footprint encroaches further toward the rear property line adjoining the Rio Grande recreational trail. Since no dimensions are provided on the site plan, we are left to scale off this drawing, and by our calculations the original A -Frame was about 5 feet off the rear property line and the proposed building footprint will encroach to within 2 or 3 feet of the property line. For reference, today's Land Use Code requires a minimum rear yard setback for this zone district of 25 feet. With a proposed 2 -story "Pop -Top" design, the proposed area calculations for Unit #1 equal 845 square feet (S.F.), which is an increase of 51 S.F. from 794 S.F. as listed in the Assessor's Office records. • Partially Demolished Structure — At the present time, the existing structure appears to be substantially demolished with only a partial shell of the original A -Frame remaining in place, and we presume that demolition has occurred in anticipation of receiving a building permit. However, the fact that this structure is now more than 50% demolished, it could be considered as "destroyed" under Condition #3 of the Director's Decision and as also described in Plat Note #9 of the recently approved Amended Final Plat. These requirements state that if a unit is "destroyed" it shall be permitted to be rebuilt, but the new structure shall comply with "all setback requirements including rear yard setbacks" (25 feet as noted above). Given these outstanding issues, the Building Department cannot finalize our plan review nor issue any permits for this work. I would suggest that your best course of action is to schedule a time to come in and meet with Glenn Hartmann, our principal planner, to discuss viable options to addressing these issues. I have spoken with Glenn at length regarding 2 this permit application and he is happy to assist you determine possible avenues for moving forward. Unfortunately, Glenn is on vacation and out of the office this week, but he is expected back in the office next Monday. Until these issue have been resolved with Glenn's assistance and guidance, we will place this permit application in our "pending" projects file. Thank you for your prompt attention to these issues. 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 3 Dave Argo From: Dave Argo Sent: Tuesday, August 6, 2019 2:36 PM To: 'Neiley Law Firm, LLC' Cc: Glenn Hartmann; Andy Schwaller; Theodore Guy Subject: RE: Black Bridge Condo Unit #1 - Permit #BLRE-07-19-5830 Rick: Thanks for your response to my email, and I appreciate your description of the footprint dimensions as recorded on the recent Amended Final Plat. Unfortunately, this site plan was not included in the Architect's drawings submitted with the building permit application, and it would have been helpful information to have in front of me as I was reviewing your building permit application. However, the Architect's floor plans submitted with the building permit application clearly illustrate that the "New" floor plan (footprint) is larger than the "Existing" floor plan on both the main and upper levels (using simplistic dimensions: 3.5' x 18' = 63 S.F. x 2 = 126 S.F.). In addition, overall dimensions shown on these floor plans do not match up with footprint dimensions on the Amended Final Plat. I would suggest that you contact Ted Guy to see where these discrepancies came from and to discuss having him revise/correct the architectural floor plans to match up with the Amended Final Plat if that's what needs to be done. As the floor plans are currently drawn it appears to us that the footprint has been enlarged which doesn't comply with the language of the Amended Plat. FYI: There are some additional inconsistencies, errata or other revisions that also need to be completed by Ted's office before we can approve these drawings, and I sent him a separate email describing those items. If necessary, as part of these other revisions to his drawings maybe he can clarify and/or revise dimensional sizes and square footages so that everything matches up correctly with the Plat. Since Glenn is gone the remainder of this week, maybe we can regroup next week after you've talked with Ted about any necessary drawing revisions and we can then decide whether or not we need to get together to discuss further. Thank you for your attention to these issues. Dave Argo Plans Examiner la. Garfield 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: Neiley Law Firm, LLC [mailto:aspenlaw@neileylaw.com] Sent: Monday, August 5, 2019 3:10 PM To: Dave Argo <dargo@garfield-county.com> Cc: Glenn Hartmann <ghartmann@garfield-county.com>; Andy Schwaller <aschwaller@garfield-county.com>; Theodore Guy <tedg@tkga.net> Subject: [External] RE: Black Bridge Condo Unit #1 - Permit #BLRE-07-19-5830 1 Dave: I am in receipt of your email of today's date. I am not sure where the disconnect exists, but we are not expanding the building footprint size, we are not increasing the overall square footage of the building beyond 794 square feet, and we are not increasing the encroachment into the rear yard setback. Building Footprint and Size - We are utilizing the same footprint of the building that existed when we recorded the attached Condominium Map this past spring —18'X36'. We are not re -locating the footprint and it is not being expanded. I went out and measured it this morning and it remains as depicted on the Condominium Map both as to size and location. As shown on the Condominium Map, which is a survey, the rear yard setback is approximately 3' — that has not and will not change. Based upon the plans submitted, the main level habitable horizontal square footage is 17.1' X 32.3" = 552.33; the second level habitable horizontal square footage is 17.1' X 11' = 188.1, plus a 2.6' X 3.3' closet space = 8.58. The total second floor square footage (excluding the staircase, as Floor Area is defined in the LUC) is 196.68. The total floor area is 749.01 square feet. Even if you count the stair case as part of the upper level floor area ( the LUC definition of Floor Area instructs us to delete the staircase), the total is still less than 794 square feet. I do not know where your number of 845 square feet comes from but when we measure the plans, we do not come up with that. If you need me to come in and review the submitted plans with you, I would be happy to do so. Partially Demolished Structure — Yes, demolition of a portion of the building occurred in anticipation of receiving a building permit. However, we have not demolished more than 50% of the building. Twenty feet (20') of the original roof structure remains. 100% of the floor framing and decking remain. 100% of the foundation remains. All utility connections remain as do all utility lines. The skirting around the non -habitable crawl space has been removed and will be replaced in the same location. We retained the entire building foot print, 648 square feet, more that 50% of the total square footage. The value of what has been removed is well less than $25,000. Perhaps more important, this is the same design and same procedure we used when we rebuilt Unit number 3 (4416 County Road 154) for which Garfield County issued building permit #BLRE-06-16-4284. The provisions of the Land Use Code regarding non -conforming structures have not changed since that time and the Director's Decision Letter simply reflected that code language. As we are using the same plans for both buildings, the extent of the demolition is identical. I am happy to meet with Glenn next week but I do not think it should be necessary. We are using the same plans and same procedures that Garfield County approve for Unit 3 in 2016. We relied on those approvals in creating the condominium regime and in proceeding with the current project. Under the circumstance, we respectfully request that Garfield County complete the processing of our plans and issue our permit as expeditiously as possible. Thank you. Rick Neiley Richard Y. Neiley, Jr. Neiley Law Firm, LLC aspenlaw@neilevlaw.com Glenwood Office: 6800 Highway 82, Suite 1, Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Aspen Office: 420 East Main Street, Suite 230, Aspen, CO 81611 (970) 928-9393 Telephone (970) 928-9399 Fax 2 (Please mail correspondence to Glenwood Springs address.) From: Dave Argo[mailto:dargoPgarfield-county.cam] Sent: Monday, August 05, 2019 11:01 AM To: Neiley Law Firm, LLC <aspenlaw@neileylaw.com>; tkga@tkga.net Cc: Glenn Hartmann<ghartmann@garfleld-county.com>; Andy Schwaller<aschwaller@garfield-countv.com> Subject: Black Bridge Condo Unit #1 - Permit #BLRE-07-19-5830 Rick & Ted: We have reviewed plans submitted to our office for a remodel/addition of an existing A -Frame structure located at 4412 County Road 154 in Glenwood Springs (aka: Black Bridge Condos, Unit #1). However, because of a few problematic issues, we cannot proceed with approval of this application. As part of our plan review for building permit we have reviewed documentation related to the recently Amended Final Plat for this property, including a Director's Decision Letter dated 2/15/19 and a previous Board of Adjustment Resolution 02/2018, as well as the Plat itself. Submitted plans for a proposed remodel and addition to Unit #1 do not appear to comply with conditions contained in the Director's Decision (more specifically, Conditions #2 and #3). Our concerns include the following: • Building Footprint and Size — Approval for the (4) existing A -Frame structures was granted but it was specifically contingent upon the existing structures as "limited to the surveyed dimensions and existing square footage". The proposed Unit #1 addition/remodel expands both building footprint size and overall square footage, which is not allowed. Even more problematic is that the resulting enlarged footprint encroaches further toward the rear property line adjoining the Rio Grande recreational trail. Since no dimensions are provided on the site plan, we are left to scale off this drawing, and by our calculations the original A -Frame was about 5 feet off the rear property line and the proposed building footprint will encroach to within 2 or 3 feet of the property line. For reference, today's Land Use Code requires a minimum rear yard setback for this zone district of 25 feet. With a proposed 2 -story "Pop -Top" design, the proposed area calculations for Unit #1 equal 845 square feet (S.F.), which is an increase of 51 S.F. from 794 S.F. as listed in the Assessor's Office records. ■ Partially Demolished Structure — At the present time, the existing structure appears to be substantially demolished with only a partial shell of the original A -Frame remaining in place, and we presume that demolition has occurred in anticipation of receiving a building permit. However, the fact that this structure is now more than 50% demolished, it could be considered as "destroyed" under Condition #3 of the Director's Decision and as also described in Plat Note #9 of the recently approved Amended Final Plat. These requirements state that if a unit is "destroyed" it shall be permitted to be rebuilt, but the new structure shall comply with "all setback requirements including rear yard setbacks" (25 feet as noted above). Given these outstanding issues, the Building Department cannot finalize our plan review nor issue any permits for this work. I would suggest that your best course of action is to schedule a time to come in and meet with Glenn Hartmann, our principal planner, to discuss viable options to addressing these issues. I have spoken with Glenn at length regarding this permit application and he is happy to assist you determine possible avenues for moving forward. Unfortunately, Glenn is on vacation and out of the office this week, but he is expected back in the office next Monday. Until these issue have been resolved with Glenn's assistance and guidance, we will place this permit application in our "pending" projects file. Thank you for your prompt attention to these issues. Dave Argo Plans Examiner 3 Dave Argo From: Neiley Law Firm, LLC <aspenlaw@neileylaw.com> Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2019 8:26 AM To: Dave Argo Cc: Theodore Guy; Glenn Hartmann Subject: [External] Black Bridge Condo Unit #1 - Permit #BLRE-07-19-5830 Attachments: 18101 Neiley A 21 AREA A -Frame 081219.pdf; BlackBridgeCondo-BldExh-08-09-19.pdf Dave —Attached is the architect's floor area calculations that confirm a total floor area of 763.9 square feet. Also attached is the surveyors building exhibit that depicts the foot prints of the existing structures and dimensions the rear yard setbacks. As previously noted, we are not enlarging the footprint or encroaching further into the setback. I have requested the architect address the other matters you raised in your email to him of August 5 and hope to have those revisions to you today. I will drop off full size pare copies of the attachments later this morning. Rick Neiley Richard Y. Neiley, Jr. Neiley Law Firm, LLC aspenlaw@neilevlaw.com Glenwood Office: 6800 Highway 82, Suite 1, Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Aspen Office: 420 East Main Street, Suite 230, Aspen, CO 81611 (970) 928-9393 Telephone (970) 928-9399 Fax (Please mail correspondence to Glenwood Springs address.) 1 4ILEY LA Iv ATTORNEYS & COUNSELORS AT LAW RICHARD Y. NEILEY JR. RECEIVED August 14, 2019 AUG 1 4 2019 GARFIELD COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT VIA HAND DELIVERY Dave Argo Plans Examiner Garfield County Community Development 108 Stn Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Re: Black Bridge Condo Unit #1 — Permit #BLRE-07-19-5830 Dear Dave: Per my email of this morning, I am delivering herewith full size copies of Sheet SO.1 revised by Ted Guy, Sheet A.1 on which Mr. Guy has indicated the floor area dimensions and the surveyors Building Exhibit that locates the building dimensions and setbacks. Please let me know if you need anything else from me or my architect/engineer. encl. Thank you. V r truly yours, I Y LAW FIRM, LLC I141 ichard Y. Neiley, Jr. Please respond to: 6800 Highway 82, Suite 1 • Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 • 970-928-9393 Email: aspenlaw@neileylaw.com Aspen office: 420 East Main Street, Suite 230 • Aspen, CO 81611 • 970-925-9393 ATTORNEYS & COUNSELORS AT LAW RICHARD Y. NEILEY JR. August 21, 2019 VIA EMAIL ghartmann@garfield-county.com Glenn Hartmann Senior Planner Garfield County Community Development 108 8`I' Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Re: 4412 County Road, Glenwood Springs; Unit 1, Black Bridge Condominiums Dear Glenn: This letter is a follow up to our telephone conference of this afternoon regarding our building permit application for the above -referenced property. Thank you for getting back to me. As we discussed, on August 5, 2019, Dave Argo in the building department raised several issues regarding our building permit application: the building footprint and size, and the extent of our demolition in preparation for the issuance of the building permit. I addressed all of these issues in my email to him on that same day and subsequently on August 14, 2019, I delivered a revised Sheet A.1 on which our architect depicted the total floor area of the remodel as comprising 763.9 square feet. This is less than the permitted 794 square feet, per the County's records and our Condominium Map. On August 14, 2019 I also delivered to Mr. Argo a Building Exhibit prepared by our surveyor confirming the existing building footprints consistent with the Condominium Map approved by Garfield County. We arc neither expanding the building footprint nor further encroaching into the rear yard setback. We are utilizing the same building footprint that existed at the time we recorded the Condominium Map and which has existed on the property since the A Frame was constructed in 1968. On August 14, 2019 I also delivered to Mr. Argo a revised Sheet S0.1 prepared by Ted Guy to address some additional questions raised in a separate August 5, 2019 email. Please respond to: 6800 Highway 82, Suite 1 • Glenwood Springs, CO 81601. 970-928-9393 Email: aspenlaw@neileylaw.com Aspen office: 420 East Main Street, Suite 230 • Aspen, CO 81611 • 970-925-9393 Glenn Hartmann August 21, 2019 Page 2 In the August 5, 2019 email, Mr. Argo questioned whether the existing structure is more than 50% demolished. It is not. We have retained the entire main floor deck comprising 648 square feet. The architectural plans show the re -configured main floor on the existing deck as 515 square feet of heated space, more than 50% of the pre-existing floor area of 794 square feet. We have also retained the entire foundation and 20 feet of the original roof structure. As we discussed, the plans we submitted for Unit 1 are the same as those we submitted for Unit 3 that the County approved for building permit and Certificate of Occupancy, and that were used to reconstruct the building that was presented to the Board of Adjustment as part of our variance application in 2018. You will recall that you inspected the improvements to Unit 3 during the Board of Adjustment variance and Condominium Map approval processes and observed the nature and extent of the remodel. We proceeded with the condominiumization of the property and the redevelopment of Unit 1 in reliance of Garfield County's approval of Unit 3 after full public disclosure and extensive land use reviews over a period of over 2 years. The template we created for Unit 3 was intended for use on the remaining units, as I informed you, the Assistant County Attorney and the Board of Adjustment. There have been no regulatory changes since the Board of Adjustment variance approval on June 25, 2018 and the approval of the Condominium Map on March 25, 2019. If you feel we need to set up a meeting to further discuss our application, please let me know and I will make myself available. We are anxious to move this forward. I look forward to hearing from you after you meet with Cheryl. Very lily yours, Ni Y LAW FIRM, LLC ichard Y. Neiley, Jr. tv,ILE Y LA yl, ATTORNEYS Sc COUNSELORS AT LAW RICHARD Y. NEILEY JR. September 23, 2019 VIA HAND DELIVERY Dave Argo Plans Examiner Garfield County Community Development 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Glenn Hartmann Senior Planner Garfield County Community Development 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Re: Black Bridge Condo Unit #1 — Permit #BLRE-07-19-5830 Dear Dave and Glenn: Per Glenn's request, I have had our architect prepare a Site Plan over -laying the building plans on the surveyed building footprint depicted on the Approved Condominium Map for Black Bridge Condominiums. That Site Plan is now included as Sheet A1.1. The Site Plan confirms that neither the footprint of the remodeled structure nor the roof overhangs will encroach further into the rear yard setback. We have also made a minor modification to the back door area of the proposed structure, to provide better egress from the building while avoiding further encroachment into the rear yard setback. With the new Site Plan I believe we have addressed all issues that have been raised since I submitted the original plans and building permit Application on July 1, 2019. As we are anxious to proceed with construction, please let me know if you have any questions or further concerns at your earliest convenience. Encl. uly yours, I LEY LAW FIRM, LLC ichard . eiley, Jr. Please respond to: 6800 Highway 82, Suite 1 • Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 • 970-928-9393 Email: aspenlaw@neileylaw.com Aspen office: 420 East Main Street, Suite 230 • Aspen, CO 81611 • 970-925-9393