The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCorrespondenceDave Argo From: Dave Argo Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2019 8:14 AM To: 'Chris Jung' Cc: Glenn Hartmann; Andy Schwaller (aschwaller@garfield-county.com) Subject: Midland Exemption, Parcel C - Buildings Q and V Chris: We have begun review of a building permit application for two new warehouse buildings (buildings "Q" and "V") to be located at 62 County Road 113 (aka: Midland Exemption, Parcel C). Unfortunately, there are a number of issues which must be addressed before we can move forward with finalizing our plan review and issuing a building permit for either of these proposed buildings. Most importantly, this parcel is zoned "Rural" and Warehouse occupancy/use is not a use by right within the Rural zone district, meaning that a Land Use Change Permit (LUCP) will need to be applied for and obtained through our Planning Department before we can finalize our review and issue building permits. I suggest that you discuss this process with Glenn Hartmann, our Principal Planner, who is familiar with this project and can better describe to you what all is involved and required to obtain the LUCP. In addition to obtaining the LUCP, there are several other items that we noticed in our preliminary review, and you should also work to clarify or address these items so that we can move forward once the LUCP process has been completed. These items include the following: A. Soils Report—The soils report included in your application (and referenced on the Structural Engineer's plans) are for the wrong project location. Instead, this soils report was performed on Parcel B of the Midland Exemption (across the street north from the actual project site). Please provide us with the correct soils report for the location of Buildings "Q" and "V". You can quickly see the difference when comparing the site plan provided by Zancanella vs. building footprints illustrated in HP-Kumar's report. Once the correct soils report is in hand, it also must be provided to the Structural Engineer to determine if any substantive changes are required to his plans as a result of this mix-up. B. Engineered Site Grading & Drainage Plan — The site plan prepared by Zancanella is inadequate in terms of addressing site grading, drainage, erosion and impact of the steep slopes rising to the east above the proposed buildings. Although it serves as a general layout plan, it does not address certain key issues. For example, drainage on the uphill slopes are shown to simply drain directly into the backside of these buildings without a properly designed drainage swale to deter run-off. Not only does this approach not conform to good geotechnical engineering practice, it also does not comply with the Building Code. In addition, there needs to be a larger scale site plan for each of these buildings indicating site drainage and actual height of retainage portion of the foundation walls so that the Structural Engineer can coordinate with his work. We require that you submit to our office a properly Engineered Site Grading & Drainage Plan as prepared by a Colorado licensed Professional Engineer who is more familiar and experienced with these issues. The amended Engineered site grading and drainage plan will need to address run-off at the uphill side of the buildings, as well as demonstrating compliance with the following sections of Garfield County's Land Use & Development Code: • Section 7-204: Drainage & Erosion • Section 7-207: Natural & Geologic Hazards for slopes > 30% Thank you for your prompt attention to addressing these outstanding items, none of which is more important than following up with Glenn Hartmann to discuss the LUCP which is required to allow the "Warehouse" occupancy/use within the Rural zone district. While you are working through these issues, we will place these 2 projects in our "pending" file until we receive updated plans and confirmation from the Planning Dept. that the LUCP is in place. Dave Argo Plans Examiner 1 P.O. Box 1908 1011 Grand Avenue Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 December 11, 2019 ZANG4NELL4 ANA 4SSOCIAITES, INC. ENGINEERING ConsuLr,4N15 Dave Argo & Glenn Hartman Garfield County Community Development Department 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 (970) 945-5700 (970) 945-1253 Fax Re: Cattle Creek Commercial Center Building Permit for the SW Bench Area Mr. Argo and Hartman: This letter is to follow up on our meeting at your offices a couple of months ago. In this submittal we have included the additional information discussed in the meeting. This includes: 1. An updated and stamped topographic survey of the subject area 2. A review by HP Geotech/Kumar addressing the proposed grading around Building Q. 3. An updated drawing from Oddo Engineering based on a review of the proposed grading around Building Q 4. Revised drawings showing additional proposed grading contours and provision for sediment control in appropriate spots. Let us know if you have any questions. Sincerely, Zancanella & Associates, Inc. Timothy P. Beck, P.E. TPB/soe Attachments CC: Eric Rudd Dave Argo From: Dave Argo Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2020 4:42 PM To: Chris Jung Cc: Andy Schwaller (aschwaller@garfield-county.com) Subject: Rudd Cattle Creek - Buildings Q and V Attachments: OWTS (complete packet).pdf Chris: We have reviewed amended plans submitted for Rudd's Buildings Q and V to be located at Cattle Creek Commercial Center, but before we can finalize our plan review and issue building permits we need for a few remaining items to be addressed: • ITEM #1: Engineer's Wet -Seal Required on Amended Site Plans — On properties where slopes exceed 40% slope a Colorado licensed Professional Engineer is required to wet -seal (stamp & sign) all site plans and related studies. Recently submitted amended plans (Sheets 1-4) do not include the Engineer's wet-seal/stamp. Action Required: Resubmit (4) copies of Sheets 1-4 (2 each for Building Q and Building V) with Engineer's wet seal on all sheets. Also see Items #2 and #3 below for additional information that is required on Engineered plans. • ITEM #2: Engineered Site Plan & Cross -Section for Building V — The hillside slope above Building V is approximately 75% (30 feet vertical over 40 feet horizontal distance) and therefore requires an Engineered site plan with proposed grading/drainage similar to what is shown for Building Q on Sheet 4. Action Required: Revise/resubmit updated site plan & cross-section illustrating proposed grading, drainage and/or retaining wall at the uphill side of the building. • ITEM #3: Front Yard Setback Encroachment — The maximum allowable encroachment for roof overhangs into required setbacks is 18 inches. It is apparent that (3) of the overhead entry roof canopies on Building Q encroach approximately 4 feet into the 50 -foot front yard setback which is not allowed. Action Required: Revise site plan and/or building plans so that distance of roof overhang encroachment into front yard setback does not exceed 18 inches. If necessary, adjust building design to comply. *Please Note: Prior to initial concrete inspection, a building location certificate wet -sealed by a Colorado licensed Surveyor will be required to verify compliance with 50 -foot front yard setback requirements (including roof overhangs). • ITEM #4: Septic System Design & Application to Public Health Dept. — As of January 1, 2020 all septic permit applications, review of Engineered septic system designs, and on-site inspections are now processed through Garfield County's Public Health Dept. Although you have previously submitted a Septic System application with our office, OWTS submittal requirements have recently been revised with this switchover to Public Health — see attachment for their new Application Checklist. Although you will now be making a Septic System application through their office, the fees already paid to date with the Building Dept. will be credited to your account. Contact Lindsay Krol here in our office if you should have any questions about this. Action Required: Please contact Public Health at 970-945-6614 Ext. 8150 and either Ted White or Anna Cochran should be able to provide you with additional information. We will need to hear back from either Ted or Anna that you have contacted them about this project before we can issue the building permits. • ITEM #5: Local Fire District Approval — Have these plans yet been submitted to Bill Gavette at Carbondale Rural Fire District? Has Bill signed off on the length of access driveway as proposed on the site plan? Action Required: Provide building plans (including a site plan) to Bill ASAP so that we can issue a Building Permit once Bill has confirmed with us receipt of these proposed building plans. Please address these items at your earliest opportunity so that we may finalize our plan review & issue permits for each of these projects. Dave Argo Plans Examiner 1 Dave Argo From: Dave Argo Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2020 12:47 PM To: Bill Gavette Cc: Andy Schwaller (aschwaller@garfield-county.com) Subject: RE: Rudd Buildings Q and V - Midland Exemption, Parcel C Attachments: Rudd Cattle Creek Site Plan.pdf Bill: This property shows up on GIS as "Rural" zoning, so typically that would require a land -use change process to allow "Warehouse" type buildings. However, in somewhat of an anomaly, Glenn Hartmann has reviewed the file and evidently this property was reclassified as Commercial Ltd. when the old ReStore/Black Bear building was built so it won't be subject to a land use review. However, we want to make sure that you have what you need in terms of access, fire sprinklers, etc. before we issue any building permits. I've attached an overview map & more detailed site plan of the 6 proposed buildings on this upper bench above Highway 82. A site visit would probably be helpful for you, as it was for myself. Again, I have instructed Chris Jung — Rudd's construction manager to contact you & submit proposed plans for your review. Back on to the subject of Aspen Equestrian Estates ... have you given any more thought as to whether or not NFPA 13D vs. 13R fire sprinkler system is your preference? 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 From: Bill Gavette <gavette@carbondalefire.org> Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2020 3:28 PM To: Dave Argo <dargo@garfield-county.com> Subject: RE: [External] Rudd Buildings Q and V - Midland Exemption, Parcel C Dave, Where is this in the zoning process? Should I expect a referral from the planning department? In the meantime, I'll take a look at the access. Thanks, Bill Gavette Deputy Chief Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District www.carbondalefire.org 970-963-2491 1 c0UNry RQ 7- Xi 9f ► i i $moi [di Iy1 fzt9 4 13104011,YB' Anf4ucS 113 guoi) - AHe Cvk III ■�tAdw rvor U bwcti Ac-ez.s V404.4 Revei LOCATION MAP N.T.S. J • • • • • • y --- _ . CATCH B-ASIN DETENTIOk \A// DRAIN TO DAYLIG •HIGH POINT 1i5Toitt Ala6v4., • • • A, 11/4 ;b. of "- ET— ow ow - ."-•••• • .. sec IhACF-2-- - HJZOK -fry- [Ghll t I of 01 APPROX. HIGH POINT EXISTING GRAVEL ACCESS ROAD W/ DRAINAGE DITCH ON UPHILL SIDE _R!PAP STEEP SECTIONS OF DITCH EXISTING CULVERTS ,..rte'.:. � y`• �. A r ;~ '�_� EXISTING DRAINAGEWA �JJ —CLEAN & RESTORE 19 fstil limsis1L sl .{- Dave Argo From: Bill Gavette <gavette@carbondalefire.org> Sent: Saturday, February 22, 2020 4:51 PM To: Dave Argo Cc: Andy Schwaller Subject: RE: [External] Rudd Buildings Q and V - Midland Exemption, Parcel C Dave, I have the drawings for building Q and V that Chris Jung Dropped off. I am assuming that they will upgrade the access road similar to their other roads at the commercial center. At a minimum, they will need to provide a 20 -foot access road per 1FCSection 503, Fire Apparatus Access Roads and they will also need an approved turnaround in the area of Building V per IFC Section 103.4, Dead ends. Thanks, Bill Gavette Deputy Chief Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District www.carbondalefire.org 970-963-2491 EIRE ' EMS • RESCUE From: Dave Argo [mailto:dargo@garfield-county.com] Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2020 12:47 PM To: Bill Gavette Cc: Andy Schwaller Subject: RE: Rudd Buildings Q and V - Midland Exemption, Parcel C Bill: This property shows up on GIS as "Rural" zoning, so typically that would require a land -use change process to allow "Warehouse" type buildings. However, in somewhat of an anomaly, Glenn Hartmann has reviewed the file and evidently this property was reclassified as Commercial Ltd. when the old ReStore/Black Bear building was built so it won't be subject to a land use review. However, we want to make sure that you have what you need in terms of access, fire sprinklers, etc. before we issue any building permits. I've attached an overview map & more detailed site plan of the 6 proposed buildings on this upper bench above Highway 82. A site visit would probably be helpful for you, as it was for myself. Again, I have instructed Chris Jung — Rudd's construction manager to contact you & submit proposed plans for your review. Back on to the subject of Aspen Equestrian Estates ... have you given any more thought as to whether or not NFPA 13D vs. 13R fire sprinkler system is your preference? Dave Argo 1