The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutFile Documents.813 W Smuggler St.0253.2018 (56).ARBK 1 15 August 2019 Attn. Jeffrey Barnhill Aspen Planning & Zoning 130 S. Galena St. Aspen, CO 81611 RE: 813 W. Smuggler • Permit #0253.2018.ARBK Zoning 1st Round Permit Review Comments Dear Jeff, This letter accompanies our drawings, which we are resubmitting in response to permit review 1st round comments. We received your review comments on 5/15, then met with you @CoA on 5/31 to better understand them and how best to respond. I summarized our meeting in a 6/3 email, to which you responded later in the month. Our response as follows is based on your clarifications and direction, and is formatted according to your 5/15 “Markup Summary”. 6 (1) Sheet Z.2 (Sub-Grade Wall Area Calculations) CoA comment: “this wall appears to be too tall compared to surrounding wall” Our response: We have lowered to wall to match the height of the adjacent foundation wall and recalculated the resultant area. 12 (1) Sheet A2.2 (Enlarged Site Plan) CoA comment: “this chimney is not allowed in the setback” Our response: We have moved the chimney 8” to the west to ensure no encroachment into the 13’ east side-yard setback (west setback is 5’, for a total 18’ combined setback per R-6 regulations. This revision is reflected in all drawings (plans, elevations, sections, Structural). 12 (2) Sheet A2.2 (Enlarged Site Plan) & (3) CoA Comment: “Overhangs shall not exceed 18 inches in the setback – 26.575.020.E.5.G” Our response: As discussed in our meeting and acknowledged by you, the east-side eave/overhang does not project into the east setback. 15 (1) Sheet A3.1 (Lower Level Floor Plan) CoA Comment: “These light wells appear to be too large in the setback. The minimum projection necessary to accommodate light wells in the setback is 3’x3’” Our response: Egress light/window wells shown projecting into the east setback are now clearly dimensioned on the inside (thin-veneer stone-to thin-veneer stone) as 3’x3’, which is the minimum size permissible for egress. 18 (1) Sheet A3.4 (Roof Plan) & (2) CoA Comment: “26.575.020.F.4(a) – Chimneys, flues, and similar venting apparatus may extend no more than ten (10) feet above the height of the building at the point the device connects. For roofs with a pitch of 8:12 or greater, these elements may not extend more than required by adopted building codes or as otherwise approved by the Chief Building Official to accommodate safe venting.” 08/26/2019 2 18 (1) Sheet A3.4 (Roof Plan) CONTINUED & (2) Our response: Both chimneys (each containing 2-flues) are 2-feet taller than the roof ridges, which are within a 10-foot radius, as required by 2015 IRC R1003.9. We do show a 1’-9”H screened metal shroud to conceal the unsightly flue caps, but believe these are compliant (see building elevation sheets A4.1-4). 20 (1) Sheet A3.6 (Main Level Reflected Ceiling Plan) & (2) CoA Comment: “26.575.020.D.6 – When roof overhangs or similar architectural projections exceed four feet (the highlighted area has a 4’-6” projection), the entire feature counts toward Floor Area” Our response: We have included the 56 SF “Rear Porch” area in our Floor Area count, raising our Main Level area from 1,885 SF to 1,941 SF (see sheets Z.1 and Z.3). 23 (1) Sheet L1.2 (Main Level Lighting Plan) & (2) CoA Comment: “This appears to be linear lighting. The City of Aspen does not allow linear lighting as exterior lighting” Our response: As discussed in our meeting, while we do show a linear LED strip lighting symbol in our legend, the dot-dash line shown at the Rear Porch area is a centerline indication, not a light fixture. All exterior fixtures are either downward-directed sconce or soffit- recessed downlight fixtures. There is no linear exterior lighting. 23 (3) Sheet L1.2 (Main Level Lighting Plan) CoA Comment: “Are there no exterior lights being proposed for the Front Porch? If so, please include them.” Our response: Exterior lights at this location were mistakenly omitted. This drawing now shows six (6) recessed LED downlight fixtures in the soffit over the Front Porch area. 24 (1) Sheet L1.3 (Upper Level Lighting Plan) CoA Comment: “Are there any exterior lights proposed for the Rooftop Deck? If so, please include them.” Our response: Exterior lights at this location were mistakenly omitted. This drawing now shows five (5) downward-directed sconce fixtures on both N & S sides of the Rooftop Deck. 25 (1) Sheet A4.1 (North Elevation) & (2) CoA Comment: “Please make sure on the side of the building with the 5’ setback that you will be able to accommodate all walls including veneer as it doesn’t look like there is much room for error. Our response: The farthest extent of the foundation is to the 5’ setback, however the foundation has a 4” masonry ledge, such that the frame-wall is set 4” back of the setback. Any thin-veneer stone applied over continuous insulation will fit within that 4” ledge dimension without encroachment into the setback. 27 (1) Sheet A4.3 (West Elevation) CoA Comment: “Staff has decided that since this chimney is attached/on top of a flat roof that it would be measured 10 feet from where it connects to the flat roof.” Our response: As discussed in our meeting, we believe this standard was misinterpreted, which would result in a chimney height that would violate 2015 IRC R1003.9. Your 6/27/2019 email response acknowledges that our interpretation is correct, and that the chimney height as drawn is compliant. 08/26/2019 3 27 (2) Sheet A4.3 (West Elevation) & (3) CoA Comment: “This porch would count as deck area because it is greater than 30” above grade (appears to measure 36” abv. fin. grade).” Our response: By adding small landscape retaining wing-walls at Gridline 8 (Sheet A4.1) and at Gridline B (Sheet A4.3), we have raised the grade ≥6” between GL 6 & 8 on the north, and between GL B & C on the west of the building, to reduce the height above grade to ≤30”. As the corner stairs still descend ~36” to finished grade, we have included the area at the top landing + 1-stair tread down (34 SF) into our Deck Area count (see Sheet Z.3). 28 (1) Sheet A4.4 (East Elevation) CoA Comment: “This (depressed exit-way) is greater than 6” below surrounding finished grade, so it would count as Deck.” Our response: We have included the 44 SF of this area, along with the 34 SF discussed directly above, into our Deck Area count, raising our Deck Area count from 367 SF previously to 445 SF (still below the 492 SF Deck Allowance). See sheets Z.1 and Z.3. 28 (2) Sheet A4.4 (East Elevation) & (3) CoA Comment: “26.575.020.D.8 Subgrade Areas - Single-family and duplex structures shall contain no more than one floor level below finished grade. A basement with a stepped floor is allowed. The finished floor level shall be no more than 15 feet below finished grade (note: CoA’s comment graphics show the Basement Level @17’-9” below finished grade at the SE corner of the main basement volume).” Our response: We have raised the Basement Level floor by 3’, now Elev. 87’-7” vs. 84’-7” previously. These changes are shown on all building elevations, sections, and on the Basement Level plan, where we’ve shortened the stair run accordingly. Significantly, you will see these elevation changes reflected in our Structural set as well, where all pertinent elevation targets have been raised 3’. We believe the above responses to City of Aspen Planning & Zoning permit review comments address your concerns. Please let us know if you require further clarification on any matter. We appreciate your thoughtful and thorough review of our project to ensure its compliance with Aspen’s Land Use Code’s requirements. Respectfully yours, Robert G. Sinclair, AIA Principal, Sinclair Building | Architecture | Design cc. John Barker, CoA Permit Coordinator Denis Murray, CoA Plans Examination Manager 08/26/2019