Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFile Documents.134 E Bleeker St.0064-2022-BCHO (7) 5/16/23,2:52 PM EIGELBERGER Mail-134 E. Bleeker site visit =I G=L B=R G =R Hannah-Hunt Moeller<hannahhunt@eigelberger.com> 134 E. Bleeker site visit Amy Simon <amy.simon@aspen.gov> Tue, May 16, 2023 at 11:01 AM To: Hannah-Hunt Moeller<hannahhunt@eigelberger.com>, Sara Adams <sara@bendonadams.com> Cc: Kirsten Armstrong <kirsten.armstrong@aspen.gov>, Rob Gilfillan <Rob@steeplechaseconstruction.com> Hi all- I need a moment to look at your requests about insulation details and will get back to you. The height discrepancy you discovered has been accepted by the project monitor and I. Thanks for pointing it out instead of having it be discovered at final inspections. Please get direction from the Building Department as to how to document this information in the permit. From: Hannah-Hunt Moeller<hannahhunt@eigelberger.com> Sent: Monday, May 15, 2023 3:51 PM To: Sara Adams <sara@bendonadams.com> Cc:Amy Simon <amy.simon@aspen.gov>; Kirsten Armstrong <kirsten.armstrong@aspen.gov>; Rob Gilfillan <Rob@steeplechaseconstruction.com> [Quoted text hidden] [Quoted text hidden] RECEIVED 10/06/2023��pp https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=16d0d9e625&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-f:1766070966297692676&simpl=msg-f:1766070966297892&N lit 3UILDING DEPARTMENT 1 EIGELBERGER ARCHITECTURE & DESIGN May 15, 2023 Amy Simon, Aspen Planning Director Jeffrey Halftery, HPC Monitor Re: 134 E Bleeker Ridge Height Survey Discrepancy Dear Amy and Jeffrey, 134 E Bleeker is a residential structure consisting of(3) primary building masses: historic victorian resource, non-historic addition, and historic barn. These buildings were lifted off the existing foundation by Bill Bailey House Moving. Steeplechase Construction has proceeded with the utmost caution and care for these historic buildings. The Architect, Hannah-Hunt Moeller, RA has been routinely on site during this process to observe the construction. Sara Adams is also engaged in consultation with the design team to ensure the construction proceeds as approved by HPC Monitor. In April 2023, Peak Survey conducted a survey of the ridge heights. This alerted the team to a discrepancy between the 2020 Survey and the 2023 Survey ridge heights as described below. Note that all of the ridge heights comply with the allowable height of 25' to the one-third distance up from eave to the point of the ridge for roofs with pitch greater than 7:12 per City for Aspen Sec 26.575.020(f)c. Historic Resource Non-Historic Addition Historic Barn 2020 Survey 7916.2 7920.1 7918.8 2023 Survey 7916.2 7920.8 7919.2 Difference 0 0.69' (8 1/4") 0.4' (4 /8") POTENTIAL CAUSES FOR ROOF HEIGHT DEVIATION Our team investigated the following items to understand the cause of the deviation. Each of these factors was researched in detail and the results are listed below. 1. Project 100'-0": Our project 100'-0" is derived from the 2020 Survey. Our project 100'-0" is 12" below the finish floor elevation at the historic entry. Therefore, project 100'-0" = 7894.78', rounded to 7894.8'. Project 100'-0" is the top of the finish floor at the Main Level, as shown in A.1.02. The 2023 Survey documented that the top of plywood at;the ,- �q 10/06/2023 ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT 2 EIGELBERGER ARCHITECTURE & DESIGN Main Level is 7894.588. We add 3" for our typical finish floor build up (see A.5.01) and arrive at 7894.8'. Note: Steeplechase established the project elevation using a fixed point on the micropile wall to establish the project basepoint as the micropile wall was not impacted by the house moving. This exercise confirmed that our project 100'-0" survey elevation is constructed correctly per plan, and is not a cause of the height discrepancy. 2. Top of foundation wall: The structural documentation on S.400, details 5/S.400 and 4/S.400 document the framing detail at the base of walls. This shows the t/wall above exterior grade, as a typical construction detail. These details were approved in the building permit 0102-2020-BRES. Per 5/11/23 email from Structural Engineer Brett McElvain, PE (KL&A): "Regarding the measured height of the existing building when placed on the new foundation, based on my field observations, the top of concrete walls were built in accordance with the structural construction documents." This observation confirms that the foundation wall is constructed per plan, and is not a cause of the height discrepancy. RE)WOOD BEARING WALL, ill R[TOP DETAILS FLOOR FINISH,RE ARCH 7: 7/Wi1LL s i/GRADE RG ARCH ,\ COMPOSITE SPLNUB, RE i/SUB 1 ,{.�I 1 J506'OC HORIZ 5/16 r � (2)/5,CONT ALONG EDGEQ 1 OFRAMING DETAIL 3/4'=1'-0" (E)WOOD BEARING WALL, RE:DP DETAILS FLOOR FINISH,RE:ARCH III j j- T/SHEATHING T/WAIL T/G.DE COMPOSITE SLAB, WOOD FRAMING,RE:PLAN RE PUN T/SUB '�„I i MOISTURE BARRIER LUNN CONCRETE AND WOOD FRAMING r (4ISxCFONTS TYP-B LONG 0 ODE i OFRAMING DETAIL DETAILS AS SHOWN ON STRUCTURAL DRAWING S.400 RECEIVED 10/06/2023 ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT 3 EIGELBERG - R ARCHITECTURE & DESIGN 3. Original top of foundation wall: The team considered a possibility that the original top of foundation wall, which the structures were lifted off, could have been stepped. However, per 5/11/23 email from Structural Engineer Brett McElvain, PE (KL&A): "The typical relationship between top of plywood elevation and the top of concrete wall elevation was plywood is 2.25" (3/4" plywood + 1.5" for sill plate) higher than top of concrete for both the existing building and for the new construction." This typical condition rules out variation in the top of wall condition and is not a cause of the height discrepancy. 4. Roof assembly: Another consideration was that the roof assembly could be installed incorrectly. Per building permit building permit 0102-2020-BRES, the documentation on R1/A.5.01 shows that the existing roof framing will remain and new Class A underlayment and shingles are to be applied. There is no additional build up. Hannah-Hunt Moeller, RA (EAD) confirmed that this is constructed per plan, and is not a cause of the height discrepancy. 5. Plumbing walls & house moving: The (3) structures comprising this house were lifted by Bill Bailey House Movers. The following descriptions from Bill Bailey, Brett McElvain, PE, and Rob Gillfillan provide their observations below. Per 5/12/23 email from Bill Bailey, house mover: "Some of the historical buildings we move and work with have settled down around their original foundations, some foundations being stumps, rocks, or logs. Over time when the historic buildings settle they become out of plumb. To plumb the walls back into plumb the structure has to be methodically pulled around until the walls are perfectly vertical again. This exercise will result in a gain of height to the building." Per 5/11/23 email from Structural Engineer Brett McElvain, PE (KL&A): "Correcting the plumbness of the existing building may have slightly increased the measured height of the building." Per 5/12/23 email from Rob Gilfillan (Steeplechase), site super: "Per our ongoing discussion regarding the height discrepancy we are experiencing on the non-historic portion of our remodel, I wanted to touch on the steps we took to straighten, (plumb) the masses of the project, both historical and non-historical. Once placed on the foundations, we checked the walls for plumb, starting with the historic cottage, as this impacts window/door installation, reveals and best building practices. These were significantly out of plumb, so we started to add additional framing, racking via bracing, adding in structurally required hold down brackets, etc. The historic cottage walls were 3/4" out of plumb. It took us f r ECEIVED 10/06/2023 ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT 4 EIGELBERG - R ARCHITECTURE & DESIGN days to square and plumb this structure alone. In my opinion, plumbing a wall would add the height out of plumb to the overall structure. The non-historic structure was next. Again, being significantly out of plumb we worked on getting this structure to plumb and square for five days. Keep in mind the non-historic mass is all dimensional lumber, TJI, and Microlam construction. Next came the barn. Even though a small building, this was also an inch out of plumb. We spent another four days, using the same methods as on the historic cottage, to plumb and square this structure up. Once all was said and done, I gained access to the center structure roof to measure our overall height, as we were needed to build the vestibule back and this was a precautionary measure to make sure all dimensions were accurate, I then determined we were 5 '/2" too high. This prompted us to survey our building heights, double check all our structural elements, original survey point from the micropile cap, and bring this up to our architect and structural engineer for review. As assurance to begin building correctly, we had Peak Survey give us a point on the micropile cap once those were completed and prior to start of concrete footings and foundation. This was our benchmark to build per plan heights given. After reviewing, I feel we have followed the plan precisely. Our 101' mark will be perfect once we finish the per plan floor build-up. Please let me know if I can provide any other steps taken, or any additional information." Based on these assessments, plumbing the walls of the structures is a likely cause of the height discrepancy. 6. Survey methods: Another possibility for the discrepancy is the accuracy of the survey. The surveyor explained that there is some difference, up to 1", based on the methods used to survey the points. Per email from Jason Neil, P.L.S. (Peak Survey) on 5/9/23, • "The ridge shots were taken with a reflectorless method on the ridge lines. The lower accessible shots were located with a rod and prism which is a more accurate shot. We do not certify to the hundredth of a foot on reflectorless shots. If necessary we can shoot those locations with a rod but we will need access. We feel those shots are very reasonable but could vary slightly." • "It depends on the surface you bounce the laser off of but I we usually see less than a half inch. A safe explanation of the accuracy due to varying surfaces would be 1" though if we can go that route." RECEIVED 10/06/2023 ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT 5 EIGELBERGER ARCHITECTURE & DESIGN Therefore the survey methods is also a likely cause for the height discrepancy. LIKELY CAUSES FOR DISCREPANCY Based on the research described above, the team considers the following to be the most likely causes, each contributing to the roof height discrepancy. 1. Plumbing walls & house moving 2. Survey methods FURTHER VERIFICATION The combination of plumbing the walls and the 1" tolerance of the survey methods both contribute to the difference in the ridge height of the building. This is confirmed by the observations of the ridge and sill heights. The following tables demonstrate that there is not a consistent variation in heights in each building from 2020 to 2023. Some dimensions are exactly the same, others are within an inch, some are lower, some are higher. Per HPC regulations, we are using all approved existing openings. The following table documents the ridge, and existing opening sill heights from project 100'. See Exhibit E. Historic Ridge W45 W29 W10 W55 Resource (A.3.03) (A.3.03) (A.3.01) (A.3.01) 2020 7916.2 12'-10 '/8" 2'-8 %" 3'-8" 13'-1 '/4 2023 7916.2 13'-13/4" 2'-4" 3'-2" 12'-10" Difference 0 3 %" -4 %" -6" -3 '/4" This demonstrates that while the historic ridge has no height discrepancy, the existing window sills are both higher and lower in 2023 than in 2020. These discrepancies differ from one another which would indicate that racking of the original structure and correcting the plumbness of the walls is likely a cause for the discrepancy. Additionally, the survey method tolerance is likely a cause for the discrepancy. RECEIVED 10/06/2023 ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT 6 EIGELBERGER ARCHITECTURE & DESIGN Non- Ridge W24 E07 W27 W51 W18 Historic (A.3.03) (A.3.03) (A.3.01) (A.3.01) (A.3.01) Addition 2020 7920.1 3'-7 I/2" 9'-10 '/4" 6'-1 %" 11'-7 7/8" 5'-1 1/2" 2023 7920.8 3'-7" 9'-10 '/4" 6'-1" 12'-5" 5'-0 1/4" Difference 0.69' (8 '/4") -'/2" 0 -3/8" 9 1/8" -'/4" The discrepancy indicates that the ridge is higher in 2023 than in the 2020 documentation, however several of the existing openings are located within an inch of the 2020 survey. These discrepancies differ from one another which would indicate that racking of the original structure and correcting the plumbness of the walls is likely a cause for the discrepancy. Additionally, the survey method tolerance is likely a cause for the discrepancy. The 2023 ridge height complies with the allowable height of 25' to the one-third distance up from eave to the point of the ridge for roofs with pitch greater than 7:12 per City for Aspen Sec 26.575.020(f)c. Historic Ridge W48 E08 W49 Barn (A.3.03) (A.3.01) (A.3.01) 2020 7918.8 13'-0 54" 9'-6 16'-6" 2023 7919.2 13'-1 3/4" 9'-8 '/2" 16'-6" Difference 0.4' (4 /8") 1 4" 2 '/2" 0 The difference indicates that the ridge is higher in 2023 than in the 2020 documentation by 4 /8", however the existing openings both higher than 2023 and W29 is exactly as indicated in 2020. These discrepancies differ from one another which would indicate that racking of the original structure and correcting the plumbness of the walls is likely a cause for the discrepancy. Additionally, the survey method tolerance is likely a cause for the discrepancy. The 2023 ridge height complies with the allowable height of 25' to the one-third distance up from eave to the point of the ridge for roofs with pitch greater than 7:12 per City for Aspen Sec 26.575.020(f)c. CONCLUSION Given the information provided, our team understands that both correcting the plumbness of the walls in addition to survey methods contribute to the differences in height described above. The existing openings have been maintained as required by HPC to retain historic integrity. Therefore, the team requests that HP Staff and Monitor approval of the current exterior elevations with field dimensions as shown in Exhibit E which closely complies with the HPL 10/06/2023 ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT 7 EIGELB - RGER ARCHITECTURE & DESIGN approved project. The unintended result of plumbing the building, and margins of error in the survey, fall with Section 26.415.070.e.1.a.1 as an insubstantial amendment that addresses "circumstances discovered in the course of construction that could not have been reasonably anticipated during the approval process." EXHIBITS Exhibit A: 2020 Peak Survey - Existing Conditions Exhibit B: 2023 Peak Survey Exhibit C: Email from Brett Mcelvain, PE 5/11/23 Exhibit D: Email from Bill Bailey 5/12/23 Exhibit E: 2023-05-11 134 E Bleeker Exterior Elevation Comparison Exhibit F: Email from Rob Gilfillan 5/12/23 RECEIVED 10/06/2023 ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT IMPROVEMENT SURVEY PLAT & TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY 6 4R� �J P ;_ wA9,o p41� Ail LOT S AND THE EAST 1/2 OF LOT R, BLOCK 65z,L �' a <o e, I _ (RVSTAIRIVfR(IVII r- 1101 Village Road,Unit UL-4C ORIGINAL CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN = o I Carbondale,Co 87623 CITY OF ASPEN, COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO "`�� �� I _ (970>5,0-5312 ASP �. � , � I )�3 �o Ae�i., /--..i SLBJ�f'T` ���(!�I ,'o Ir a i' o ` �o •1%�TELL. '......"----.........„7" --- _ ---- °�i4 �1 ..� I " 330 30 �. er.#:� eED.(TVP.) ]s�atio car iF _ �///////%%�fri - * """v- _ \ MTYP.j T�.0 PED.(rYP.) �1 �"' Il H 0 y 1 \ rRns� rws lh F'.- a r"..Ot,,: " 'y�: loo SJ S �g� 6o T \ wc__LosELEcii. ....___, ��*_T v� I �' Gioner_. �*ti• 9 Fe.k. / \* rf92 REBAR FOUND CZp 206y,R ``cl cT� 11 \ `\i., re cem 0Y ' 5)Sgy'//"B -CRA"V,W -0\ \\0 \ 1. `t 4. Val1 j •0 *� it \ ‘,/ O METER �,r �Ir #S REBAR&CAP POUND - a - ;� .i 3 GOl_— .---_ L� W 270 N111 E —,F QSL.S.#RLEGBLE _ ` 7 j�¢ Chi RIDGE BIIX3E 3_ < z- I W , ri�1 7918.9' 7918 83' / / j a 2 pa � /o TWO STYMY WOOD FRAME / , \ min ;: / H. / 0 e R� HOUSE WITH GARAGE � SSW I� Keno ME i i o Guf h ,� ,/7) 240 120 WATER 3 / B\E.�g7918.8' -. - �.. \ ovv METER � .�,E 7894.80, A - - � -Gulch / r CHIMNEY N— / ®I I8.]8' T9192'~$ DRIVEWAY VICINITY MAP SEWERCD no leo Iw CLEANOUT /�.41 3/_r, f SCALE:I"=2000' S / GAS ',' Jqa C� i 4 A N O METER / crrE,Es/oA'W,DK y�fj9 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION — I GRAPHIC SCALE / W 78946' STRBEr " A, LOTS AND THE EAST I/20F LOT R,BLOCK 65,ORIGINAL CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN CU VV RIDGE 8.90' SIGN 2 COY OF ASPEN,COUNTY OF PITKIN,STATE OF COLORADO. �� - ]919.9' I.3tl 000 0 / 3 8 RIDGE ;�� STONE PATIO w �� • -C� I 1 � �) F.F. CHIMNEY ''BMW / 7899'6. 7r c CO Q 1 h= 10 tL WI/2 LOTR 7894.1• / y,,_ 7899 9'�'l921.6'FF. / ,4 r 0 / ICtN]7LE -I. ]894.68' =Ei vER 1.3tl 7 . P IA01/E/ 1.Stl r CH Y • • 7R94T ° . ( 7921.6' F.F. 't1 8 /- / ..,`` ]895.6fi' $ STONE 0 3 /� a�' ls, SIDEWALK OVER Ey 2 LEVEL F.F. r / /STONE 7 5.66' PATIO /$9 �'r LqT S AND EAST HALF I ri WOOD/METAL TREE REPORT % OF LOT R,BLOCK 65 .AI / X FENCE TRANSITION / } / I 4,500 S.F.. �7995� / TREEp TREE TYPE TRUNK DIA. DRIP LINE BASE ELEVATION l"/ TWOSTORYWOOD / TI BLUE SPRUCE 4" ]' 7895.12' /RIDGE / FRAME HOUSE RIDGE'''. ' / 3 ( LW 7916.2' WITH BASEMENT RIDGE \ T2 BLUE SPRUCE 1" 3' 7895.06' 4z 134 EAST SLEEKER STREET 7916.3' • ,„fig 47;V ]895]8' 0"Itl T6 1'3 T3 BLUE SPRUCE 3" 5' 7895.02' WOOD/METAL § F / ' / ,4 F./FENCE TRANSITION 3 W :._.i, 030 s/ L / Ci T4 COTTONWOOD 24" 2tl 7895.54' C7/ I-�5 7896.9'J c b - 77�1 L fffeV :4.''4 ej T5 COTTONWOOD 10. 18' 7895.04' / S ` mi—,l / /TgyS / O TO COTTONWOOD 10" IB' 7894.92' W 47 . �F 1 / RB GE `- 3 #5 REBAR POUND ?9 7916.2' r _ /,; tl/ J BELOW GROUND $ qSZ ]a95.2' A /� - I -6RU 2 / \ R \ / SACK "' e '. I. S89°2611I'W , T ,� �78 .9' yry- 2452.65' T3 \ S1.REE1. / cii , C.O.A.GPS 77 --.._. / o r .'� ---.1 / 3~ MONUMENT#7 9. 5 1/" 'T 51s Il SSS�ii2333 d FEN 4 y/� 'jgq5� CE C" TS '- ry „AO 95.Op• � I • CY y/^7 / ]8953'� . #5 REBAR& \ 3 �j CAP FOUND STONE yr,/ L.S.I L.EGBLE m STREET SIDEWALK IBM EL=7894.95' C NOTES: S[GN Z IMPROVEMENT SURVEY STATEMENT m d_ _ a 7895.4.y� o I)THIS PROPERTY IS SUBJECT TO RESERVATIONS,RESTRICTIONS,COVENANTS,BUILDING C.O.A.GPS ` ��' 3F f IX-ue I,JASON R.NEIL,HEREBY CERTIFY TO OTIS REAL ESTATE HOLDINGS,LLC.,PAUL E.PENN, SETBACKS AND EASEMENTS OF RECORD,OR IN PLACE AND EXCEPTIONS TO TITLE SHOWN IN r MONUMENT 43 ' CONCRETE g SUSAN W.PENN AND PITKIN COUNTY TOLE,INC.,THAT I AM A PROFESSIONAL LAND i THE TITLE COMMITMENT PREPARED BY PITKIN COUNTY TITLE,INC.,CASE NO.PCR5399W3, -- CUR: _ SURVEYOR LICENSED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF COLORADO;THAT THIS N DATED EFFECTIVE SEPTEMBER 30,2019. &GUJTeq • - IMPROVEMENT SURVEY PLAT IS TRUE,CORRECT AND COMPLETE BASED ON MY KNOWLEDGE. "1 4` -� INFORMSURVEY PLAT AND AGUAREF LAID OR AND WARRANTY ETHER THSS THISIIMPROVEMENT THAT ..^! 2)THE DATE OF THIS SURVEY WAS DECEMBER 06,23 AND 27,2019. EAST SURVEY PLAT IS NOT A GUARANTY WARRANTY,EITHER ANACCURATE EXPRESSEDOR IMPLIED,"1'IIAT .- 47.ICE THIS IMPROVEMENT SURVEY PLAT WAS MADE BY ME FROM AN ACCURATE SURVEY OF THE 3)BASIS OF BEARINGS FOR THIS SURVEY IS A BEARING OF S39°04'29"W BETWEEN THE 7g578'R RS7E REAL PROPERTY PERFORMED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION ON DECEMBER 06,23 NORTHEASTERLY CORNER OF LOT S,A#S REBAR&CAP L.S.//ILLEGBLE FOUND IN PLACE AND ASPII�flr T /I AND 27,2019;ITIAT,INTHE PREPARATION OF THIS IMPROVEMENT SURVEY PLAT,I CASENRLLBD THE SOUTHWESTERLY CORNER OF THE EAST 1/2 OF LOT R,A#5 MBAR FOUND IN PLACE. AGT UPON THE TOLE COMMRMENT PREPARED BY PRKIN HAUNTY LOLE,INC.,CASE IM PCl'BUILDINGS, IMPROVEMENTS, EFFECTIVE SEPI'F.MBER 30,2019;THAT THE LOCATION AND DIMENSIONS OF 4)UNITS OF MEASURE FOR ALL DIMENSIONS SHOWN HEREON IS U.S.SURVEY FEET. ALL BUILDINGS,IMPROVEMENTS,EASEMENTS,RIGHTS OF WAY TN EVIDENCE OR KNOWN TO ME AND ENCROACHMENTS BY OR ON THE REAL PROPERTY AND MATTERS REFERENCED IN 5)THIS SURVEY IS BASED ON THE CITY AND ORIGINAL TOWNSITE MAP OF ASPEN IN THE PITKIN SAID SAID TITLE COMMITMENT CAPABLE OF BEING SHOWN ARE ACCURATELY SHOWN,AND THAT COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDERS OFFICE AND CORNERS FOUND INPLACE 8.\ w� THIS PLAT IS IN ACCORDANCE OF AN IMPROVEMENT SURVEY PLAT AS SET FORTH IN C.R.S. 6)ELEVATIONS ARE BASED ON A GPS OBSERVATION UTILIZING THE WESTERN COLORADO w\ RTVRN GPS NETWORK(1988 ORTHO DATUM)YIELDING AN ON-SITE ELEVATION OF 7894.95'ON - THE SOUTHEASTERLY CORNER OF LOT S AS SHOWN.CONTOUR INTERVAL EQUALS I FOOT. - DATED:JANUARY 02.2020• 7)THERE WAS APPROXIMATELY 1Y OF SNOW AND ICE ON THE GROUND AT THE TIME OF SURVEY. 8)THE ERROR IN CLOSURE FOR THIS SURVEY IS LESS THAN 1:15,000. -_ BY:�' ` : ON' . IL,Pi•.'.13 �SR,AN.r9::3: FOg., P)ROPACCORDINGTYON HOHE .SE B ASPENKS AS FOLITY LOWS: ONPMENTWEBP IN IPAL LD -- ,/g'S •VEYIN•"INC.:f I PROPERTY IS ZONED R-6.SETBACKS ARE AS FOLLOWS:FRONT YARD,Itl PRINCIPAL BUILDINGS, 15'ACCESSORY BUILDINGS,REAR YARD,IG PRINCIPAL BUILDINGS,5'FOR PORTION OF t e`',. :'J"'C' PRINCIPAL BUILDING USED SOLELY AS A GARAGE,5'FOR ACCESSORY BUILDINGS,SIDE YARD %�,&''AI L ANa' '','I o u 10)ACCORDING TO RECEPTION NO.351956 THE SUBJECT PROPERTY CARRIES A HISTORIC H LANDMARK DESIGNATION. a C .�, Daw"ay: No. Dnlc Revision 11)ACCORDING TO BOOK 683 PAGE 592 DEED RESTRICTION MATTERS EXIST ON THE $urv��e 4n', hh By ProjectNO. ACCESSORY DWELLING IINR. / AI- O. JG _ OTIS REAL ESTATE HOLDINGS,LLC. b _ Checked By: CITY OF ASPEN,COLORADO 1908R P.O.Box 1746 Job#:22.11 Rifle,CO 81650 JRN IMPROVEMENT&TOPO SURVEY For Construction Phone(970)625.1954 Dere: —Fax(970)579-7150 LOTS&THE E1/2 LOT R,BLOCK 65 JANUARY 02,202L1 NOTICE:ACCORDING TO COLORADO LAW.YOU MIST COMMENCE ANY LEGAL ACTON l,uw,peaksurveyinginc.com _ Existing Conditions BASED UPON ANY DEFECT IN THIS SURVEY WITVIII,I THREE YEARS ATTER YOU FIRST Computer FRe: 134 EAST SLEEKER STREET 1 OF 1 DISCOVER%ICH DEFECT.IN NO EVENT CERTIFICATIONTHIS RRawNaFREY BE HEREON 955 TEN TEARS a TR«mFa,7raN BASED UPON THE 3r' Since 2001 088.DWO C.02 Of 15 Pages RECEIVED 10/06/2023 ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT 5/12/23, 10:48 AM EIGELBERGER Mail-134 E.Bleeker Height =I G=L B=R G =R Hannah-Hunt Moeller<hannahhunt@eigelberger.com> 134 E. Bleeker Height 1 message Rob Gilfillan <Rob@steeplechaseconstruction.com> Fri, May 12, 2023 at 7:58 AM To: Hannah-Hunt Moeller<hannahhunt@eigelberger.com> Cc: steve <steve@steeplechaseconstruction.com>, Brett Mcelvain <BMcelvain@klaa.com> Good morning, Hannah-Hunt, Per our ongoing discussion regarding the height discrepancy we are experiencing on the non-historic portion of our remodel, I wanted to touch on the steps we took to straighten, (plumb)the masses of the project, both historical and non- historical. Once placed on the foundations, we checked the walls for plumb, starting with the historic cottage, as this impacts window/door installation, reveals and best building practices. These were significantly out of plumb, so we started to add additional framing, racking via bracing, adding in structurally required hold down brackets, etc. The historic cottage walls were 3/4"out of plumb. It took us four days to square and plumb this structure alone. In my opinion, plumbing a wall would add the height out of plumb to the overall structure. The non-historic structure was next.Again, being significantly out of plumb we worked on getting this structure to plumb and square for five days. Keep in mind the non-historic mass is all dimensional lumber, TJI, and Microlam construction. Next came the barn. Even though a small building, this was also an inch out of plumb. We spent another four days, using the same methods as on the historic cottage, to plumb and square this structure up. Once all was said and done, I gained access to the center structure roof to measure our overall height, as we were needed to build the vestibule back and this was a precautionary measure to make sure all dimensions were accurate, I then determined we were 5 1/2"too high. This prompted us to survey our building heights, double check all our structural elements, original survey point from the micropile cap, and bring this up to our architect and structural engineer for review. As assurance to begin building correctly, we had Peak Survey give us a point on the micropile cap once those were completed and prior to start of concrete footings and foundation. This was our benchmark to build per plan heights given. After reviewing, I feel we have followed the plan precisely. Our 101' mark will be perfect once we finish the per plan floor build-up. Please let me know if I can provide any other steps taken, or any additional information. Thank you, STEEPLECHASE CONSTRUCTION, INC Robert Gilfillan RECEIVED (970) 366-1771 rob@steeplechaseconstruction.com 10/0GG6/2nn1IO2 3 https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=16dOd9e625&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f:1765697028197247476&simpl=msg-f:1765697028162477476' 1/ '3UILDING DEPARTMENT 5/12/23, 10:48AM EIGELBERGER Mail-134 E. Bleeker Height RECEIVED 10/06/2023 https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=16d0d9e625&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f:1765697028197247476&simpl=msg-f:17656j7 281A Pal /2 RIDGE EXHIBIT \ a R ,4��� \� � � R LOT S AND THE EAST 1/2 OF LOT R, BLOCK 65 R q ;, � „,,E. � , - ORIGINAL CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN �`�_ «�"� I A� CITY OF ASPEN, COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO �'� �`� ��� FOUNDATION ONLY ■.■� I� nsPEN;' w�4 , A , . \, �,;Qa. �1� ii a N � 01 , j ,•�` �� 1. oQ��pR� ( a 0 _moo \� r� �.. _�_1e,,t, ,,.3„, 330 30 3 �i® .jg6, • w ,.l,I g ��^�v e Y 1 h�' \ 1 A 4 4a A rq�r i GII�!!!!!,,,E COOP��4Y yy1M��4"xfo ` H 300 V 60 \ �j. LLQ asl- �I/ N Gulch s Grove M i/ +\\ * #5' BAR FOUND -p1 20.69' OCK 65 I , J 4�\'� BE s.66"1s31"w.9z' R-D as uoe Eem \ /R f �r S soyJt,F) O VLLW / // / 1!W E/ \ _ / no 90 / lifli /-,:t\ ' ,,,' r 2-')M,/ e_. _:,' �_�, / S�-5���'I�G, \ M�S�`\ oP \ -/t /// / O VICINITY MAP 210 150 7 l_ - � a 180 ii' fA _, „s SCALE:1"=2000' �_ �� / �_ z il/ R dE� D S _ 7zo Y', '0 Q ��� PROPERTY DESCRLPTION GRAPHIC SCALE / RIDGE 7920 9'/ - $ .LA 7894 )14- //() 0 LOTS AND THE EAST 1/2 OF LOT R,BLOCK 65,ORIGINAL CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN /� q BIDE FOUND, ;�c 9 - CITY OF ASPEN,COUNTY OF PITKIN,STATE OF COLORADO. / "// / ; /WALLS ASSTAKED 7 -7/�,,R ' nIN FEET) �- 1 inch= 10 ft. .PFG;"7ATION. .- �� / / L J'lgy PLh'>/89459 / a' / M1 H -..... SL Y94.�5' /� /'.P FOUNDATION TY 7b'95:61�� Z; / �w_ O 7893.81' / / / 4` //� / " F / 111(((l / m s 9a. � / RIJ@s SLAB J893.82 �`I i 'f146'2 / % %/ �� PLY 89s600 / /// / a / ', RIDGE P / p cq // LOTSAN.BAST HALF/ / W 6 a_, / " 4'II SF.* 64 / , Qo4 134 EAST BBEEKER STREET // _\ O Q' / IP FOUNDATIONo. _ /( _ � /mhinO #.REBAR FOUND - / ._J /, -- + / 1 \ - / / GSFTegC'K • / 2452.65 i /� / / 4 /t MONOMENT#7,3 � � / / e �, vim _ � ' / ` 45 REBAR& L=]894 95"' NOTES: ""*�mex'•w„ - I)THIS PROPERTY IS SUBJECT TO RESERVATIONS,RESTRICTIONS,COVENANTS,BUILDING M CRV.d?S'h `i7 SETBACKS AND EASEMENTS OF RECORD,OR IN PLACE AND EXCEPTIONS TO TITLE SHOWN IN MONUMENT#3 _ `` A' THE TITLE COMMITMENT PREPARED BY PITKIN COUNTY TITLE,INC.,CASE NO.PCT25399W3, '-,, / a DATED EFFECTIVE SEPTEMBER 30,2019. \ / 119 2)THE DATE OF THIS SURVEY WAS DECEMBER 06,23 AND 27,2019,APRIL 06,2023 AND APRIL 24, EAST B 2023. 74,LEE ST — SURVEYOR'S STATEMENT: 3)BASIS OF BEARINGS FOR THIS SURVEY IS A BEARING OF N39704'29"W BETWEEN THE 4S 8 R RW FEET P(-/ALT SURVEYOR LICE HEREBY CERTIFY HE LAWS 4 E.F THE LLC,THAT I AM DOAHAT PROF ESSIONAL OOFLAND NORTHEASTERLY CORNER OF LOT S,A#5 REBAR&CAP L.S.#ILLEGIBLE FOUND IN PLACE AND SURVEYOR LICENSED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF COLORADO;THAT TIES ROOF THE SOUTHWESTERLY CORNER OF THE EAST 1/2 OF LOT R,A#5 REBAR FOUND IN PLACE. EXHIBIT IS TRUE,CORRECT AND COMPLETE BASED ON MY KNOWLEDGE,INFORMATION AND BELIEF AS LAID OUT AND SHOWN HEREON;THAT THIS ROOF EXHIBIT IS NOT A GUARANTY OR 4)UNITS OF MEASURE FOR ALL DIMENSIONS SHOWN HEREON IS U.S.SURVEY FEET. 11111 ""-0'TEI,,,,, WARRANTY,EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED,THAT THIS ROOF EXHIBIT WAS MADE BY ME FROM AN ACCURATE SURVEY OF THE REAL PROPERTY PERFORMED BY ME OR UNDER MY 5)THIS SURVEY IS BASED ON THE CITY AND ORIGINAL TOWNSITE MAP OF ASPEN IN THE PITKIN HI DIRECT SUPERVISION ON DECEMBER 06,23 AND 27,2019,APRIL 06,2023 AND APRIL 24,2023. COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDER'S OFFICE AND CORNERS FOUND IN PLACE. 6)ELEVATIONS ARE BASED ON A GPS OBSERVATION UTILIZING THE WESTERN COLORADO RTVRN GPS NETWORK(1988 ORTHO DATUM)YIELDING AN ON-SITE ELEVATION OF 7894.95'ON DATED:MAY 04,2023 THE SOUTHEASTERLY CORNER OF LOTS AS SHOWN.CONTOUR INTERVAL EQUALS 1 FOOT. '''11,�000000 o 7)THERE WAS APPROXIMATELY 12"OF SNOW AND ICE ON THE GROUND AT THE TIME OF $ A SURVEY. O H'. BY:�4 Sc., S 8)THE ERROR IN CLOSURE FOR THIS SURVEY IS LESS THAN 1:15,000. ON' IL,P.L.. 0.37.B.. E.IAAN•$1 :)• •LF OF, 9)ACCORDING TO THE CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT WEBSITE THE SUBJECT :J.AS 'VEYIN.,INC.;' PROPERTY IS ZONED R-6.SETBACKS AREAS FOLLOWS:FRONT YARD,10'PRINCIPAL BUILDINGS, "' 15'ACCESSORY BUILDINGS,REAR PRINCIPAL BUILDING USED OL L YARD,10'Y AS A GARAGE,5'FOR CCESSORY BUILDINGS,SIDE YARD *774,1 L L ANC S'i t''♦' 10)ACCORDING TO RECEPTION NO.351956 THE SUBJECT PROPERTY CARRIES A HISTORIC LANDMARK DESIGNATION. f` 4' Drawn By: NO. Date Revision By Project NO. I1)ACCORDING TO BOOK 683 PAGE 592 DEED RESTRICTION MATTERS EXIST ON THE SHF 134 E BLEEKER,LLC ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT. ,4,111.11111" Checked By: CITY OF ASPEN,COLORADO 19088 P.O.Box 1746 li 4 RLBe,CO 81650 JRN RIDGE EXHIBIT Phone(970)625-1954 Date:Fax(970)579-7150 MAY 04,2023 LOT S&THE E1/2 LOT R,BLOCK 65 NOTICE:ACCORDING TO COLORADO LAW,YOU MIST COMMENCE ANY LEGAL.ACTION www.peaksurveyinginc.com Caoop.,Pile: 134 EAST BLEEKER STREET BASED UPON ANY DEFECT IN THIS SURVEY WITHIN THREE YEARS AMR YOU FIRSTCTHIS ERTIFICATION BE COMMENCED BeCOWNxeaeoII THAN TEN YEARS FROM THE DATE.'THE DISCOVER SUCH DEFECT MN°EVENT MAY ANY ACTION BASED UPON ANY DEFECr IN Since 2001 -,, 088-RIDGE-EXH 1 OF 1 RECEIVED 10/06/2023 ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT 5/12/23, 11:00 AM EIGELBERGER Mail-FW:The height of a building =I G=L B=R G =R Hannah-Hunt Moeller<hannahhunt@eigelberger.com> FW: The height of a building 1 message Rob Gilfillan <Rob@steeplechaseconstruction.com> Fri, May 12, 2023 at 7:59 AM To: Hannah-Hunt Moeller<hannahhunt@eigelberger.com> Cc: steve <steve@steeplechaseconstruction.com> HH, from Bill Bailey. Please review my email and comment back when you get a chance. Thank you, Steeplechase Construction, Inc. Robert Gilfillan (970) 366-1771 rob@steeplechaseconstruction.com Original Message From: Bill Bailey<baileyhousemover@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, May 12, 2023 7:25 AM To: Rob Gilfillan <Rob@steeplechaseconstruction.com> Subject: The height of a building Rob- Some of the historical buildings we move and work with have settled down around their original foundations, some foundations being stumps, rocks, or logs. Over time when the historic buildings settle they become out of plumb. To plumb the walls back into plumb the structure has to be methodically pulled around until the walls are perfectly vertical again. This exercise will result in a gain of height to the building. Sincerely- Bill Bailey RECEIVED 10/06/2023 pCpC ' https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=16d0d9e625&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f:1765697131269390350&simpl=msg-f:17656�1)ILDING DEPARTMENT , a > \ T T T 4B \ 3 2 1B 1A �aQ "`.3. TT W'oev°='�.tan a�wN="`T-gee z 12 .1 'S EA ..,VelS°v §"io m 7, ' w —IM - - - - ° - - - _ - -\ - _ _ - - - - - - (6P)B.O.HEADER UL ADDITION 118'-4112" 0 I-1k— m AI I _ _r P4 _ T.O.F.F.UPPER FLOOR(a1 VICTORIAN _ +Psi .. �m�' I \ 110'-8112" S p II w MAIN LEVEL CEILING DINING rT, = C II W--- \ MAIN LEVEL CEILING AQ LMNG l I I 8 11 W 13 ,`? 1 M, 7 ' H 7 1 Cii 1 — m T.O.F.F.(F4 MAIN VICTORIAN , , 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 T.O.F.F.@_MAIN1 L6E0'V-E0L W1 1 1-1 1 1- 1 1- 1 1—I I — —111-111— I —I I I—I I I—I 1 -1 1 1-1 1 1-1 1 1-1 1 -11 1-111-111-111-11 1-1 1 1-1 I-1 111 1 11-111-111-111-111-1 1 1-1 1 1-1 1 1-1 1 1-1 1 1 1-1 1 I 1 1 1— 1 -I 1 1— I I I- ,11 I I I 111 111 111 111 111 1 1 1 111 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 111 I I I I I I I I I I I I II I,, I I I I I III11 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I II I IIIII I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1I III IIII I IIIII I III I I II I I, .I I I I 1 I 111 111 111 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 III ill ,,, ,,, ,,, „ I1 1 1 1 1 1 1I 11 III ,,, ,, ,,, , 1 1„ ill cn EXISTING WEST ELEVATION 1--1 A.3.01 SCALE:1/4"=1'-0" \ 7 5 4B \ 3 n 1B 1O 1A ' Y 1.BUILDING HEIGHT FOOTPRINT AND M4SSNO MUST NOT OVNC£ FOLLOWING TEMPORARY RELOCATION OF THE EXISTING AMMON. CLIENT REVIEW:RENEWED AND B.PROPOSED SNOW CLIP TO BE PUCE°PER MANUFACTURER (E)SIDING TO BE REPAINTED,TYP. SNOW CLIPS (P)SIDING TO MATCH(E)TYP. EXISTING PLUMBING HISTORIC CHIMNEY TO REMAIN; APPROVED FOR DESIGN INTENT: SPECIFICATIONS..THAT CONFIGURATION TO BEMINNAL NEEDED �� CLIENT UNDERSTANDS THE DESIGN AND SHALL MR RUN UP ALL TO THE PER CAW OF JI FLUE VENT;TO BE USED NOT IN USE INTENT OF THE DOCUMENT CLIENT ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION WAY - - - _ - - q - — — _ — — — — _ _ — �� — — _ .., --�- - -25 20 APPROVES DESIGN INTENT.ARCHITECT v WILL PROCEED WITH DETAILS AND -•^1 t"" I 1 25'BUILDING HEIGHT RESTRICTION CALCULATED FROM MOST RESTRICTIVE GRADE cooRDlNnno wI H CONTRACTOR PER b - - m SIGNOFF ON DOCUMENT. 3. A _� NOTE:ANY CHANGES TO THE APPROVED441 ARCHITECTURAL ASPHALT SHINGLES — NOTE: D wwcs ev cusNT ARE aoDRIONaL � � SERVICEPERCONTRACT.TO REPLACE EXISTING,NP \ I 1-FENESTRATION CHANGES ARCHITECT TO PNo ocoRREnaNs ns - J4 APPROVEDBYEXISTING DECORATIVEELEMENT TO ° HPC MONITOR5/6Y12CLIENT sICNATnRE: REPAIRAND REMAIN�I ■ � / 2-PENETRATIONS HAVE BEEN /' "' '\� SUBMITTED TO HPC FOR REVIEW LEAD COATED COPPER _GUTTERSANDDOWNSPOUTS % ` N � s ANDAPPROVAL BYHP MONITORonTE OF APPRovu: ° °k 0 III\- CE II ATTIME OF CHANGE ORDER r! EXISTING SIDING TO BE REPAINTED , _� __ ° _ \ LPN REPLACE EXISTING EXIWBB SNOW CLIPS pF '(0 REPAIR AND REPAINT.EXISTING RAIL TO REMAIN - WBTR "(t// 9 ADD STEEL LOWER BAR TO COMPLY WITH IRC R312.1.3 -�0 ; I k 0 0 U ,/ HP T B OF 90• EXISTING BALCONY FRAMING TO REMAIN — — - I 0 0 0 DDD/// (74 I ll II III II I ► Vi04018 ���� "— i I• �. i \ i T.O.F.F.UPPER FLOOR 110T�8 V2" TTTTTITTTTI�TITTTTITIT�.I���I! aT�l MECH VENT — MUM— — — — _— — — — — _ — — I — — _ — �//RENEW.n.Imn`4a� 3�� ` := PER HPC DES w z ` fill eI�1 F S. N PER HPC DESIGN L �Y I G n ` �I`'� ' - - -GUIDELINES 7.44 _--- -- r� - 4 — — MAIN LEVEL CEILING DINING AR II `,-_-, P ' MAIN LEVEL CEILING A LIVING PJ 'u$ �I _• — N frin to z .. y ° EXISTING \ 108'-7314" L o LL a i 0 UTILITY CT — —— FUSED MAIN — ®G L NM CD =© =IG=LB=RG=R LOCATION FOR ELECTRICAL _ CLOSET SERVICE ELECTRICAL— } 9 — . UTILITIES;TO BE PAINTED z I —DISCONNECT PANEL — -. LL - ,ILA 0 MATERIAL BUILD UP TO MATCH SIDING 9 _ o ? \� U, MATCH EXISTING iv RE:LANDSCAPE 350 mABNnsTxeeTs816 aosawLr,coLoxnoo 21 h o a\ �' ," 4"MECH VENT (4)MECH UNITS- 3'-0' HISTORIC SIDINGo PHONE00.3023 FAX:ass.3 sm MATERIAL BUILD UP a o - w ' •L ...r.ry..„__l_ T.O.F.F.@,MAIN VICTORIAN Ll w�ac EGELaEHGEH.mM se. GAS METER RE:LANDSCAPE \ TERMINATION - E I /— 101'-0" PER HPC DESIGN 2%SLOPE AWAY GUIDELINES 7412.4 2/SLOPE AWAY T.O.F.F.(dZMAIN LEVEL T ' - t 1 — L — — ,;i - 100'-0" Plot Date 5/12/202311.30.35 AM ,-i-x ry z-.z-C z-.-� x'4- .+ c' c'�` _ ._... a"'i° �.�.�.� �.�.� �.�.A.�.�.� 3i3..3.:3 i:3i x _ _ _ _ _ r o- .�2k.� z'�z'Fz'Fa!'Fe 'Few�.3'd'r ...r r r��-�d•�+'�.; _ I' * �' ' ' Drawn By HANNAH-HUNT MOELLER _ I I • I I - 1 I e I ' e Checked By Checker II III III II. �Il1x11111111 111-11 if 11 1 .- I ; " ' 11-1 1_ _ Checked 9017 —I11 111 111 ue SUBGRADE LEVEL BEYOND h;- ( °1-.: ^-. - I J -• I - f _ ° Date eovfco - I-111-11 I 1= 11=111; CD DRAFT III 111 111 : I I 1 111 CD PROGRESS 1—III—III—I I. �f I ,- A.605 { - 11-I .Iz22 CHANGE ORDER I 111 111 111 t : - 1 �IHPC REVIEW III— II - a L a_ 1- 11 9( 5314"25 — — — — E- --_ - � - - - - - 02-LEVEL25 90'-5314" III 11 IIIIIIII ° ... r III- - — — — — — __ �. 1. I _ — T.O.F.F.aQBASEMENT w - _ __ _ kkk _ _ BT-0" 1 III '"° 1 .. � � � `. ° : , t a :..� r _ . ( I . °. 111- LY, II II III III 111 III 111 111 III 'I • 1 I I—III—III—III—III III—I 11-11 -1 I I—I 1= 1 t 1 = III III III III III III III III a • I� �- - - - WEST ELEVATIONS —1 —I ICI I—III—III—III—I —I 1 • • 4 r1' I°I 11 I i 1- 1 III III III III III III- _ _ 1 T.O.F.F tTA w TOFATCRAWLSPADE — LI--3111111111111111I1+11111 III AI ;I:I III III I1 I1II LI III IIe.I I I 1�1II'I I1 - I1 I', II III � �ti 111111 80'-6" 1 111 111 11 11 11 11 11 11 111 SCALE: 1/4"=1LO" 111-111-111-111-111-III-111-111-111-III-111-111-111-111-111-111-111 111 III III 111 1 1 1 —III—III—III—III—III 1 1 1 111 III III 111- 2 PROPOSED WEST ELEVATION RECEIVED A.3.01 SCALE:1/4"=1'-0" A.3.WD6/2)23 mry BUILDING DEPARTMENT ? 1A T ® T T Q 4B 5 O T QaQ asD�os� .....,. aw rdo>._;9a (E ROOF = omHg-a`aQ„, z - - - - - - - — — — — — �� — — — - — — — — — - — — — — 125'-2112" E A v H E' t m 1 Ind I �-I ,_ I- Tsa x„ �8& E i-I - - - (E/laB.0.HEADER ULADDRION o, � 441 • ARi r III II IIII m > rT, ,� f Q JAI I I II1II I II_ _I* a \ \/ T.O.F.F.(UPPER LEVEL ADDITION — — — - - - —�— — — — — — — — — — — — — - — — — — — T.O.F.F. UPPER LEVEL — — — — —� <, — — — — 1 �- — _N,— — — — I — — — — API GARAGE CEILING .L1 u 108'-2118" 8 , , flflfliII 1 : f/�1/�1 1 I :n i \, L , I F l I III , 1 • _e _ �_ - - T.0 F.F.@ MAIN VICTORIAN V J - I - .� I T - - 1 - 1 I " VI—�I `� - 7 — T.O.F.F.@MAIN LEVEL 1 \ I III—I I—III—I I III—III—III—III—III—III—III'—II I—III III—III—III—I I h—III—III—III—III—III—III—III—III—III—III—III—I I I I— I I—III—III—III—III—III—III—I 100'-0" W 11111III111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111,11111111111111II111III1111111111111IIIIlIIIIlIIIIIIIIIIIIlIII111111111111111111111„IIII„III 11111111111111111 III11111111111I1 i1IIII III 111 M 1 EXISTING EAST ELEVATION A.3.03 SCALE:1/4"=1'-0" 0 0 ,e O 0 CO 0 Q 0 o HISTORIC CHIMNEY TO EXISTING PENETRATION; SNOW CLIPS (E)PORCH FRAMING HISTORIC PENETRATION; EXISTING CHIMNEY CLIENT REVIEW:REVIEWED AND ,1 - - - _ --_ - - - - - - .._ .-__.`..`A.^_.`— T.O.ROOF COORDINATION DDFoa DESIGN ARCHITECT REMAIN;TO BE USED TO BE USED FOR 6" TO REMAIN;RAILING NOT IN USE TO REMAIN;TO BE ROVED FOR I INTENT: AS PLUMBING VENT-- ROUND PLUMBING VENT TO BE REPLACED USED FOR 6'VENT LIENT INTENT of THE UNDERSTANDS DOCU THEENT CLIENT —I — — APPROVES DESIGN INTENT.gRCHITECT 125'-2112" WILL PROCEEDWITH DETAILS AND 1 • HISTORICPENETRATIdN; HISTORIC PENETRATION; - V L AnorlwlH CONTRACTOR PER HEIGHT NOTE:HPC MONITOR NOTE.ANY CHANGES To HE APPROVED 1.BUILDING HEIGHT FOOTPRINT AND MASSING MusTNorcwwcE NOT IN USEI NOT IN USE as 25'BUILDING SION OFF ON DOCUMENT. FOLLOWING TEMPORARY RELOCATION OF THE EXISTING AMON. DRAWINGS 2.PROPOSEDSNOW CUP TO BE PLACED PER MANUFACTURER " RESTRICTION SPEGFICATIONS SUCH THAT CONFIGURATION TO BE MINIMAL NEEDED - BY CLIENT ARE ADDITIONAL THE ROOF FFncm \ Ir-Ad&, CALCULATED FROM CHANGEEDF3/2020 ATION SERVICE PER CONTRACT. OFASHALLNOTRU UPALCNIE AY TO CHANGES 111312020ARCHITECTT ICHUP REnarNS As MOST RESTRICTIVE O PNOTEDCOR GRADE CLIENT SIGNATURE: ARCHITECTURAL ASPHALT SHINGLES JibTO REPLACE EXISTING,TYP Fin !! ��' DATE OF APPROVAL: / —\ �i �. =\ EXISTING DECORATIVE ELEMENT TO SNOW CLIPS ,=—I _ REPAIR AND REMAIN �' ED a 1 ;By � ...Of C'�pq �I e a , k 9 + 1 0 1 _ " 0 __ - / O 1—LEAD COATED yP �ERGER O , 0 0 0 0 1II 11111 1 --I II_ -., �. COPPER GUTTERS 11E1E1E1EIL.�... . ,IIIIIIIIhL'\- II11 _ �� SHED ROOF 1�,04018 • • 111.11111111_11 11_lillll_IIII 111111/111 111_III.11_lil-II �— I r// �� �� �� 11���- a T.O.F.F.CTD UPPER LEVELADDITION (��� ��L EXISTING SIDING TO BE REPAINTED 1 M Is N / 109'-10114" /RENEW 4 ��� �� _ D 1 S. N — — — T.O.F.F.@UPPER LEVEL ARL - '.1 II—� N-,I�i l� - II�_I I —LRI= �i 11111111111111111 - - - (P)GARAGE CEILING EXISTING DECK TO REPAIR ' • 111A4 �= -I G=L B=R G=R '� :I —�-_ �+ li (E)SIDING TO BE REPAINTED,TYP. SSD mABeErsTRE Lr,coLOenoo AND REMAIN PER HPC —_ �� [I ® ® ®Offil MATERIAL BUILD UP RE: - �� - Rxo aDsazaFAx:ass.a smLANDSCAPE , II—;I .�- a■ �� / w�ac MGELaERGER.mMse.T.O.F.F.(LN MAIN VICTORIAN2%SLOPE AWAY 11-t1I II-II I III III 1 2%SLOPE AWAY- T.O.F.F.@MAINLEVEL - 100'-0' Plot Date 5/12/202311:29:47 AM I III ..:�:.: E..:.: ..�-.N:�:-�:M-. . �-�:�:�P����'. � �:��.�.�. �e.3.._.. _ elI I III 11T� - _ • • III III III - III _ Drawn By HANNAH-HUNT MOELLER _( _ Checked By Checker I - CheckeProject NB. 19017 111 111 111 I11— 1 Date sue I I I—I I I—I I I-11 I I I—_1 I I 1 1 1ORDER 1 IIII III III III REVISIONS $1�s 1 1 1 1 1 1 A.6.05 1 1 1 1 1 1 �,zza HPCRE EERw 1 1 1 1 1 1 I t 1 1 I 11_ wEB — — — — 02907_3< III—I 4 p a a ? 111-111 1 s T III T.O.F.E @BASEMENT �I �I .: - l ;a-44--W. III III I I I a III III III IIII II I II 1 • 11 111 111 111 111 111 111 111 1117 a . III I I I1 111 III III .. I, 11 EAST ELEVATIONS tTA I_ 111 11Ii° 11II p -° 1111111111i111111111111 :. " _, I T' - - - - _ _ _ _ _ OFFA II III III III fl AAI III 11 III III -III III -- — -- �-- - -- — HII III III ill T. .. TCRAWLBP�ACs III III III III III III III III III III III III III III III III III II- SCALE: 1/4"=1LO" 2 PROPOSED EAST ELEVATION RECEIVED A.3.03 SCALE:1/4"=1'-0" A.34306/2)23 AmrU BUILDING DEPARTMENT 5/11/23,4:32 PM EIGELBERGER Mail-134 E Bleeker-height memo EIGELBERGER Hannah-Hunt Moeller<hannahhunt@eigelberger.com> 134 E Bleeker- height memo 2 messages Brett Mcelvain <BMcelvain@klaa.com> Thu, May 11, 2023 at 3:48 PM To: Hannah-Hunt Moeller<hannahhunt@eigelberger.com> Hannah-Hunt, Regarding the measured height of the existing building when placed on the new foundation, based on my field observations, the top of concrete walls were built in accordance with the structural construction documents. The typical relationship between top of plywood elevation and the top of concrete wall elevation was plywood is 2.25" (3/4" plywood + 1.5"for sill plate) higher than top of concrete for both the existing building and for the new construction. Correcting the plumbness of the existing building may have slightly increased the measured height of the building. Brett Mcelvain,PE Principal Senior Project Manager 215 North 12th St. Unit E Carbondale, CO 81623 �► K L IAA D:970510 5703 v Engineers&Builders C:303.523.6890 www.klaa.com We make a difference. en CI Hannah-Hunt Moeller<hannahhunt@eigelberger.com> Wed, May 10, 2023 at 9:27 AM To: Brett Mcelvain <bmcelvain@klaa.com> Hi Brett, Could you put together a brief memo including: • t/wall is constructed in accordance with structural CDs • consistent curb detail at base of wall in accordance w/structural CD • unlikely that previous foundation was stepped due to how floor system was hung • any comments that wall plumbing post-house move could contribute to height deviation • any other thoughts Thank you, Hannah-Hunt Hannah-Hunt Moeller,RA Senior Project Manager,Registered Architect RECEIVED hannahhunt@eigelberger.com Cell/Text:(970)235 0294 10/0 6/2 0 2 3 https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=16d0d9e625&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-a:r-7688592020035177198&simpl=msg-a:r-8 53944 45gN DEPARTMENT 5/11/23,4:32 PM EIGELBERGER Mail-134 E Bleeker-height memo EIGELBERGER ARCHITECTURE+DESIGN 350 Market Street Suite 309 Basalt CO 81621 (d)970 235 0294 www.eigelberger.com www.facebook.com/eigelbergerad/ www.instagram.com/eigelberger_architecture/ RECEIVED 10/06/2023 https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=16d0d9e625&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-a:r-7688592020035177198&simpl=msg-a:r-8 53944NG BUILDING