HomeMy WebLinkAboutArchitects-Responce Comments#gu[EB$
Response to Comments
Response to comments from Asher Architects + Engineers in BLUE listed
below. Please refer to the new revised plans attached. Areas clouded correspond with
the comments below.
Response to comments from STRI.IX Engineering LLC in RED listed below.
Please refer to the new revised plans attached. Areas clouded correspond with the
comments below.
Permit Number: BLCO-1 0-23-8368, BLCO- 1 0-23-837 0, BLCO-1 0-23-8369
Project Address: 357 S. 16th St, S¡lt, CO
Community Development Department
Reviewer: John Plano
50.01 - The Design Criteria is indicating a 35psf roof snow load. The minimum design
criteria in Garfield County is 40psf. Please address accordingly
Calculations have been revised as well as the Design Criteria on Sheet 50.01
The foundation design does not appear to follow the recommendations in the Soil
Report that was submitted with the permit. The report recommends helical piers but
gives recommendations for Shallow Foundations in 8.2.
- Please have the structural engineer reference the specific soils report on the
drawings.
Note to add reference to geotechnical report has been added under the
Foundations Section.
The Geotech Report recommends 400psf and 300psf for gravity loads and lateral
loads respectively. The Structural notes indicate 1500psf and 2000psf
respectively.
Sheet S0.01 updated as well as calculations. Note a strip footing has been added
under each bearing wall to compensate for the lower bearing pressure.
AsherArchitects
5125th St Bertpud, CO,80513
www.AsherA¡cf¡-corn
@ 2023
^drËAE¡trc{s"
b"cd?.
Tel ephone: 97 0-532-997 O Debbie@{s¡srArch.com
The Geotech Report inclicates separating the slah from the foundations, columns,
etc. The details on the plans do not indicate separation.
This would be in reference to a separated footing and stem'ovallfrom the slab
The footings are designed to be continuous pour and it is not reasonable to
separate a floating slab from each footing. The structures are designed to be
flexible and be able to maintain integrity with some rise and fall of subgrade
foundations. This is not necessary for this design.
There are no footings indicated for the interior bearing walls.
A strip footing has been added under eaclr bearing wall to compensate for the
lower bearing pressure.
The soils report indicates that there is a drainage pod in Building F location. The footing
is to extend at of below the bottom of the pond.
Geotech report has been revised. Please see response from Geotech below:
"The existing drainage pond is under proposed new building K. Per the Geotech
report noted in section 9.3 Building Pad Preparation, the existing Zft of in-situ
soils will be removed and replaced with structuralfill noted in the report. The
building perimeter footings will only need to reach the frost depth depicted."
There is always a question regarding hazardous material storage in this type of facility.
Typically, in storage facilities the leases will cover hazardous material storage. Would
you please provide a statement or a sample lease agreement for the County's file. (lBC
414)
- See attached rental agreement (Section 6).
After speaking with the Fire Marshal, a Knox Box is to be installed at the entrance gate
prior to issuance of tlre building perrrrits.
- A Knox Box for emergency access is to be provided at facility entrance.