Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutArchitect-Response CommentsüOIilEENS Response to Gomments Response to comments from Asher Architects + Engineers in BLIJE listed below. Please refer to the new revised plans attached. Areas clouded correspond with the comments below. Response to comments from STRUX 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 0-23-8370, BLCO-1 0-23-8369 Project Address: 357 S. 16th St, Silt, CO Community Development l)epartment Reviewer: John Plano S0.01 - 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 S0.01 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 512 5th St. Berhoud, CO" 80513 www.AsherA¡cf¡-corn @ 2023 AsfËr À¡cltects. b.cdp- Teleph one: 97 0-532-997 O Debbie@¡qs¡srArch.com The Geotech Report indicates separating the slab from the foundations, columns, etc. The details on the plans do not indicate separation. This would be in reference to a separated footing and stemwall from 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 each 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 Buildirrg Pad Preparaliorr, [[re existing 2ftof 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 the building permits. - A Knox Box for emergency access is to be provided at facility entrance.