HomeMy WebLinkAboutFile Documents.621 W Francis St.0008-2021-BRES (19)
Page 1 of 2
Architectural Permit Comment Responses
Project: 22032 - Shuford
Subject: Responses to Building Code Comments
Date: 03 May 2021
Good Afternoon,
The following are a list of written responses to permit comments included in the Mozingo Code Group
Plan Review Report for the Shuford Residence located at 621 W Francis St, Aspen. Comments are dated
4/16/2021. In addition we have provided written responses to verbal comments received from Denis Murray
that require the addition of a NFPA 13D sprinkler system.
Addition of Fire Sprinkler System:
Response: A0.1 notes the addition of the fire sprinkler system as a requirement. We have coordinated the
water line size with the fire sprinkler contractor, Plumbing Engineer, and Civil Engineer, and the required 2”
water line has been shown on the respective drawings. Additionally, plumbing drawings show the addition of
the tie in for fire protection system on P.6.001, and a letter has been provided from the fire sprinkler contractor
confirming the revised water service line (uploaded to permit as: 04.Fire Flow Letter.20210116) will provide
adequate supply for the system required to serve this size of property. The specific design of the fire sprinkler
system will be design build with the fire sprinkler contractor and will conform to all applicable codes and
requirements.
Building Code Responses:
B-1 Please specify how you will meet the Carbon Monoxide Detector requirements of Aspen Municipal
Code Section 8.15
Response: Refer to Architectural sheets A3.0, A3.1, and A3.2 for proposed locations of combination Carbon
Monoxide Detectors and Smoke Alarm as well as RCP General Notes on these sheets stating installation to be
in accordance with per Aspen Municipal Code Section 8.15 and IRC R314.
B-2 Refer to Electrical Plans and Architectural Plans: The electric load calculations reference an EV Car
Charger but there is no other mention of it in the plans. Please specify how you will meet all the requirements of
EV charging per IRC R309.6 as amended by the City of Aspen.
Response: Per IRC R309.6, Additions and alterations to existing one- or two-family dwellings and townhomes
constructed per the IRC are exempt from this requirement, however we will facilitate future installation of and
use of electric vehicle chargers in the detached garage. Location for charging station, as shown on sheet A2.0
and capacity is included in the electric load calculations on sheet E.6.001.
B-3 Refer to Sheet A7.2: Please specify how the roof coverings and the roof profiles meet the requirements
of IRC R902.1 as amended by the City of Aspen.
05/09/2021
Page 2 of 2
Response: Detail 1 on sheet A7.2 has been added to demonstrate installation of flashing per R902.1 so that
the space between the roof covering and roof decking and the space at the eave ends shall be constructed to
preclude entry of flames or embers.
B-4 Refer to Architectural Plans: Please specify how the roofs will meet the snow shed design of IRC R910
as amended by the City of Aspen.
Response: Please refer to sheets A2.3, A4.1, A4.2, and A4.3 for updated snow fence locations to meet the
snow shed design of IRC R910 as amended by the City of Aspen.
B-5 Please provide air sealing details for the garage/ADU and for any envelope changes to the duplex.
Response: A note has been added to A7.1, and A7.2 requiring air sealing in accordance with City of Aspen
requirements and Standard air sealing details have been included on sheet A7.3.
B-6 Please specify how you will meet the smoke alarm requirements of IRC R314.
Response: Refer to Architectural sheets A3.0, A3.1, and A3.2 for proposed locations of combination Carbon
Monoxide Detectors and Smoke Alarm as well as RCP General Notes on these sheets stating installation to be
in accordance with per Aspen Municipal Code Section 8.15 and IRC R314.
Structural Comments – Geotechnical Report
S-1 Please provide a copy of the project geotechnical report, sealed and signed by the engineer in
responsible charge, for review and verification of design values.
Response: Geotech report was included as part of the original permit submittal. We confirmed with Denis
Murry that this is comment is to be disregarded on April 22, 2021.
S- 9 Please provide a complete set of structural design calculations sealed and signed by the engineer in
responsible charge.
Response: Per email communication with Denis Murray on 4/23/2021 a complete set of structural design
calculations is not currently a requirement for City of Aspen and this comment is to be disregarded.
05/09/2021
May 5, 2021
Will Otte
Rowland+Broughton
500 West Main Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
RE: Shuford Residence Permit Comment Response
Structural Permit Comments and Responses
S-2: Sheet S2.001: At the west end of the south primary structure foundation wall, section 3/S6.003 indicates
that this condition does not achieve frost depth. Please revies.
Response: This detail only shows the top of the wall. The base of the wall is supported by a footing that will be
constructed at frost depth.
S-3: Sheet S2.001: Between gridlines 3 and 4 at the west side of the foundation, section 6/S6.001 and associated
grade beam note indicates it is not the intent to provide frost depth. Please revise.
Response: Grade beam is supported on each end by frost depth footing or pier. The grade beam itself will be
protected from frost by voidform installed below, as shown in the detail.
S-4: Sheet S2.001: Section 3/S6.001 at roughly A.2-2.2 indicates a new thickened slab footing is to be doweled
into the existing slab. Please verify the project geotechnical report does not indicate that foundation elements
are to be isolated from the slab-on-grade.
Response: See response from geotechnical engineer. Load supporting elements do not need to be isolated from
slabs.
S-5: Sheet S2.002: Please verify an HSS column is not needed at the east C12x20.7 bent supporting the walkway
from the primary structure to the garage similar to the column provided for the west C12.
Response: No column is needed on the east side of the bridge.
S-6: Sheet S2.004: Please verify the garage ridge beam is sufficient with the applied 20 psf DL + 70 psf SL.
Response: Garage roof framing has been revised and no longer needs a full length ridge beam.
S-7: Sheet S2.004: Moment frames are provided on gridlines 1 and 4. Please verify the drift limits recommended
in ASCE 7-10 Commentary Appendix C, Section CC.1.2 are met.
Response: The moment frames limit the story drift to the recommendations listed in ASCE 7-10
S-8: Sheet S6.001: Please verify if it is the design intent not to provide some kind of corrosion protection for the
steel in contact with soil below the slab-on-grade.
Response: Concrete will be poured around steel column bases below the slab. This will provide recommended
concrete cover for concrete cast against earth.
Thank you,
Dustin Whatley, P.E. 05/09/2021
aec
Architectural Engineering Consultants, Inc.
Mechanical, Electrical, & Lighting Design Services
An Office with LEEDTTMM Accredited Professionals
40801 US Hwy 6 & 24, Suite 214, Eagle-Vail, CO 81620 Post Office Box 8489, Avon, CO 81620
phone: 970-748-8520 fax: 970-748-8521 email: stan@aec-vail.com web: www.aec-vail.com
Shuford Residence
Permit Comment Response
To: Will Otte From: AEC
Company: R+B Project: Shuford Residence
Phone: 970-544-9006 Project No.: 20075
Date: 05/07/21 Re: Permit Comment Response
Energy Code Comments
EN-1
Project conditions revised to comply with prescriptive approach. No REScheck required.
Please see the revised compliance documents, separated between the Duplex and
Garage.
EN-2
New flat roof insulation to be R-49 cavity and R-3 average for the continuous. The R-
value for the continuous insulation varies due to its varying widths. Due to the change
to the prescriptive approach, no REScheck is required.
EN-3
Energy recovery ventilator added to garage. See sheets M.0.001, M.2.003 & M.7.001.
Electrical Code Comments
E1.001
Specifications updated regarding GFCI protection (NEC 210.8), to also state ‘below
grade space’.
E6.001
A utility and code required disconnect will be provided adjacent to the utility meter.
Note added to one-line diagram to indicate a new transformer will be added based on
coordination with utility.
05/09/2021
1
Will Otte
From:Steven Pawlak <spawlak@kumarusa.com>
Sent:Thursday, April 29, 2021 4:38 PM
To:Marisol Foreman
Cc:Kathy Crisler; HPK Glenwood; Will Otte; Dustin Wheatley
Subject:RE: SHUFORD - Slab Isolation Clarification
Since the natural soils are relatively dense, isolating the slab from the foundation should not be required and doweling of floor slab into the foundation is
acceptable from the Geotech viewpoint.
Steve
Steven L. Pawlak, P.E.
Principal | Project Manager
5020 County Road 154
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
P: (970) 945-7988
M: (970) 618-7371
D: (970) 384-4844
E: spawlak@kumarusa.com
www.kumarusa.com
Denver (HQ) | Parker | Colorado Springs | Fort Collins | Glenwood Springs | Summit County
Geotechnical Engineering | Engineering Geology | Construction Materials Testing | Environmental Services
Confidentiality Notice: The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, copying,
transmission, disclosure, distribution, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information by person or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you
received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer.
From: Marisol Foreman <marisol.foreman@rowlandbroughton.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2021 4:28 PM 05/09/2021
2
To: Steven Pawlak <spawlak@kumarusa.com>
Cc: Kathy Crisler <kcrisler@kumarusa.com>; HPK Glenwood <kaglenwood@kumarusa.com>; Will Otte <will@rowlandbroughton.com>; Dustin Wheatley
<dustin@evolvestruct.com>
Subject: SHUFORD - Slab Isolation Clarification
Hi Steven and Team,
Can you please confirm if the if the foundation elements are required to be isolated from the slab-on-grade? We received the following permit comment and it is
not specified in the soils report we received on 12/04/20 (attached for reference).
Permit Comment:
S-4 Sheet S2.001: Section 3/S6.001 at roughly A.2-2.2 indicates a new thickened slab footing is to be doweled into the existing slab. Please verify the project
geotechnical report does not indicate that foundation elements are to be isolated from the slab-on-grade.
Thanks,
marisol foreman, aia, ncarb, leed ap bd+c
project architect
rowland+broughton
architecture / urban design / interior design
500 w main st, aspen, co 81611; 970.544.9006 studio
1830 blake st, denver, co 80202; 303.308.1373 studio
970.769.9439 cell
marisol.foreman@rowlandbroughton.com
www.rowlandbroughton.com
Honors + Accolades
Articles + Features
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review, use, distribution, or disclosure by others is strictly prohibited. If you
have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by e-mail and delete the message and any file attachments from your computer. Information given or attached herewith is provided for
informational purposes only. Rowland+Broughton Architecture and Urban Design cannot guarantee the accuracy of this data and assumes no responsibility for any liability incurred by the recipient from the use of this
05/09/2021