HomeMy WebLinkAboutAFFIDAVIT Remodel 106C W Elkhorn Ave 2023-02-10February 10, 2023
Mr. Joseph Godsy, Inspector
Town of Estes Park Building Division
building@estes.org
Re: Roof Egress Bridge - 110 W Elkhorn Ave – Permit # 22-EP-00400
Response to 2/8/23 Inspection Comments
Dear Joseph,
Jason Remmerde with Remmerde Construction asked me to review and respond to your
inspection comments dated February 8, 2023 for the above referenced project. I've also
reviewed the associated photographs. Your comments are reproduced below in italic type
followed by response in bold type. Please feel free to call or email me if there are any issues
that you'd like to discuss further.
1. Inspector Note: Missing hardware at door exit and stair exit.
Response: I believe this comment refers to the steel angle shown in the drawings
that were intended to support the top flange of the north end of the beam, not
actual door hardware. If I'm misunderstanding and there is an issue with door
hardware, please let me know. — Detail 3/A05 showed a steel angle bolted to the
wall and top flange. Instead the Contractor and Steel Fabricator decided to weld a
vertical steel plate to the top flange of the beam. The weld appear adequate for
this lightly loaded and very low-to-the-roof-surface assembly. I approve of this
change in design.
2. Inspector Note: Missing middle rail on both sides
Response: The drawing included a mid-height horizontal rail. While I think it is a
good design feature for most situations, it isn't critical for this project nor a code
requirement. The top flange of the beam provide required edge protection per ICC
A117.1 Section 405.9. The only portion of the railing acting as a guard is the
southeast most section which has a lower rail and pickets installed for fall
protection. I approve of this change in design.
3 Inspector Note: The steel plate on the end of the stairs is called out for an 8" length and
it is only 7" in length.
Response: The original design calls for an 8" steel plate, 7" of which is below the
deck and 1" of which is above the deck. The 1" above the deck was going to be
an adjustable height bolt, which we removed after it was discovered that this
added height would result in a negative slope for the bridge. During design, we
anticipated a greater stop from the building to the south for drainage that
apparently isn't the reality. Removing the adjustable bolt resulted in a 7"
Page of 1 2PO Box 1555 • Estes Park, CO 80517 • (970)420-8264 • www.Intersticearch.com
steel plate dimension and a positive drainage on the bridge. The Contractor
identified this condition to me during construction. I approve of this design
change.
4. Inspector Note: Needs to be painted
Response: I agree that the entire assembly needs to be primed and painted for
long term durability and to comply with the code requirements of IBC Section
2203.2. To that end, the Contractor has indicated that it will be painted as soon as
exterior temperature will reliably allow. I will followup with him Tuesday April 11,
to assure that the paint is done, and can email you a visual inspection report then.
I do not believe that exposure to the elements in the meantime is detrimental to
the structure in the short term, nor a hazard in any way to the building occupants,
even in the event of emergency egress.
5. Inspector Note: Length of bridge is shorter than 16 feet as called out on the plans
Response: The design length of the bridge was based on rough field measuring
and was somewhat conservatively long for structural analysis purposes. The
actual as-built length appears to be about 3" shorter, which is fine. The bridge is
of adequate length to allow proper attachment requirements and proper support.
I approve of this change in design.
6. Inspector indication in picture: The plans call for a minimum riser height of 4" at the stair
end of the bridge.
Response: The intent of this dimension on detail 2/A05 was to comply with
minimum step height per IBC 1011.5.2. As mentioned above, at the time of
design, we believed that ere was more slope from the building at the north down
to the south roof edge. The intent was that the south-end bolts mentioned above
could be adjusted so that the step height was in the 4" to 7" range. Apparently
3½" is the maximum achievable. That said, this is a result of existing condition
for which IEBC Section 403.1 Exception #1 might be applied to allow for the ½"
discrepancy – "it is what it is". In any case, this step is used only in the event of
an emergency, and only from the north-top approach direction. From that
direction, and given that it is only a single step which is clearly identifiable in
contrast to the roof surface, I don't think the ½" discrepancy constitutes a hazard.
I approve of this change in design.
Please call if you have any questions or concerns.
Joseph E. Calvin, AIA, Architect
Interstice Architectural Studio, LLC
copy: Jason Remmerde, Remmerde Construction
remmerdeconstruction@gmail.com
Matthew Khachaturian, PE
mtk@skypondengineering.com
Page of 2 2
2/10/23