Laserfiche WebLink
l + <br /> �Meg HaleY � �U� i �C1 � <br /> From: Me9 Haley <br /> Sent: Monday, October 25, 2f,10 10:15 AM <br /> To: 'Margaret Fast'; Niels Tygesen; Michaei Brick; Kirk Brooks; Benyam Stephanos <br /> Cc: Tony Lee <br /> Subject: RE: 2212 Broadway corrections ietter and questions <br /> Good morning Margaret, <br /> 7he two questions that you have for parking and stairs are answered below. The design solution is yours to select. <br /> Please try to incorporete the comments irom the mrrections letter as best you can. Other dPpartments may also have <br /> comments,which is why we are merting in-house on Thursday to diswss what plans we have received to date. <br /> Parking <br /> The parking lot layout we received on Ottober 12th for permit review does not comply with the building code, <br /> per the corrections letter e-mailed on October 22nd. Adding a wheel stop does not replace the required width <br /> of the access aisle,wliich is not shown on that drawing. <br /> Exferiorstairs <br /> field measurements indicate that the risers irom the sidewalk vary in height more than the allowed tolerance <br /> for dimensional uniformity of 3/8 inches, per the corrections fetter. This requiremant of dirrensional uniformity <br /> would have been enforced under the IRC, per IRC section R311.7:L1, had the new stairs been submitted for I <br /> permit at the tinte they were constructed (or a house. <br /> ;..:F , 1�y <br /> ,-„ ����.�,�:,_ <br /> ;,x:. <br /> The corrections letter is more complete and detailed th��n our phone conversation, since we try to issue only one <br /> correr.tions letter. Field inspections may identify additional requirements. Our goal is to try to reduce the number o( <br /> revisions required throughout the plen and inspection process by trying to be mmprehensive on the first mrrections <br /> letter,workin�as a team with the city departments involved. <br /> The written response to our corrections letter should be submitted as a drawing for us to review(hvo copies of each <br /> revised drawing are required). Since there are so many overlapping code requirnments in this one area,this is the only <br /> way to give you feedback and understand your proposed design. A section of the parking solution would be lielpful, <br /> since regrading may be required to provide for van parking, access aisle and the accessible route to tlie building. A <br /> section, details, and elevations for the handrail of the ramp will be required, if any single run exceeds 6 inches in height. <br /> �Meg <br /> From: Margaret Fast [mailto:MargaretFast@(rontier.com] <br /> Sent: Monday, October 25, 2010 8:54 AM <br /> 1 <br />