Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutB06-0196 Revision 31, Structural RepairsTOWN OF VAIL DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 75 S. FRONTAGE ROAD VAIL, CO 81657 970-479-2138 NOTE: THIS PERMIT MUST BE POSTED ON JOBSITE AT ALL TIMES NEW COMM BUILDING PERMIT Permit # B06-0196 Project PRJ03-0468 Job Address: 1 VAIL RD VAIL Status REVISION Location.....: 1 VAIL ROAD Applied..: 07/18/2006 Parcel No...: 210107101016 Issued . 03/18/2010 Expires. 09/26/2007 OWNER VAIL DEVELOPMENT LLC 07/19/2006 50 S SIXTH ST STE 1480 MINNEAPOLIS MN 55402 CONTRACTOR DOUG THOMPSON, DIR. OF PRECO 03/18/2010 Phone: 720-932-3264, DIRECT HYDER CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTOR HYDER CONSTRUCTION, INC 543 SANTA FE DRIVE DENVER CO 80204 License: 109-A CONTRACTOR RICK CAUDEL, HYDER CONSTRUCTION APPLICANT VAIL DEVELOPMENT,LLC-THOMAS 600 FOSHAY TOWER 821 MARQUETTE AVE. MINNEAPOLIS MN 55402 License: 0000001981 Desciption: FOUR SEASONS HOTEL-CONSTRUCTION OF A 10 STORY POST TENSION CONCRETE BUILDING FOR FOUR SEASONS RESORTS. INCLUDES FULL SERVICE HOTEL, RESTAURANT, SPA, POOL, RECREATION FACILITIES, CONDO FRACTIONAL UNITS AND GUESTROOMS. Occupancy Type NIGHT CLUBS (A2) ZONE 4 IB CHURCHES (A3) ZONE 4 IB BUSINESS(B)& HMP (H5 ZONE 4 IB EDUCATIONAL (E) ZONE 4 IB INDUSTRIAL/MOD HAZ ( ZONE 4 IB MERCANTILE (M) ZONE 4 IB RESIDENTIAL/HOTELS ( ZONE 4 IB RESIDENTIAL/MULTFAM( ZONE 4 IB STORAGE/MOD HAZ (S1) ZONE 4 IB STORAGE/LOW HAZ(S2) ZONE 4 IB Additional Totals... Factor 299.08 369.90 300.40 322.53 183.77 220.56 302.22 250.22 169.75 167.15 Amount... Sq Feet Valuation 27,353 $8,180,735.24 8,605 $3,182,989.50 31,130 $9,351,452.00 670 $216,095.10 29,600 $5,439,592.00 2,445 $539,269.20 86,991$26,290,420.02 133,695$33,453,162.90 23,080 $3,917,830.00 75,773$12,665,456.95 10,000.00 399,510$103,247,002.9* 06/11/2009 Phone: 303-825-1313 03/18/2010 Phone: 303- 07/19/2006 Phone: 612-332-1500 TOV Adjusted Valuation: 3,247,002.91 Revision Valuation: $0.00 Revised Total Valuation: $247,002.91 ***********s*********************s*****s***************s**********s* FEE SUMMARY s***********s***************************s****s*********s*sss Building > 378, 813.95 Restuarant Plan Review--> $0.00 Total Calculated Fees 157, 250.90 Plan Check 378, 813.95 Recreation Fee--------------> 399, 510.00 Additional Fees-----------> $13,436.25 Investigation-> $0.00 TOTAL FEES > 157, 250. 90 Total Permit Fee---------- > 170, 687.15 Will Call-----> $3.00 Payments > 170,494.15 BALANCE DUE--------- > $193 .00 *************«********************s***s*s*s*s******ss**s********s****** ***************************s****s******sss************s**s**************** Approvals: Item: 05100 BUILDING DEPARTMENT 08/17/2006 MROYER Action: DN Corrections e-mailed to applicant. 12/18/2006 cdavis Action: PA For Staging plan and trailer set for plan c stamped by TOV 12/13/06. An electrical permit is required for the temp power proposed for the trailer. 03/29/2007 MROYER Action: PA IR:1215- G&E permit approval only. Conditic apply. 03/29/2007 cdavis Action: AP To Allow Release for G & E Phase Only 06/12/2007 CDAVIS Action: PA Tower Crane footing pads. No additional fees assessed 07/16/2007 jplano Action: CR Additional work being requested to be adder phasing, correction letter sent. 08/01/2007 jplano Action: CR information supplied. Second correction letter sent, insuffient 3) The submittal is to include all drawings related to the work that is requested added work full to the phasing. All drawings are to be stamped by the associated design professioi architect and/or engineer. The design professionals are to verify that the additi( being requested is not in conflict with the corrections that are requested regard: building permit. All sheets are to be stamped and signed by the associated design professional. The architectural and the plumbing sheets have not been stamped. The stamp on the strl sheets has not been signed. The stamp on the electrical sheets has not been signe( 4 There is insufficient detail to approve this submittal. Some examples are: a) There are several sections that are pertinent to this request that are not pros b) The elevator pit sections 10/S4.04, 18/S4.04, 19/S4.04, 20/S4.04 are missing. c) Ramp transition section 22/S6.01, 6/S6.01, 7/S4.04 are missing d) Exterior foundation wall connection to the matt slab 9/S6.01D, 27/S6.01, 6/S.0- 7/S6.01 e) Sump pit details 28/S4.04 and 29/S4.04 f) Column schedule, transition of the columns to slab? g) Slab steps 11/S6.01D. This review has stopped because of lack of information. 5 The Public Works Department in Vail has not approved the submittal for additionE to be added to the phasing. Their approval will be necessary. 08/06/2007 jplano Action: plumbing, underground electrical, pits. NO APPROVAL FOR MAT SLAB 09/11/2007 jplano Action: AP 10/22/2007 DPLACE Action: PA only. No charge. 10/22/2007 dplace Action: PA CHARGE. 11/13/2007 ependiey Action: AP stamps. No added valuation. 11/15/2007 ependley Action: AP valuation. Added plan review fee of $60.00 due 11/30/2007 jplano Action: AP valuation. Added plan review fee of $60.00 due 12/18/2007 JPLANO Action: AP tension slabs, no added valuation 12/26/2007 jplano Action: AP cable for 016 hours with thickened slab. $120.00 due 12/27/2007 MROYER Action: AP appropiate stamps, no charge 03/24/2008 CDAVIS Action: PA Full permit approved, see conditions REV 4 IR 5881: Approved shop drawings for REV 3,IR 5512: SHOP DRAWINGS. NO ADDITIONAI REVS/IR6042. Approved shop drawings for de: Rev7/IR6058. Approved RFI-0237, No added Rev6/IR6057. Approved RFI-0221, No added Rev9/IR6236. Approved shop drawings for po: Rev10/IR6252. Approved changing a post ten., Revll/IR6266,6267. Rebar shop drawings rev_ REV 12 SAFEBUILT REFERENCE NUMBER LAYTON Si #05510-004 (EMBEDS @ LEVEL 1, 2, 3 ns 4) FROM JT STEEL NO ADDITIONAL CHARGE 03/24/2008 CDAVIS Action: PA EV.13 SAFEBUILT REFERENCE NUMBER SUBMITTAL (STUD RAILS, LEVELS 4 & 5) FROM SUNCOAST NO ADDTIONAL CHARGE 06/10/2008 jplano Action: AP Rev14,15,16, IR6685,6687,7744 are approved of plan review due, $720.00 07/08/2008 jplano Action: AP Rev 19, IR 7989 are approved, Bulletins 10,25,29,3 1,35,40 - 8 hours of plan review due, $480.00 08/01/2008 jplano Action: AP Rev17, IR 7777 are approved, Bulletins 023 023A, swimming p ool revisi ons, $360 due 08/01/2008 jplano Action: AP Rev 20, IR8245 are approved, storm and sewE connetions outside t he building, public works has approved it. No charge from SatE 09/29/2008 jplano Action: AP Rev18, IR7988 are approved. The sub-duct s, for the dryers and range hoods are not approved. 46 hours of plan review due = $2760.( 12/04/2008 jplano Action: AP Rev22/IR9384 - This is the revised ADMOD t( exterior wood above 40'. This is to be approved by the tire department to be issued. No chE from SB 12/18/2008 jplano Action: AP Rev23/IR9488, Additional tire-stopping subr approved, no charge 01/02/2009 jplano Action: AP Rev21/IR9008, Approved Bulletins 036, 037, PA Additional work approved for phasing. Under rebar and concrete placement for elevator and si 040, 043, 044, 050, 051, 052, 055, 056 and firestopping submittal. 055, generator fueling needs fire department approval prior to issuance 056, deck extention needs DRB approval prior to issuance 29 hours of plan review due=$1740.00 02/09/2009 jplano Action: NA Rev24/IR9666 - Fire Alarm Plans to be appr< the fire department 02/09/2009 jplano Action: AP Rev25/IR9587 - 113M Fire Resistive Wrap 15A' approved for HVAC ducting as shown on apporved plans. 2 hours of plan review Due=$120.00 02/10/2009 jplano Action: AP Rev26/IR9663 - Subduct system for resident: dryer system approved. 8 hours of plan review due=$480.00 04/16/2009 jplano Action: CR Rev27, IR9840 - Bulletins 59-73, correction by value sent, revisions needed and full sized drawings for collation 04/23/2009 jplano Action: CR Rev28, IR9926 - Submittal to be stamped an( FPE. This is the exit passageway conditions. 05/28/2009 ependley Action: AP Rev28/IR9926 approved. No added valuation. plan review at $240.00 06/18/2009 jeaton Action: AP REV 27/IR # 9840 approved by Safebuilt. No & no added square footage. Invoiced 10 Hours of Plan Review at $600.00 09/30/2009 JEaton Action: AP Rev 29 IR#10435 Approved Bulletin 110 Therr Insulation No added Valuation 3 hrs @ $60 per hr =$180.00 JEaton 01/04/2010 ependley Action: AP Classitication of fire-rated diffusers in i to Rev 28/IR 9926 approved. 2-Hr/Plan Review $120.00 due 01/26/2010 EPendley Action: AP Rev 30 IR# 10731 Approved ***May need Planr approval for additional railings added along west side of building at employee corridor.*** 2 hrs plan review @$60 per hr = $120 Jae 02/11/2010 EPendley Action: CR Rev 31 IR#10750 Denied Correction Required 02.11.10 03/08/2010 DGoodman Action: AP Rev 32 IR# 10795 Approved No Added Valuati< ***Bulletins #071-#121R*** 6.5 hours @$60.00 per hr = $390.00 Jae 03/09/2010 EPendley Action: DN Rev 33 IR#10849 Denied Revisions Required 03.09.10 03/16/2010 EPendley Action: AP Rev 35 IR# 10868 Revision to Bulletin 123R Approved See FAL for details 2 hrs plan review @ $60 = $120 Jae 03/16/2010 ependley Action: AP Rev #31 IR10750 First Structural repair pa< approved for construction. No added valuation. Total Plan review fee due = $3701.: being hand delivered to Vail on 3/17/10 Item: 05400 PLANNING DEPARTMENT 10/20/2006 Warren Action: AP The Planning Department has approved the H< Cross Utility relocation permit request. The applicant shall remove only those trees wh: absolutely necessary for the utility relocation work. 10/20/2006 Warren Action: AP The Planning Department has approved the application to dewater the site. 03/31/2007 Warren Action: AP Planning recieved a bond to cover the Grad: Excavation in the amount of 3.2 million. Planning has approved the grading and ex( permit. 06/25/2007 Warren Action: COND Planning has approved the full building pei dated recieved on May 29, 2007, with a single condition. A complete Design Review aplication will need to be submitted for review and approval for the additonal set of stairs from the pool deck to West Meadow Drive. 08/20/2007 Warren Action: AP The set of plans provided to allow fro the of date some work prior to release of a full building permit has been approved. The plans stamped July 26, 2007 09/05/2007 Warren Action: AP Planning is approving the set of plans date August 3, 2007, with the condition that the applicant submits a revised landscaping plan to] and approval prior to requesting a TCO. 11/02/2007 GRUTHER Action: AP REV 3,IR 5512: SHOP DRAWINGS. NO ADDITIONAL CHARGE . 06/12/2008 Warren Action: AP The planning departmetn signs off on Bullet and 23A with one condition. The gate on teh new set of stairs shal be as the base of t stairs on the pool deck not on the top of the stairs adjacent to Meadow Drive. 09/26/2008 Warren Action: CR Regarding the above permit my only comment I need a detail of the gate at the top of the stairs serving as an exit from the poe Four This detail shall be depict the desired gate which fits not only the aesthetics o] Season but that of the Meadow Drive streetscape. The design should take into accoi need for security from the public side of the fence and be design with this in mind. Fc example the Town does not want to see a nice gate submitted, approved, and installed and t because of security reason we add a piece of plexi-glass to the gate as an afterthought. plans are dated 5-8-08 Bullentin #40. 02/10/2010 Warren Action: CR approved The changes contained in Revision 30 are nc by Planning are not approved. There is a gate and railing on the west elevation wt not have DRB approval which is necessary. This is adjacent to the employee housing un: 02/17/2010 Warren Action: CR Bulletin #123 needs to be revised to remove gates and railings adjacent to the Four Seasons employee housing. Revised plans should.t arriving in 4 days. 03/05/2010 Warren Action: AP Bulletin #123R has been approved by plannii railings were removed from the employee housing level. Item: 05600 FIRE DEPARTMENT 07/20/2006 McGee Action: DN Plans submitted dated 4/14/06 and received 04/17/06. on south the of work Note: Review was postponed pending evidence project was proceeding. Review: Fire Apparatus Access and Egress Plan is Denied: 1. Fire Dept staging on south side of project is shown on east end. The apporved the west end. The hydrant on the west end is not shown either. No FDC is shown on side. Sheet A0.3.00 2. Sheet A0.3.05 does not show an acceptable route to the interior of the buildin< Fire Command Center. 3. The plans submitted by RJA are not stamped and are labeled "Not for Constructic 4. The plans show a dead end corridor behind the front desk. 5. 12/19/2006 McGee Action: PA Permission to locate job site trailer is gi Relocate electrical disconnect to the trailer or provide ready access on southwest site. Location as proposed on plan submitted 12/13/06 is not accepted. 03/22/2007 mvaughan Action: PA g and e permit is approved 03/29/2007 cdavis Action: AP For G & E only 07/11/2007 McGee Action: AP Area 1, Area 2, and Area 3A approved for l: as submitted 7 11 07. 09/07/2007 McGee Action: AP The full permit is approved as noted: Life Safety Report 5 22 07 1. LSR, MOU's, and Admin Mod's must be signed by Rybka et.al. as the Fire Protect: Engineer of Record. 2. Page 14 of the LSR reference occupancy of the pre-function and ballroom is not accepted. RJA alledgedly has run calculations to show adequate exiting but such evidence ha: been presented. 3. Appendix A - Fire Alarm Matrix is not accepted. 4. Appendix B - Small Scale Plans, is not accepted. review 5. MOU 5/22/07 ref Emergency Generator and Emergency Power is subject to additionz 12/08/2008 MAH Action: AP Rev21/IR9008 - This is the revised ADMOD fc exterior wood above 401. This is to be approved by the fire department to be issued. No chi from SB. PER VERBAL FROM MIKE VAUGHAN, OK TO APPROVE FOR FIRE. 02/25/2009 drhoades Action: AP Permanent location of FDC for South side of building. 03/26/2009 mcgee Action: AP Sub duct revisions 1 27 09 per RJA 1. Add clean out of lint traps to OEM manual for project. 09/25/2009 mvaughan Action: AP revision dated 4/20/2009 revisions to two t exit passageways. 02/19/2010 mvaughan Action: AP revision 33 and revisions to diffuser classification 03/02/2010 mvaughan Action: AP revisions to diffuser are numbered 32, and approved. 03/17/2010 MVAUGHAN Action: AP Bulletins 95-115 are approved. Item: 05500 PUBLIC WORKS 10/20/2006 is Action: DN Awaiting for additional information 12/20/2006 is Action: PA Approval to allow grading and prep work foi installation of their construction tra iler. A PW permit has also been issued for t site access for small constru ction vehi cles ONLY, off of W. Meadow Drive. 03/26/2007 is Action: PA Staging p lan for Phase 1 of the G&E permit approved only. Engineer approval for the G& E pe rmit still required currently under review. staging plan approval still required which requires CDOT approval. 03/29/2007 cdavis Action: AP For G & E Only 08/07/2007 csalli Action: AP additional work proposed for phased permit approved, no approval for mat slab 09/13/2007 csalli Action: DN waiting for executed MOU 10/04/2007 TK Action: AP Approved Building Permit with the condtion: in the memo dated 8/5/07 from Chad Salli. 07/31/2008 csalli Action: AP revised sheets C17, C20 dated 7/18/08 and C18, C18A, C19 dated 7/1/08 approved Item: 05550 ENGINEERING CIVILS Item: 05700 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH See Conditions section of this Document for any conditions that may apply to this permit. DECLARATIONS I hereby acknowledge that I have read this application, filled out in full the information required, completed an accurate plot plan, and state that all the information as required is correct. I agree to comply with the information and plot plan, to comply with all "Town ordinances and state laws, and to build this structure according to the towns zoning and subdivision codes, design review approved, International Building and Residential Codes and other ordinances of the Town applicable thereto. REQUESTS FOR INSPECTION SHALL BE MADE TWENTY-FOUR HOURS IN ADVANCE BY TELEPHONE AT 479-2149 OR AT OUR OFFICE FROM 8:00 AM - 4 PM. SIGNATURE OF OWNER OR CONTRACTOR FOR HIMSELF AND OWNER CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Permit # B06-0196 as of 03-18-2010 Status: REVISION Permit Type: NEW COMM BUILDING PERMIT Applicant: VAIL DEVELOPMENT,LLC-THOMAS J. BRINK 612-332-1500 Job Address: 1 VAIL RD VAIL Location: 1 VAIL ROAD Parcel No: 210107101016 Description: FOUR SEASONS HOTEL-CONSTRUCTION OF A 10 STORY POST TENSION CONCRETE BUILDING FOR FOUR SEASONS RESORTS. INCLUDES FULL SERVICE HOTEL, RESTAURANT, SPA, POOL, RECREATION FACILITIES, CONDO FRACTIONAL UNITS AND GUESTROOMS. Conditions: Cond: CON0008815 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 3/28/07 To: Hill-Glazier Architects Attn: Douglas Atmore 925 Alma Drive Palo Alto, CA 94301 Applied: 07/18/2006 Issued: 03/18/2010 To Expire: 09/26/2007 The following comments were generated during the review of documents submitted for grading and excavation permit. The review team has found no issues that will impact the grading and excavation for this project. All of the comments listed below will need to be incorporated into the full building permit response for review and approval. The numbers below correspond with the original comment number for clarity. General: Several responses are indicating the use of an "intervening vestibule" to prevent a room that is not normally occupied from opening directly into an exit enclosure. The response is indicating that the intervening vestibule be "rated as a corridor". The Fire and Life Safety Report prepared by Rolf Jensen and Associates dated February 21, 2007 as last modified, states the vestibule be separated by 2 hour assemblies with 90 minute opening protection. Opening protection shall be automatic closing; self closing would allow the door to be propped open by the occupants. These will be required for full permit issuance. General: The Fire & Life Safety Report dated February 21, 2007 was submitted with the packet per the agreement from 03/13/2007. The applicant understood that this is not the final document and modifications will be required for full building permit. Everyone at the meeting agreed that future changes will not impact the grading and excavation permit approval. All issue must be resolved prior to the approval for full building permit. 3) The layout of the exiting in this area requires that the occupants of Stair Q to utilize this exit balcony. The occupants are required to travel past unprotected openings serving employee units 3005 and 3006. Change these openings to maintain the same protection as the exit enclosure that is discharging. 8) See the general comment above. This exit passageway, C-414, is actually a horizontal portion of Stair D. Either 90 minute rated doors are required to separate the stairs from the passageway or remove the designation of passageway. 10) See the general comment above. 11) See the general comment above. 12) See the general comment above. 13) See the general comment above. 16) See the general comment above. 22) For the review team to approve a window in the passageway the window will be required to be tested in accordance with ASTME 119, tested as a wall assembly, and has a minimum fire-resistance rating not less than the fire-resistance rating of the wall. Provide specific documentation on the window when responding for full building permit. 23) See the general comment above. 39) Please add the total number of occupants and the occupant load of the driving floor at each exit discharge location. Specifically, stair Q and F as the number of these occupants will be a factor in determining exit components size outside the enclosures. Stair F discharges onto the exit balcony. The occupants from the stair enclosure are not added to the occupant already shown exiting on the balcony. Please add the occupants from the stair to the exit balcony totals and amend exiting accordingly widths accordingly. This item has no impact on the issuance of a grading and excavation permit, but will be required at the time of full building permit issuance. 42) See response the comment number 39. 46) Egress from Vestibule 210A requires traveling through the CO-ED Lounge/Waiting Area. This space is not accessory. 46A) It has come to the review team's attention that there is a possible issue with common path of travel of travel from the rooms exiting into Vestibule 210A as there is no access to stair Q. Please supply an illustration showing compliance to common path of travel. 49) The common path of travel issues within the residential units will be required to be approved by the Town of Vail's Building Official. 57 through 61 and 149) The issues regarding use of wood in and on this building will be addressed when full building permit comments are submitted and reviewed. Cond: I (FIRE): FIRE DEPARTMENT APPROVAL IS REQUIRED BEFORE ANY WORK CAN BE STARTED. Cond: 12 (BLDG.): FIELD INSPECTIONS ARE REQUIRED TO CHECK FOR CODE COMPLIANCE. Cond: 14 (BLDG.): ALL PENETRATIONS IN WALLS, CEILINGS, AND FLOORS TO BE SEALED WITH AN APPROVED FIRE MATERIAL. Cond: 17 (BLDG.): A STRUCTUAL ENGINEER WILL BE REQUIRED TO APPROVE ANY STRUCTUAL CHANGES BEFORE A FR7 INSPECTION IS APPROVED BY THE TOWN OF VAIL. Cond: 34 (BLDG.): A COPY OF THE SOILS REPORT WILL BE REQUIRED BEFORE A FOOTING INSPECTION WILL BE CALLED Cond: 35 (P. W.): ACCESS AND DRAINAGE INSPECTIONS MUST BE DONE BEFORE FOOTING INSPECTION. Cond: 40 (BLDG): (MFR/COMM) FIRE ALARM REQUIRED PER NFPA 72. Cond: 5 (PLAN): PRIOR TO THE TOWN BUILDING DEPARTMENT CONDUCTING A FRAMING INSPECTION, AN IMPROVEME LOCATION CERTIFICATE (ILC) SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT A MINIMUM OF FORTY-EIGHT HOURS IN ADVANCE OF THE REQUESTED INSPECTION. ROOF RIDGES AND BUILDING FOOTPR SHALL, BE INDICATED ON THE ILC. Cond: CON0009095 Hie applicant shall submit a complete Design Review aplication for review and approval for the additonal set of stairs added from the pool deck to West Meadow Drive, within 30 days of the release of the building permit. Cond: CON0009121 The applicant shall submit a seperate Design Review application for review and approval for all signage design, locations, and materials prior to installation. Cond: CON0009294 The applicant shall submit a revised landscape plan which addresses the landscaping conflicts created by the shallow soild depths on the culvert containing Spraddle Creek. This plan shall be reviewed and approved prior to requesting a certifcate of occupancy. Cond: CON0009330 SAFEbuilt Colorado Conditions of Approval To: Layton Construction Re: Full Building Permit Conditions of Approval The following conditions will be required to be addressed prior to construction. Sufficient time shall be granted for review, response and approval before work is initiated. Building Department- The items listed within the building department comments are numbered to correspond with the 3 round comment letter dated 08/21/2007. 46. Change the exiting from Vestibule 210A. It appears to exit through intervening room that is not accessory to the vestibule. I-IGA Response: We submit that the adjacent space is accessory. Vestibule 210A services mechanical rooms and the service elevators. To exit from Vestibule 210A the occupants have to pass through Vestibule 275A, which is basically for the spa staff, then through the CO-ED Lounge/Waiting area, then to hallway 279, then through exit passageway 293, then through exit passageway 297, then to exit discharge. The issue is that the CO-ED Lounge/Waiting area is not accessory to the mechanical rooms. It is accessory for the rooms off Vestibule 275A for the staff of the spa but not the mechanical areas. Please change the layout accordingly. I IKS/HGS Response (7/18/07): Vestibule 210A is purely circulation space and does not carry an occupant load. This vestibule provides connection between the Spa and the service elevators, IDF Room 210, and Mechanical Room 257. Relative to egress, it provides the egress route for the one occupant from IDF 210 and the one occupant from Mechanical 257 (as shown on A0.3.02). IDF 210, Mechanical 257, Vestibule 210A, and Service Elevator Lobby E-202 are considered to be part of the overall Spa as they serve Spa functions. The service elevators stop at this location solely to provide connection to the Spa. IDF 210 houses audio-visual, telephone, and data system equipment that specifically serves the Spa and must be accessed by Spa personnel. Similarly, Mechanical 257 houses the equipment serving the pools within Room 255 and must be accessed by Spa staff. In summary, we submit that all these spaces are part of the overall Spa and are "accessory" to each other. Therefore, current layout provides egress that complies with IBC 1013.2 as the spaces are accessory, are not hazard occupancies, and provide a discernible path of travel to an exit. This comment is in reference to the electrical room 4212. Please revise 64. A2.03.1 - Wall tag both shafts located in room 304 (storage room). Wall tags must reference an approved assembly from the partition schedule. HGA Response: Wall tag has been added. One shaft in room 304 does not have wall tags. I IKS/HGS Response (7/18/07): The drawing has been updated to include wall tags for this shaft. Still have one shaft not tagged Any duct that penetrates more than 2 stories will require a shaft and appropriate protection through the shaft wall. The architectural drawings are substantially incomplete indicating vertical and horizontal shafts that match the mechanical drawings. Please coordinate the mechanical responses on the architectural drawings. 152. Provide accessible parking spaces per IBC Table 1106.1. Providing 212 spaces would require 7 to be accessible, 2 of those to be van accessible. Verify 98" of vertical clearance for the van spots. HGA Response: We submit that the number of accessible parking stalls complies with IBC Table 1106.1 and section 1106.5. The hotel is operating on 100% valet parking stalls, with an additional 59 self-park stalls for fractional ownership, full ownership, and employee. Per Table 1106.1, 3 stalls are required for the self-parking, and at least one of the three is required to be van accessible. Plan sheet A0.3.01 indicates there are 228 parking spaces. Spaces marked for Valet parking number 78. With those counts, Table 1106.1.3 would require 5 accessible spaces with one van accessible space. FIKS/HGS Response (7/18/07): Per previous response, most of the parking spaces are valet only. There are 59 self-park stalls that will be allocated to fractional ownership, full ownership condos, and employees. The drawings have been updated to identify each space as either valet or self-park. We submit that only the 59 self-park stalls are considered per Table 1106.1 and that the number of accessible spaces required are provided. Deducting the 78 Valet parking from the total spaces, you are still required to add two additional accessible spaces for a total number of 5 accessible spaces. 155. All the massage rooms on the 2nd level are required to be accessible. Please amend the toilet facilities, changing rooms, lavatories, tubs and the showers meet to accessibility requirements of the ANSI A117.1-98. (IBC 1109.14.3) I IGA Response: We submit the Wet Massage Suite 4289 complies with the accessibility requirements of ANSI A117.1-98 (IBC 1109.14.3). All massage rooms on the 2nd level are required to be accessible. HKS/HGS Response (7/18/07): We disagree that IBC 1109.14.3 requires that ALL spa treatment rooms be accessible. IBC 1109.14 pertains to "recreational facilities". If the Spa is going to be considered a "recreational facility" then it should be considered as a whole. As such, the Spa is accessible - it provides accessibility at the entry/reception, locker rooms, toilets, showers, whirlpools, lounges, treatment rooms, etc. We submit that nothing requires ALL treatment rooms to be accessible any more than ALL lockers, ALL toilets, or ALL showers. Add grab bars at the tub in room 289 for accessibility. 167. We are unable to locate a designated accessible Type "A" condominium per Section 1107.6.2 of the 2003 IBC. As the condominiums are a different type of R-2 occupancy from the time-share units, an accessible Type "A" condominium is required. HGA Response: Since only 16 condominiums are proposed, no Type "A" units are required. Refer to IBC 1107.6.2.1.1. With the condominiums, employee housing and timeshare units there are a total of 63 units classified as an R-2 occupancy group. Per Section 1107.6.2.1.1 Type A units shall be dispersed among the various classes of units. Therefore a Type A accessible unit is required in each of the following groups: the condominiums, the employee housing, and the timeshare units. HKS/HGS Response (7/18/07): To resolve this issue we have revised Condo #8 (on Level 9, sheet A4.28.1)) to be a "Type A" unit per ICC/ANSI A 117.1. Two accessible employee housing units and one accessible timeshare unit are already provided and indicated on the drawings. Comment 169-180 - Submit a Memorandum of Understanding to the Town of Vail for approval by the Building Official to reference the 2003 ICC/ANSI A-117.1. If accepted by the town, please revise entire plan to comply with the 2003 ICC/ANSI A-117.1 in its entirety. If not accepted please revise plans per 1998 ANSI A-1 17.1 and comments above. 169. In the accessible units in the guest rooms of the R-1 occupancy, all bathing & toilet facilities are required to be accessible per Chapter 6 of ANSI Al 17.1. HGA Response: We submit that the accessible units include the accessible bathing and toilet facilities and comply with Chapter 6 of ANSI Al 17.1. Plan sheet A4.07.1 A and A4.07.1 B for Unit PR-HC shows a raised platform in media room # 116 which does not have an accessible route. Also, bathrooms/rooms # 103, # 108, # 109, # 110, # 133 do not show compliance for wheelchair turning space, toilet compartment size and clearances, grab bars, water closet seat heights, accessible bathtubs and showers, bathtub and shower controls, accessible lavatories, and door maneuvering clearances. Show required clear floor spaces for all rooms. HKS/HGS Response (7/18/07): The raised platform within Media 116 is intended to provide tiered seating within this "home theater". We submit that an accessible route is not required for this small platform as it is less than 25% of the overall room and the remainder of the room is accessible. While this room is not an "assembly" space, we submit that IBC 1108.2.4.1, exception 2 provides guidance regarding this room. See below regarding accessible bathrooms. Plan sheet A4.06.1 for Unit 2KK-HC has bathrooms/rooms #103, #108 which do not show compliance for wheelchair turning space, toilet compartment size and clearances, grab bars, water closet seat heights, accessible bathtubs and showers, bathtub and shower controls, accessible lavatories, and door maneuvering clearances. Show required clear floor spaces for all rooms. HKS/HGS Response (7/18/07): See below regarding accessible bathrooms. Plan sheet A4.05.3 for Unit I K-HC has bathroom # 103 which does not show compliance for wheelchair turning space, toilet compartment size and clearances, grab bars, water closet seat heights, accessible showers, shower controls, accessible lavatories, and door maneuvering clearances. Show required clear floor spaces for all rooms. HKS/HGS Response (7/18/07): See below regarding accessible bathrooms. Plan sheet A4.04AA for Unit ES2-HC has bathroom #103 which does not show compliance for wheelchair turning space, toilet compartment size and clearances, grab bars, water closet seat heights, accessible showers, shower controls, accessible lavatories, and door maneuvering clearances. Show required clear floor spaces for all rooms. HKS/HGS Response (7/18/07): See below regarding accessible bathrooms. Plan sheet A4.01.1 for Unit K1-H1 has bathroom #103 which does not show compliance for wheelchair turning space, toilet compartment size and clearances, grab bars, water closet seat heights, accessible showers, shower controls, accessible lavatories, and door maneuvering clearances. Show required clear floor spaces for all rooms. HKS/HGS Response (7/18/07): Unit type K 1-HI is a unit for the hearing impaired. It is not an accessible unit. I IKS/HGS Response (7/18/07): We submit that only one accessible bathroom is required within an accessible hotel unit. This requirement is consistent with the federal standard - ADAAG Chapter 9. To interpret IBC Chapter 1 1 as requiring that ALL bathrooms must be accessible is to raise the standard beyond the federal requirements. We submit that this is not reasonable, does not reflect industry standard, and is not the intent of the IBC / ICC. Rather, we submit that the IBC / ICC intends to coordinate and correlate with the federal standards. As an example, we can examine the accessibility requirements for condominiums. The federal standard is the FHA Fair Housing Design Manual. This document allows condo units to be provided with one "Specification B" bathroom and that is the highest level of accessibility. Similarly, the 2003 edition of ICC / ANSI Al 17.1 has been revised to better correlate to FHA and require that "Type A" units provide "at least one" accessible bathroom . The common thread is the requirement is for one or "at least one" accessible bathroom - not all. Since the ADAAG, FHA Design Manual, and A117 (2003) all require one or "at least one" accessible bathroom it is reasonable to interpret the IBC's requirements in the same manner. Otherwise, all the hotel units would be held to a higher standard than the condominium units within the same building. 170. In Type "A" dwelling units of the R-2 occupancies, all toilet and bathing facilities must comply with Sections 1002.11.1 through 1002.11.7 of ANSI A117.1. Some Type "A" dwelling units have bathrooms which do not comply. Please clarify. I IGA Response: Refer to response to comment # 167. See response to comment # 167. IiKS/HGS Response (7/18/07): We request that ICC/ANSI A 117.1 - 2003 be used as the applicable edition relative to the "Type A" condominium. This is the most recent version of Al 17 and our research has found that the various revisions in Chapter 10 were intended to correct the intent of various provisions and to better coordinate with federal requirements (FHA and ADA). Per 1003.1 1.1 of the A] 17-2003, at least one bathroom is required to comply with 1003.11. This correlates with FHA requirements ("Specification B" bathrooms) and Chapter 9 of the ADA. Therefore, we submit that the latest intent of the various codes and standards is that at least one bathroom, but not all, is required to comply with 1003.11. 171. In Type "A" dwelling units, a permanent seat is required at the head end of the bathtub per Section 607 of ANSI A 117.1. I IGA Response: Refer to response to comment # 167. See response to comment # 167. HKS/HGS Response (7/18/07): ICC/ANSI Al 17.1 - 1998, 607.3 states that a permanent seat OR a removable in-tub seat shall be provided. However, 1002.11.6, exception 1, states that the removable in-tub seat required by 607.3 is NOT required. Since 607.3 gives the option of either permanent or removable seats, we submit that the true intent of 1002.1 1.6, exception 1 is to NOT require either type of seat. ICC / ANSI A] 17.1 - 2003 carries similar language, but also includes Figure 1003.11.8 (a) to clarify that the seat (permanent or removable) can be omitted. 172. In Type "A" dwelling units, clearance in front of bathtubs shall extend the length of the bathtub and shall be 30 inches wide minimum per Section 607 of ANSI A] 17.1. Some of the bathtubs have lavatories encroaching into the required clearances. HGA Response: Refer to response to comment # 167. See response to comment # 167. I-IKS/HGS Response (7/18/07): Refer to A4.28.1 where the required bathtub clear floor area is indicated. 173. In Type "A" dwelling units, per Section 1002.11.1 of ANSI A117.1, doors shall not swing into the clear floor or ground space or clearance for any fixture, unless a clear floor space of 30 inches minimum by 48 inches minimum is located beyond the arc of the door swing. There are water closet compartments and some other bathroom areas that do not meet those requirements. HGA Response: Refer to response to comment # 167. See response to comment # 167. I-IKS/HGS Response (7/18/07): Refer to A4.28. I. The door swings do not swing into the other clear floor spaces. 174. In Type "A" dwelling units, per Section 1002.13 of ANSI A117.1, where operable windows are provided, at least one window in each sleeping, living, or dining space shall have operable parts complying with Section 1002.13 of ANSI A117.1. All windows of "accessible units" shall comply with Section 309 of ANSI A117.1, Operable Parts. Provide documentation showing compliance. HGA Response: Refer to response to comment # 167. See response to comment # 167. I IKS/HGS Response (7/18/07): Refer to A4.28.1. A note has been added to indicate requirement that all operable windows (and sliding doors) comply with 1002.13. 175. For Type "A" and "accessible units", provide details showing accessibility compliance for the operable parts of the showers, lavatory height, lavatory knee and toe clearance, and bathroom mirror height per Section 1002.11 of ANSI A 117.1. I IGA Response: Refer to interior elevations shown within the Interior Design drawings. I am unable to locate the Interior Design Drawings in the plan set submitted. HKS/HGS Response (7/18/07): Refer to accessibility details illustrated on sheet A0.4.3. 180. For Type "A" dwelling units, provide details showing accessibility compliance for kitchen work surfaces, sinks, range controls, and refrigerator/freezer requirements per Section 1002.12 of ANSI A117.1. HGA Response: Refer to response to comment # 167. See response to comment # 167. I IKS/HGS Response (7/18/07): Refer to A4.28.1 where the required kitchen features are illustrated. 183. In the Type "B" dwelling units of the condominiums, some "U" shaped kitchens do not have the required 60 inch minimum clearance between opposing base cabinets per Section 1003.12 of ANSI A117.1. H GA Response: Sheets A4.22.1, A4.25.1, and A4.30.1 have been revised to provide 60" clearance at U-shaped kitchens. Provide corrected plan sheets. I1KS/HGS Response (7/18/07): These sheets are included in the 7/18/07 resubmittal set. 185. In the Type "B" dwelling units of the time share units, the water closets do not have required clearances and some doors encroach required clearances per Section 1003.11.2 of ANSI A117.1. HGA Response: Refer to the response to comment # 186 below. As such, there are no Type "B" timeshare units. See response to comment # 186. IiKS/HGS Response (7/18/07): Refer to response to comment #186. 186. Is Option "A" being used for the bathroom fixtures in the Type "B", Time-share units? If so, each fixture is required to meet the requirements of the option per Section 1003.11.3.1 of ANSI A 117. 1. Please clarify. HGA Response: As previously discussed and resolved, the timeshare units are transient occupancy (similar to hotel units) and not residences. As such, one accessible timeshare unit is provided per IBC Table 1107.6.1.1. This accessible unit is #3103 located on Level 03. The enlarged plan for this accessible unit is on sheet A4.12.1 A and the associated H/C bathroom in 2/A4.12.2A. Provide signed letters from persons representing the operating authority for this facility stating that the timeshare units will not be used as residences. I-IKS/HGS Response (7/18/07): These letters will be submitted by ownership 203. Enclose both mechanical rooms on the 9th level in 2 hour rated construction, it appears that the 2 hour shafts from below terminate in these rooms. Rybka Response: Refer to sheet M4.06 (Part Plan Attachment No. M06). The Area 3A mechanical room is unrated, and the 2 hour rated vertical risers through the building through the 8th floor slab. In order to avoid the installation of inaccessible fire dampers at the top of the riser, RYBKA have revised sheet M4.06 to ductwork is to be fire rated in the attic space. Exhaust fans located in attic space are to be enclosed in two hour rated enclosures with fire-rated access doors for service. The Area 3B mechanical room is a 2 hour rated room that ends at column line A14. The ductwork that extends to the south across column line A14 is 2 hour fire rated to avoid the installation of fire dampers in inaccessible locations. Fire dampers are shown in the penetrations of the two hour rated Area 3B mechanical room, where ductwork exist the mechanical room. A) The mechanical room on the 9th level over "AREA-03A"has not been addressed on the plan sheets. The partial ninth floor plan on 8 ''/z" x 11" indicate wrapping ducts. If duct wrap is used on the fans then an engineer judgment is required from the wrap company indicating how it is to be installed on the fan housing and confirmation from the fan manufacturer that the fan will function and not over heat. Rybka Response: Refer to Sheet M4.06. Exhaust fans located in attic space are to be enclosed in two hour rated enclosures with fire-rated access doors for service. Ductwork is to be wrapped to provide 2 hour fire rating in attic space. (Refer to Details 6, 7 and 8 on Sheet M6.03). Provide architectural details rated enclosure. B) In the mechanical room labeled 911 the rated walls do not appear to enclose the room entirely. The wall is labeled 30 minutes on the north end and the wall is labeled 1 hour where Trash 912 (above "AREA-0313") is located on sheet A0.3.09. There are 3 duct penetrations in this area to be addressed, 28x 10 S/E F/B, 24x 18 G/e F/B and 24x 14 S/A F/A T/B. Rybka Response: Refer to Architectural Sheet A0.3.09 where Mechanical Room 911 is to be provided with 2 hour rating. Three ducts identified enter riser shaft from Mechanical Room 911 and riser is considered to be connected to and form part of mechanical room and so no fire smoke damper is provided. The ducts in question enter a shaft in the floor below within Maid Room G-711. Fire/Smoke Dampers are required where these ducts enter the shaft. One duct is not in a shaft. Please address accordingly. C) How will the 2 hour shaft assembly be maintained at EF-14 and EF-30? If duct wrap is used on the fans then an engineer judgment is required from the wrap company indicating how it is to be installed on the fan housing and confirmation from the fan manufacturer that the fan will function and not over heat. Rybka Response: Refer to Sheet M4.06. Exhaust fans located in attic space are to be rated for operation within rated enclosures by fan manufacturer or are to be relocated within Mechanical Room 911. Provide architectural details for the shafts. 214. Add a fire/smoke damper to the penetration by the 8x6 duct that penetrates the 30 minute fire partition on page M2.08.1 on grid line 11 and between A9 and A10. Rybka Response: Fire dampers are not required in one hour rated fire barriers per IMC 607.5.2. (Refer to Response No. 208.) This is not a fire barrier; it is a fire partition defining a rated corridor. A fire/smoke damper is required for this duct. Rybka Response: Combination fire smoke damper is provided where this duct exits the rated shaft. The response indicates an Us damper has been added to the duct as exits the rated shaft. A smoke damper is required where it penetrates the rated corridor. 215. Fire and smoke dampers are substantially incomplete; evaluate the entire mechanical plan for fire and smoke dampers per IMC section 607. Rybka Response: Mechanical floor plan sheets, sheets M2.01.1 thru M2.11.1 have been revised to show: " Combination fire smoke dampers (FSD) or shunt duct* on rated shaft penetrations. FD in duct floor penetrations when no more than three floors are penetrated, and FD on 2 hour rated wall penetrations. * shunt ducts per NFPA 90A (2002), Figure A.5.3. NFPA 90A is not an adopted document by the Town of Vail or referenced in the IMC. The review team is not familiar with the term "shunt duct". Fire smoke dampers are required at the shaft and corridor duct penetrations. (IMC 607.5.3, 607.5.4 and 607.5.5.1) Rybka Response: The 2006 IMC now calls the use of 22" upturned sheet metal ducts in 2 hour fire rated risers as 'sub ducts'. The provision of the 'sub duct' is an exception to the requirement that a combination fire smoke damper be provided where this duct penetrates a rated shaft, provided the exhaust fan is on emergency power. The use of sub ducts on the project is shown in Details 6, 7 and 8 on Sheet M6.03. M2.03.1 - Remove designations for shunt ducts for the ducts run in the garage exhaust shaft. Rybka Response: EF-8, EF-43 and residential dryer exhaust have been shown terminating in a vertical areaway (garage exhaust riser) that is always being exhausted by EF-1 B on emergency power. It was agreed during the June TOV plan review meeting that this condition is analogous to the 'sub duct' provisions identified earlier. The exception is for a fan to be at the top of the termination and that it runs continuously. Neither of these has been met with the garage exhaust. These exhausts are not in Group B or R's. 2. In Group B and R occupancies equipped throughout with an automatic sprinkler system in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1 of the International Building Code, smoke dampers are not required at penetrations of shafts where kitchen, clothes, dryer, bathroom and toilet room exhaust openings with steel exhaust subducts, having a wall thickness of at least 0.019 inch (0.48 mm) extend at least 22 inches (559 mm) vertically and the exhaust fan at the upper terminus is powered continuously in accordance with the provisions of Section 909.11 of the International Building Code, and maintains airflow upward to the outdoors. The drawings are still substantially incomplete when labeling FSD's. I will attempt to identify some locations. It will be up to the design team to identify all locations. Rybka Response: HVAC floor plan drawings have been updated and FSD designations have been provided where ducts exit rated shafts. All drawings are indicting F.D. on the bathroom exhausts where penetrating the shaft. There is an administrative modification request to eliminate dampers on the bathroom exhausts. Rybka Response: HVAC floor plan drawings have been updated and FD designations at restroom exhausts have been deleted where 'sub-ducts' are provided per the administrative modification. The drawings are indicating ducts from below and ducts from above. Please create a tag for sub-ducts and clearly mark the plans on all the ducts that are to be utilizing this system. M2.03.1 - There are several duct penetrations in Corridor C-301 that are labeled F.D. these are required to be FSD. 2-8x6 ducts and 1-10x6 duct. Rybka Response: Sheet M2.03.1 has been updated and FD designations have been deleted where not required. SD's are required for the ducts serving the rated corridor. (IMC 607.5.3 and 607.5.4) M2.03.1 - There are several duct penetrations in Corridor C-31 1 that are labeled F.D. these are required to be FSD. 1-8x10 duct and 1-12x6. Rybka Response: Sheet M2.03.1 has been updated and FD designations have been deleted where not required. SD's are required for the ducts serving the rated corridor. (IMC 607.5.3 and 607.5.4) M2.03.3 - Change all duct penetrations servicing corridors C-301 and C-311 to FSD. Rybka Response: The IMC requires smoke fire dampers be installed in corridor walls that are 2 hour rated. Where the wall is not so rated, fire dampers and smoke fire dampers have not been provided. If the wall is not rated, why provide a higher level of protection to the HVAC penetrations of the fire separation? HVAC sheet has been updated; FD designations have been deleted where not required and FSD provided where HVAC ducts penetrate 2 hour rated risers. SD's are required for the ducts serving the rated corridor. (IMC 607.5.3 and 607.5.4) M2.03.3 - All duct penetrations through the shafts are marked F.D. These are required to be FSD. There are too many to list individually. Rybka Response: HVAC floor plan drawings have been updated and FSD designations have been provided where ducts penetrate rated shafts. There are multiple places that indicate FSD's where an administrative modification has been requested to utilize a 22" sub-duct. Please coordinate. M2.04.1 - Change all duct penetrations servicing corridors C-401 and C-411 to FSD. Rybka Response: The IMC requires smoke fire dampers be installed in corridor walls that are 2 hour rated. Where the wall is not so rated, fire dampers and smoke fire dampers have not been provided. If the wall is not rated, why provide a higher level of protection to the HVAC penetrations of the fire separation? HVAC sheet has been updated; FD designations have been deleted where not required and FSD provided where HVAC ducts penetrate 2 hour rated risers. SD's are required for the ducts serving the rated corridor. (IMC 607.5.3 and 607.5.4) M2.04.1 - There is a 14x10 duct supplying corridor C-411 missing a damper designation. The duct is near A9.9 and 11/11.4. Rybka Response: The IMC requires smoke fire dampers be installed in corridor walls that are 2 hour rated. Where the wall is not so rated, fire dampers and smoke fire dampers have not been provided. If the wall is not rated, why provide a higher level of protection to the HVAC penetrations of the fire separation? HVAC sheet has been updated; FD designations have been deleted where not required and FSD provided where HVAC ducts penetrate 2 hour rated risers. This duct has changed size to 12x8 since last review. SD's are required for the ducts serving the rated corridor. (IMC 607.5.3 and 607.5.4) These are just a few of the un-complying damper designations, stopped review on this correction. Again, fire and smoke dampers are substantially incomplete; evaluate the entire mechanical plan for fire and smoke dampers per IMC section 607. Reconfiguration is still necessary. 216. Ductwork, pipes and electrical are prohibited in an exit passageways unless serving the exit passageway. It appears that above non-rated ceilings in the exit passageways the space is being used as a plenum and contains construction elements not allowed, please address all exit passageways. Rybka Response: Mechanical services not associated with exit passageways have been relocated. The review team's interpretation of IBC 1020.5 is that any ductwork serving an exit passageway shall be a completely separate system from the rest of the building and separate from all other passageways. Also, this system is required for pressurization. 1020.5 Penetrations. Penetrations into and openings through an exit passageway are prohibited except for required exit doors, equipment and ductwork necessary for independent pressurization, sprinkler piping, standpipes, electrical raceway for fire department communication and electrical raceway serving the exit passageway and terminating at a steel box not exceeding 16 square inches (0.010 m2). Such penetrations shall be protected in accordance with Section 712. There shall be no penetrations or communicating openings, whether protected or not, between adjacent exit passageways. Rybka Response: It is our understanding that only portions of the building service systems that serve the exit enclosure are allowed to penetrate the exit enclosure. We note that IBC 1019.1.3, VERTICAL EXIT ENCLOSURE, VENTILATION, Item.2 permits HVAC equipment (FCUs) to be located in the exit enclosure: 10 19.1.3 Ventilation. Equipment and ductwork for exit enclosure ventilation shall ....where located within the building, be separated from the remainder of the building, including other mechanical equipment, with construction as required for shafts. All ductwork serving the exit passageways shall be protected at the point of penetration of the passageway with a fire/smoke damper. The passageway is an extension of the vertical exit enclosure that it serves and lesser protection is not allowed. (1017.1) Rybka Response: RYBKA concurs, and have provided FSD where make-up air ductwork penetrates the exit enclosure. M2.03.I- There is a duct termination shown in Stair Q exit enclosure, labeled "16xI2 Employee Dryer T/A". This is not allowed in an exit enclosure. (IBC 1019.1.2) Rybka Response: Sheet M2.03.1 has been revised to show routing of dryer exhaust so that it does not pass through Stair Q. M2.04.1 - There is an 8x6 duct penetration within the exit passageway C-402. It is not allowed unless it is for independent pressurization, this duct is not independent or for pressurization. (IBC 1020.5) Rybka Response: Sheet M2.04.1 has been revised and transfer openings deleted. M2.04.1 - There is a transfer opening 24x4 within exit passageway C-402. It is not allowed unless it is for independent pressurization; this transfer opening is not independent or for pressurization. (IBC 1020.5) Rybka Response: Sheet M2.04.1 has been revised and transfer openings deleted. M2.05.3 - There is a 6" duct shown penetrating Stair N exit enclosure. Please move out of the enclosure. (IBC 1019.1.2) Rybka Response: Sheet M2.05.3 has been revised and ductwork has been rerouted so as not to pass through Stair N. M2.06.1 - The ducts serving Exit Passageway C-601 are not independent. (IBC 1020.5) Rybka Response: Rybka will rectify this condition by separating the supply of air to the corridor from the elevator lobby and maid's room. M2.06.1 - There is an 8x6 duct shown passing through Exit Passageway C-601. It is shown using a 2 hour fire wrap where it passes through. Penetrations are not allowed wrapped or not. Grid lines 3.3/4 and A 11. (IBC 1020.5) Rybka Response: Rybka submits that the construction of a 2 hour fire rated enclosure that physically separates the duct from the exit corridor and means that the service does not penetrate the exit passageway. M2.06.1 - There is a duct penetration between Exit Passageway C-601 and Stair S-601. Penetrations are not allowed. (IBC 10 19.1.2) Rybka Response: Rybka will rectify this condition by providing a 2 hour fire rated enclosure around this duct penetration, effectively removing the ductwork from the exit passageway. M2.06.1 - The ducts serving Exit Passageway C-611 are not independent. (IBC 1020.5) Rybka Response: Rybka will rectify this condition by separating the supply of air to the corridor from the guest room. M2.06.1 - There are return air slots shown in the ceiling of Exit Passageway C-611. It is not allowed unless it is for independent pressurization, this duct is not independent or for pressurization. (IBC 1020.5) Rybka Response: Rybka submits that the return air slot shown in Corridor C-611 is not deliberate and is to be deleted. M2.06.1 - There is an 8x6 and a 12x6 duct passing through Exit Passageway C-61 1. It is not allowed unless it is for independent pressurization, this duct is not independent or for pressurization. Grid lines 11/11.4 and A8.2/A9.9. (IBC 1020.5) Rybka Response: Rybka will rectify this condition by separating the supply of air to the corridor from the guest room. M2.06.1 - There is a 20x10 duct shown passing through Exit Passageway C-611. It is shown using a 2 hour fire wrap where it passes through. Penetrations are not allowed wrapped or not. Grid lines 133/134.3 and BC/BD. (IBC 1020.5) Rybka Response: Rybka submits that the construction of a 2 hour fire rated enclosure that physically separates the duct from the exit corridor and means that the service does not penetrate the exit passageway. M2.06.2 - There is a 12x10 duct penetrating the unlabeled Exit Passageway serving Stair S-605. It is not allowed unless it is for independent pressurization, this duct is not independent or for pressurization. (IBC 1020.5) Rybka Response: Rybka submits that Stair S-605 is connected to exit passageway C-614. and that the 'unlabeled passageway' is rated 2 hours, this upper level of the hallway is rated to provide separation between levels 4 and 5 and this portion of the ceiling space does connect to a rated vertical exit enclosure, the hallway is not an exit passageway, and that 1020.5 does not apply. M2.06.2 - There are return air slots shown in the ceiling of the unlabeled Exit Passageway serving Stair S-605. It is not allowed unless it is for independent pressurization, this duct is not independent or for pressurization. (IBC 1020.5) Rybka Response: See previous comment. M2.07.2 - There are several ducts penetrating Exit Passageway C-717. It is not allowed unless it is for independent pressurization, these ducts are not independent or for pressurization. (IBC 1020.5) Rybka Response: Rybka will rectify this condition by providing a 2 hour fire rated enclosure around this duct penetration, effectively removing the ductwork from the exit passageway. M2.07.2 - There are return air slots shown in the ceiling of Exit Passageway C-717. It is not allowed unless it is for independent pressurization, these ducts are not independent or for pressurization. (IBC 1020.5) Rybka Response: Rybka submits that the return air slot shown in Corridor C-717 are not intended to function as returns, are to be shown 'blanked-off and are provided for aesthetic reasons only. M2.07.3 - There are several ducts penetrating Exit Passageway C-712. It is not allowed unless it is for independent pressurization, these ducts are not independent or for pressurization. (IBC 1020.5) Rybka Response: Rybka will rectify this condition by providing a 2 hour fire rated enclosure around this duct penetration, effectively removing the ductwork from the exit passageway. M2.07.3 - There are return air slots shown in the ceiling of Exit Passageway C-712. It is not allowed unless it is for independent pressurization, these ducts are not independent or for pressurization. (IBC 1020.5) Rybka Response: Rybka will rectify this condition by separating the supply of air to the corridor from the guest room. M2.08.1 and M2.08.3 - There are several ducts penetrating Exit Passageway C-803. It is not allowed unless it is for independent pressurization, these ducts are not independent or for pressurization. Penetrations are not allowed fire wrapped or not. (IBC 1020.5) Rybka Response: Rybka submits that the construction of a 2 hour fire rated enclosure that physically separates the duct from the exit corridor and means that the service does not penetrate the exit passageway. "These comments are still outstanding. Tim Willings P.E. with Rybka met with the plans examiner on 8/14/07 to bring updated drawings addressing these corrections. It was advised to submit the drawings when all other comments are addressed. 222. Please address the garage exhaust on the east side of the structure that will cause a nuisance thru the casement windows (W102) in rooms 5318, 6318 and 7318. Rybka Response: Refer to sheet A2.05.2 for plan location, and sheet A0.7.2 (W 102) for window type. Architect to revise window to be fixed type. I IGA Response: The architectural documents have been revised to provide fixed windows at these three locations. The architectural drawings are indicating windows W 102. This window is casement not fixed on sheet A0.7.2. Please coordinate. 1-IKS/HGS Response (7/18/07): Revised drawings indicating fixed windows at these locations are included with this resubmittal. Since this review, the Town of Vail has informed our review team that garage exhausts on the CO2 detectors are product-conveying outlets requiring being 10' above grade, 10' from openings into the building and 10' from property lines. The continuous fan is considered environmental, thus allowing 3' from openings and 3' from property lines. Please address accordingly. 224. Please indicate how the 18" flue from the gas ironer, on the 3rd level is routed thru the loading dock above on the 4th level. Rybka Response: Laundry gas-fired flat ironer vent leaves the laundry room at level 3 (Sheet M2.03.1) and runs vertically through the building in a rated chase with fire enclosed offsets before being vented at the roof of level I 1 (Sheet M2.11.1). M2.06.1 - The flue pipe is indicating a 2 hour fire wrap through this level. Provide documentation that the wrap is listed for flue pipes and provide documentation that the flue pipe being utilized is listed to be wrapped with insulation. Rybka Response: M2.06.1 has been revised to indicate that horizontal vents are to be enclosed in 2 hour rated drywall enclosures and not fire wrap. Provide architectural details for the shaft. 228. Specify on the plans the location of EC-1, Type I fan for the kitchen. Rybka Response: Sheet M4.04 has been revised to show Ecology Unit EC-1 in Ecology Room M-402A. Ecology Room M-402A as designed is a component of the grease duct enclosure. "The duct enclosure shall serve a single grease exhaust duct system and shall not contain any other ducts, piping, wiring or systems." Remove the other exhaust fans, ducting and electrical within the room not associated with the Type I duct. (IMC 506.3. 10) Rybka Response: The 2 hour rated architectural enclosure of the Ecology unit has been reconfigured to that only the ductwork and equipment associated with the commercial kitchen exhaust is contained within the Ecology Room M-402A. Change the architectural drawings to reflect the 2 hour wall and 90 minute door that is shown on the mechanical drawings. 233. Indicate on the plans that the 36" dryer duct and the 18" flue from the Ironer are in a 2 hour shaft on the 6th level, page M2.06.1. Rybka Response: RYBKA concurs, the 36" dryer exhaust duct and 18" gas-fired flat ironer vent that both run horizontally at level 6 (on sheet M2.06.1) are to be in a 2-hr fire rated enclosure. M2.06.1 - The flue pipe is indicating a 2 hour fire wrap through this level. Provide documentation that the wrap is listed for flue pipes and provide documentation that the flue pipe being utilized is listed to be wrapped with insulation. (from comment 224) Rybka Response: M2.06.1 has been revised to indicate that horizontal vents are to be enclosed in 2 hour rated drywall enclosures and not fire wrap. Change the architectural drawings to reflect the 2 hour shaft walls and details for construction. Please show compliance to IBC 707.11 for the bottom of the shaft housing the 34" dryer duct. 234. Provide manufacturers instructions to verify the dryers in rooms 312 and 31 OD are capable of exhausting the developed length shown on the plans. Rybka Response: Residential dryer exhaust system shown on Sheet M2.03.1 serving Employee Laundry Room 31 OD and Valet Room 317, with quantity five (4+1) dryer exhaust connections to dryer exhaust EF-43 has been rerouted. In addition to the lint filter integral to the appliance, and auxiliary lint trap and cleanout has been shown on the common dryer exhaust duct system before the duct leaves the Employee Laundry Room 31 OD. The entire length of the residential dryer exhaust duct is to be fire wrapped to maintain clearances to combustibles. Discharge of laundry dryer exhaust is routed to exterior via connection to rated garage exhaust riser. Penetration is protected by fire wrap and minimum 22" shunt duct extended into garage exhaust riser. In addition, RYBKA have specified a laundry exhaust booster fan EF-43 which is interlocked with dryer operation. Dryer exhaust ducts are required to terminate to the outside the building and shall be equipped with a back draft damper, also clothes dryer exhaust ducts shall not extend into or through ducts or plenums. Route the dryer ducts directly to the exterior with a back draft damper. (IMC 504.4) Rybka Response: Rybka will rectify this condition by showing the backdraft damper. The use of upturned 22" sheet metal sub duct in 2 hour fire rated risers is an exception to the requirement that a combination fire smoke damper be provided where this duct penetrates a rated shaft, provided the exhaust fan is on emergency power. In this case, Rybka submits that the garage exhaust areaway, to which this system is connected, is effectively outdoors, since the exhaust fan which ensures continuous upward flow in the riser always runs (min. level of garage exhaust is required by code) and is powered from emergency circuit. The exception is for a fan to be at the top of the termination and that it runs continuously. Neither of these has been met with the garage exhaust. These exhausts are not in Group B or R's. 238. The Laundry Layout, page LA 1.2, indicates a flue pipe for the dry cleaner in room #317. Add the flue and the 2 hour chase to the architectural sheets and to the mechanical sheets, clarify that it does not pass through a plenum. Rybka Response: RYBKA has revised sheet M2.03.1 to show dry cleaning machine exhaust fan EF-8 and ducted connection to outdoors. M2.03.1 - The termination is shown with a 22" sub-duct within the garage exhaust duct. This is not to the exterior as required per IMC 502.7.3.6. The review team also is concerned that when the garage exhaust is not operating the fumes from the dry cleaning can migrate to the garage. Terminate the dry cleaning exhaust to the exterior. Rybka Response: The use of upturned 22" sheet metal sub duct in 2 hour fire rated risers is an exception to the requirement that a combination fire smoke damper be provided where this duct penetrates a rated shaft, provided the exhaust fan is on emergency power. In this case, Rybka submits that the garage exhaust areaway, to which this system is connected, is effectively outdoors, since the exhaust fan which ensures continuous upward flow in the riser always runs (min. level of garage exhaust is required by code) and is powered from emergency circuit. The exception is for a fan to be at the top of the termination and that it runs continuously. Neither of these has been met with the garage exhaust. "These exhausts are not in Group B or R's. 244. Add a 2 hour shaft below and proper opening protection for the duct designated as 24x14 S/A F/A-24x12 S/A TB on page M2.08.1 on grid line l0A and between 10.5/11. Rybka Response: RYBKA has revised sheet M2.08.1 and relocated the duct riser to the protected shaft in the North West corner of the Maids Room G-81 1. See comment #215, smoke/fire dampers are required where the duct penetrates a shaft. Rybka Response: Rybka will rectify this condition by properly coordinating the duct offset/riser transfer shown at this level with rated shaft location or rating requirements. These two ducts that transition between shafts that are not aligned between the 8th and 9th floor levels are both to be shown enclosed in a 2 hour rated drywall enclosure, negating the need for combination fire smoke dampers, except where duct connections penetrate the shaft wall (one location). The duct on this level is indicating 24x14 S/A(supply air) F/A(from above). The 9th floor level or the enlarged M4.06 does not show this duct. Please clarify. 245. Add a 2 hour shaft or designate a fire damper for the 28x10 and the 28x14 as it passes through a 2 hour floor/ceiling assembly into the mechanical room above. On page M2.08.1 between grid lines 10.5 /11 and A8.2/A9.9. Rybka Response: RYBKA has revised sheet M2.08.1. See comment #215, smoke/fire dampers are required where the duct penetrates a shaft. Rybka Response: Rybka submits that ducts that rise vertically through the building that are protected with two hour fire rated enclosures and are connected to a 2 hour rated mechanical room at the highest level do not have a fire damper at the floor penetration of the mechanical room. Rybka submits that the 2 hour rated shaft enclosure is an extension of the 2 hour rating of the mechanical room fire rated enclosure. "There is a 24x10 duct shown penetrating the shaft connecting to the 28x10 duct within the shaft. Add the S/F damper at this location. (The architectural overlays indicate a shaft too small to house the duct?) There is a 24x18 duct shown in this vicinity penetrating the floor/ceiling above. Please address with a fire damper. 246. Add a 2 hour shaft and proper opening protection on all levels for the 8x10 duct on page M2.07.2 between grid lines A8.2/A9.9 and 10/10.5. Rybka Response: RYBKA has revised sheet M2.07.1. The duct has not been addressed on all levels also see comment #215, smoke/fire dampers are required where the duct penetrates a shaft. Rybka Response: Rybka will rectify this condition by coordinating the duct riser serving the elevator lobby for levels 7, 8, 9 and 10 and attic levels (Sheets M2.07.2, M2.08.2, M2.09.2, M2.10.2 and M2.11.1). Rybka will show a combination fire smoke dampers at the penetration of the riser at each level where duct penetrate the shaft wall (one location each occupied floor). The response is indicting that fire/smoke dampers will be added to the shaft, one on each level. The drawings have been changed to show fire dampers at the floor levels. The fire damper at the floor line is only allowed if the duct connects not more than 2 stories. This comment stands, the duct in question has been changed to 12x18 on the 7th level. 247. Add a 2 hour shaft and proper opening protection on all levels for the 12x6 duct on page M2.07.1 between grid lines A6/A7 and on grid line 4.2. Rybka Response: RYBKA has revised sheet M2.07.1, M2.08.1, M209.1. This duct serving the elevator lobbies has not been addressed. Rybka Response: Rybka will coordinate the duct riser serving the elevator lobby for levels 7 in this location with level above and below. Rybka will correct this by rerouting existing ductwork through rated risers provided by HGA in these locations and Rybka will show a combination fire smoke dampers at the penetration of the riser at each level where duct penetrate the shaft . The same issue as response to #246. The response is indicting that fire/smoke dampers will be added to the shaft, one on each level. The drawings have been changed to show fire dampers at the floor levels. The fire damper at the floor line is only allowed if the duct connects not more than 2 stories. This comment stands. The supply duct from level 11 to 10 has no shaft, the duct runs horizontally on the 9th level with no shaft and runs to the 7th level with fire dampers at the floors of the 8th and 9th. This duct requires a shaft. 264. Fire dampers and rated shafts for ductwork through floor/ceiling assemblies are substantially incomplete; evaluate the entire mechanical plan for fire dampers and shafts per IMC section 607.6. Rybka Response: Refer to response to comment 215 Here are some floor penetrations by ducts that have not been addressed, please evaluate the entire mechanical plan for fire dampers and shafts per IMC section 607.6. M2.03.1 - 12x20 duct, grid lines A4.6 and 2.7/3 The duct in question has changed to 20x16. The vertical and horizontal shafts need to be shown on the architectural sheets. M2.03.1 - 18x14 duct, grid lines A12 and 3.3/4 The horizontal shaft shown on M2.02.1 is not shown on the architectural sheets. M2.04.1 - 16x10 duct, grid lines A13 and 3.3/4 This duct will require a fire damper at the bottom of the shaft. (IBC 707.11) M2.04 - 12x6 duct, grid lines AIO/AI I and 10.5/11 A fire damper has been added to the 2 floors above. The fire damper at the floor line is only allowed if the duct connects not more than 2 stories. M2.04 - 8x6 duct, grid lines AIO/AI I and 10.5/11 This duct will require a fire damper at the bottom of the shaft. The duct is connecting more than 2 stories below the shaft. M2.04 - 6x12 duct, grid lines A10 and 10.5 The drawings have been changed to add fire dampers at the floor line. This duct connects more than 2 stories, a shaft is required. M2.05 - 26x14 R/A, grid lines A6/A7 and 5 A fire damper is required at the floor between the 5th and 6th level. M2.05 - 12x12 paint shop exhaust, 12x12 carpenter exhaust and a 24x12 sanitary duct, grid lines A4.6 and 4/5. These ducts traverse from what appears to be a rated shaft from below through the Resid. Club Concierge Desk (512) room up through the ceiling with no protection. This duct enters a shaft on this level, add a fire damper to the duct as it enters the bottom of the shaft. (IBC 707.11) M2.05 - 6x6, 8x6, (2)12x6 and IOx20 ducts, grid lines A10 and 10/10.5 M2.05 - 8x6 duct, grid lines A10 and 10.5/11 Review on duct penetrations through the floors has been stopped. The plans examiner's function is not to make a punch list for the design team. Evaluate the entire mechanical plan for fire dampers and shafts per IMC section 607.6. Rybka Response: Rybka submits that fire dampers, rated shafts and combination fire smoke dampers have been added to the floor plans in general conformance with requirements of the plan reviewer. Additional damper, combination fir dampers and shaft wall construction will be required where this drawing revision has not correctly identified that they are required. Any duct that penetrates more than 2 stories will require a shaft and appropriate protection through the shaft wall. The architectural drawings are substantially incomplete indicating vertical and horizontal shafts that match the mechanical drawings. Please coordinate the mechanical responses on the architectural drawings. Structural Conditions- The conditions listed are taken from the last comment letter dated 07/18/2007. The open issues are listed in Red. S106 F 9,11,14/S6.01E Sheet S2.03.2: 12 ft. cantilever retaining wall extension of exterior two span wall below, outside of ballroom areaway on line Al 1 between 14 and 14.5 has not been checked and appears to be overstressed for flexure, please check. Consider moment resisting joints at slab to wall connections. Design / detail planter wall. These details require rebar and splices to be shown for proper detailing and construction. Verify cantilever deflection. KL&A 6/26/07: Please respond to this issue. KL&A 8/31/07: Submitted calculations show restraint at top of planter wall, while per drawings, the wall is cantilevered. It appears wall type'W5' is required at retaining walls south of the ballroom area, please review. silo F S2.02.4 No calculations have been provided for the cantilevered retaining wall around the pool structure, or on gridline Dl. Verify lateral load capacity, consider pedestrian surcharge and water surcharge due to site drains behind this wall as appropriate. Verify footing width. KL&A 6/26/07: Wall in question between gridlines 6-8.5 south of A18 supports roof loads and also is the lateral load path for pool structure loading, and for roof uplift for partially enclosed structures. Wall also is monolithic with Area 3A perimeter building wall. Design is part of EOR's scope, please provide wall designs accounting for support of roof structure. KL&A 8/31/07: Coordinate new retaining wall detail 21/S4.03 with foundations shown on plan, 52.02.4. Verify new steel roof around pool structure will resist lateral soil reaction of 1.0 klf, verify metal deck shear strength and connection to resisting perpendicular retaining walls. S128 GS S2.09.3 Top slab bars I OT3 & l OT6 are shown at line 10.6/A 14. It seems these bars are shown in error as the concrete beam is upturned at this location. Beams south of line A12.2 are not identified. Please check. IBC 1603.1. KL&A 6/26/07: Top bars also appear required at gridline A10. S2.09.3 PT profile is incomplete, details are required. KL&A 8/31/07: Top bars are still not shown on plan, please review. 5145 LS 1/S3.02C Wall thickness is shown as 8 inches. Plan S201.2 indicates a 12" exterior foundation wall, please coordinate. KL&A 6/26/07: Coordinate reinforcing shown on shear wall elevation with 'W2'or'W3' per S2.01.2, it is unclear which wall type controls for soil lateral loading. Wall must span two way due to stair shaft opening, verify designs. KL&A 8/31/07: Submitted calculations show restraint at top of planter wall, while per drawings, the wall is cantilevered. It appears wall type 'W5' is required at retaining walls south of the ballroom area, please review. S164 LS S2.11 Provide detail of roof diaphragm to concrete cores. Provide or indicate detail of steel beams to concrete cores for gravity plus lateral loading, per ASCE 7-02 load combinations. Verify drag loads and chord force detailing at eave framing. Verify diaphragm welding is sufficient for expected shear forces, provide shear and moment diagram at roof deck levels. ASCE 7-02: 9.5.2.6.2.2, 9.5.2.6.2.6, 9.5.2.6.2.7. KL&A 6/26/07: New detail 13/S1.0.5B:Welded studs, thickness and dimensions of embed plate are not defined. Please provide this information for all beams and reaction conditions on the drawings. Verify connection is adequate with short slot or long slot holes in the shear tab, if permitted for erection. Provide roof diaphragm calculations per original comment. IBC 1911, 1912, 2205.1. KL&A 8/31/07: Submitted materials are incomplete, review of this item is ongoing. S165 LS S2.11 Provide detail of concrete diaphragm to concrete cores, verify shear transfer at each level and comment whether any drags are required. Verify if typical details 12 & 23/S1.0.3A apply throughout the job. ASCE 7-02: 9.5.2.6.2.2, 9.5.2.6.2.6, 9.5.2.6.2.7, 9.5.2.6.2.8. KL&A 6/26/07: Please respond to this issue. KL&A 8/31/07: Submitted materials are incomplete, review of this item is ongoing. S169 LS S3.02A Calculations show a significant force reversal / back-stay effect from Level 6 to Level 5 shear force, i.e. SW 14 & SW 16. Verify this load path has been designed for the loads per 3D analysis. Verify soil plus wind / seismic loading has been used for drag design. Note per plan, S2.05.1, a large hole exists adjacent to wall SW 16, and per calculations page 536, (38+57)=95k shear transfer is required. No drags are shown on plan. Please verify. Note, elevations S3.02A show 45 @ 14" o.c. at upper levels, calculations shown (2) #5 @ 24" o.c., please verify designs match calculations. IBC 1616.1.1, IBC 1604.4. KL&A 6/26/07: Original comment calculated (38+57)=95k load for SW14 not SW16 as noted, however collector bars have not been added for SW 14. SW 16 collector load is (86+143)=229k, (4) #7 shown on plan are not adequate for 229k, please review all collector designs. KL&A 8/31/07: Submitted materials are incomplete, review of this item is ongoing. S171 S2.11.1-2, etc. Roof framing plans are incomplete. Please address the following and confirm detailing will be provided in future drawings issues, per IBC 1604.2, 2205.1. a) KL&A 8/31/07: Closed b) KL&A 8/31/07: Closed c) KL&A 8/31/07: Closed d) KL&A 8/31/07: Closed e) KL&A 8/31/07: Closed f) KL&A 8/31/07: Closed g) W8 & W 16 eave supports do not cantilever outwards and support eave in RAM analysis submitted, instead all load is transferred directly to columns via eave rim beam. Verify eave supports and perimeter girders are adequately sized KL&A 8/31 /07: Submitted materials are incomplete, review of this item is ongoing. h) 52.09.3, etc: HSS6x6 to W8, W 14 moment connection at eave needs a detail KL&A 8/31/07: Submitted materials are incomplete, review of this item is ongoing. i) 1/S2.10.3: W1 6x31 on line A10.5 is shown as WI 805 per calculations, please verify all beams match calculations. IBC 2205.1. KL&A 8/31/07: Submitted materials are incomplete, review of this item is ongoing. S172 I /S2.08.3 W 18x46 eave support girder near gridlines CB-C 1 is shown as W21 x44 per calculations; W1400 on line BE is shown as W21x48 per calculations. Several cantilevered eave moment connection supports are shown without a backspan member. Please review. IBC 2205.1. KL&A 8/31/07: Submitted materials are incomplete, review of this item is ongoing. S173 I /S2.08.3 Verify lateral support of the low roof structure for wind and seismic loading; low roof section is not connected to Level 8 PT slab beyond or core walls within the roof area, and braced frames are not shown. Similar at 2/S2.08.3 and other low roof structures. IBC 1604.4. KL&A 8/31/07: Submitted materials are incomplete, review of this item is ongoing. S173 11,26,28/S7.01 A Calculations indicate that roof deck is attached to slab edge along line 2 and other locations where deck and floor slab are near the same elevation. Provide a detail for lateral roof to slab connection where required by lateral analysis. IBC 1604.4. KL&A 8/31/07: Submitted materials are incomplete, review of this item is ongoing. S174 S2.1 1. 1, etc Show roof diaphragm to concrete core connection, consider in-plane collector shear forces and out of plane anchorage forces. IBC 1604.8.2; ASCE 7, 9.5.2.6.2.6, 9.5.2.6.2.8. KL&A 8/31/07: Submitted materials are incomplete, review of this item is ongoing. S175 S2.11.1 Verify diaphragm continuity at dormers line A5 between upper roof deck and lower roof deck, provide collectors as required for in plane shear and out of plane shear. IBC 1604.4. KL&A 8/31/07: Submitted materials are incomplete, review of this item is ongoing. S176 S2.09.2 Roof ridge support columns near I5.5-A4.8 shown on S2.11.2 are not supported by slab below, please check. IBC 1604.4. KL&A 8/31/07: Column in question is 20 feet tall, verify HSS5x5 is adequate, per S2.11.2. S178 A2.11.1 R, etc. Structural roof plans do not incorporate snow fences shown on architectural drawings. Please provide snow fence with adequate structural connection shear and moment associated with sliding snow. IBC 1608. KL&A 8/31/07: Submitted materials are incomplete, review of this item is ongoing. KL&A 8/31/07: COMMENTS ON NEW DETAILS FOLLOW S187 21/S4.03 Minimum depth shall be 48" for frost depth requirement. IBC 1805.2.1. Verify wall vertical rebar is adequately developed at top of footing, ACI 318, 12.2. Appears that variables D and D' are reversed with calculations variables hf and hp, please review. IBC 1806. S188 S5.03 Revised beams 4138 & 4139 appear too shallow to support one way slab at ramp. Shear ties are spaced greater than d/2. Please review beam sizes for ramp loads. IBC 1604.2. Planning Department Conditions- From: Warren Cambell Submit a revised landscape plan for review and approval prior to requesting a TCO. Public Works Conditions- From: Chad Salli, Project Engineer 1. Install snowmelt in loading dock dwy. Sheet M5.15 not in resubmittal package, Sheet M5.14 shows heat in the southern half of the dwy. The dwy should be heated from the back of pan along the Frontage Rd to the trench drain. 2. The fountain entry feature shall not be public right-of-way, please remove from right-of-way. 3. The two tier retaining wall shall be designed/stamped by a Colorado registered professional engineer, greater than 4' in height from the top of wall to the bottom of the foundation. 4. Provide Final Drainage report including hydrology and hydraulic analyses (Box culvert, Storm pipe, inlets, swales, etc...). This shall include storm sewer profiles with HGL shown. A 100 yr analysis shall be completed showing no private/public property damage as a result. Provide capacity analysis for major swales and all inlets. The SCS method may be used for large mountain basins, the Rational method shall be used for the smaller site and developed basins. 5. A Developer Improvement Agreement will be required prior to release of permit. 6. Show proposed location for Comcast fiber line along the west property line. Irontage Road/Vail Road 1. Town of Vail Street lights shall be placed at 50' spacings along the project limits. Coordinate with TOV electricians for electric meter location. Relocate private lighting to private property. 2. Set back (detach) the frontage rd sidewalk 6' from back of curb east of the porte cochere exit. Sod shall be installed between the curb and walk. 3. Use attached sidewalk detail for sidewalks located within the right-of-way. 4. Use TY 13 curb inlets vs TY R where the sidewalk is attached to the curb. 5. If necessary, raise Spraddle Creek vault #1 manhole to finished grade. 6. The cross-walk at the roundabout shall be asphalt thru the travel lanes and concrete only across the median. 7. Use CDOT TY 3A curb ramps at the roundabout, 6' width at the throat. 8. Storm line A shall be at I% minimum slope. Leaving the existing proposed invert elev at TY R inlet 3 and working upstream at I% appears to still allow for a min of 2' cover at the existing inlet on the north side of the frontage road. 9. Sheet El .00, please turn off extra curb&gutter alignment. 10. Install 24" conduits to medians for irrigation and 34" conduits to the west median for future use. Spraddle Creek Drainage I . Per previous agreement with the Town, Four-Seasons is responsible for the construction cost of continuing Spraddle Creek to STA 4+40. 2. Install an impermeable membrane around the RCP/CBC due to proposed landscaping and irrigation. 3. Please provide additional detail of proposed walls along the RCP/CBC alignment. Construction of these walls shall be designed so as not to disturb/undermine the RCP/CBC. W Meadow Drive 1. Final approval of the West Meadow Drive construction drawings will be completed in conjunction with the Town of Vail design. Modifications to tie-in grades on the Four Seasons site may be necessary to accommodate this final design. W Meadow plans shall also develop streetscape related items in the right-of-way (street lighting, landscaping, etc). 2. Storm line G alignment needs to be revised. There is not enough room to install between Spraddle Creek and a large tree on the south side of W Meadow that shall be protected. Will finalize with W Meadow plans. 3. Storm line E appears to in conflict with the recently installed water line. Will finalize with W Meadow plans. Landscaping/Irrigation 1. Detailed landscaping comments to follow within the next couple of weeks. 2. Coordinate irrigation with TOV irrigation supervisor for final head type/location and water source. 3. The Town is currently in talks with CDOT on permissible landscaping within CDOT right-of-way. Fire Department Conditions- ] . LSR, MOU's and Administrative Modifications must be signed by Rybka et.al. as the Fire Protection Engineer of record. 2. Page 14 of the LSR reference occupancy of the pre-function and ballroom is not accepted. RJA allegedly has run calculations to show adequate exiting but such evidence has not been presented. Appendix A - Fire Alarm Matrix is not accepted. Appendix B - Small Scale Plans is not accepted. MOU 5/22/07 ref Emergency Generator and Emergency Power is subject to additional review. Cond: CON0010349 Sub-duct system for the dryers and range hoods is not approved. TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO Statement Statement Number: R100000216 Amount: $3,701.25 03/18/201002:07 PM Payment Method: Check Init: LC Notation: #64953/HYDER CONSTRUCTION REV. #31 Permit No: B06-0196 Type: NEW COMM BUILDING PERMIT Parcel No: 2101-071-0101-6 Site Address: 1 VAIL RD VAIL Location: 1 VAIL ROAD Total Fees: 170,687.15 This Payment: $3,701.25 Total ALL Pmts: 170,494.15 Balance: $193.00 ACCOUNT ITEM LIST: Account Code Description Current Pmts 00100003112300, GFPO PLAN CK - project GFP012 3,701.25 SAFEbuflt inc. COLORADO Building Department Services March 17, 2010 Martin Haeberle Chief Building Official, Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 RE: PROJECT: PERMIT NUMBER: REVISION NUMBER: INTERNAL REF ADDRESS: Dear Mr. Haeberle: Y I W Four Seasons, Vail B06-0196 31/Structural Repair-1' Submittal 10750 1 Vail Road SAFEbuilt Colorado has reviewed the last set of documents for their conformance to the provisions of the 2003 International Building Code as adopted by the Town of Vail. SAFEbuilt Colorado finds these documents submitted to be complete for construction. All previous review comments have been adequately addressed to release this portion of the structural repairs for construction. Each approved document can be identified with a SAFEbuilt review stamp dated 3/17/2010. Correspondences returned to the Town of Vail: First round review comments and letter from Home Engineering Solutions dated 2/11/10. - Second round review comments and letter from Home Engineering Solutions dated 2/23/10. Third round review comments/Email Correspondence between Home Engineering Solutions and Engineer of Record, Mr. Horon Lee dated 3/5/10. - One set of office plans and one set of field plans which include one full sized plan sheet labeled S9.01 dated 3/04/10, all structural calculations and solutions. Attached is this Final Approval Letter. Plan review fee: 11 hours = $660.00 + $3041.25 (Cost of Structural Review) = $3701.25 No additional square footage- No added valuation Sincerely, Eric Pendley r Builing Official SAFEbuilt Colorado eric.pendleykSAFEbuilt.com eIof I SAFEbuilt Colorado Eagle Office ✓ P.O. Box 1618 ✓ 1286 Chambers Av Phone: (970)328-1790 ✓ Toll Free: (877) 428-6412 ✓ Fax: (970) 328-179 0196 rev31_IR10750_FAL.doc HORNE ENGINEERING SOLUTIONS,LLC March 16, 2010 Eric Pendley, Building Official SAFEbuilt Colorado, Inc. 1286 Chambers Avenue, #101 Eagle, Colorado 81631 Office: (877) 462-1955 Cell: (970) 977-6270 RE: Four Seasons Hotel, Plan Review of structural slab fixes Submittal #1, Rev 31/IR 10750 Vail, Colorado Dear Eric: I have completed my review of the above submittal. I have reviewed the following drawings and documents: ■ Structural drawings dated 01/26/2010, Bulletin #126 (25 sheets) ■ Structural calculations & letter by the EOR, Nishkian Menninger dated 01/26/2010 ■ Structural responses to review comments and revised structural calculations, dated 2/17/2010 (rec'd via email on 2/18/2010) • Sheet S9.01, dated 02/17/2010 CONSTRUCTION DETAIL (rec'd via email on 2/18/2010) • Structural responses to review comments and revised structural calculations, dated 2/24/2010 (rec'd via email on 3/3/2010) ■ Sheet S9.01, dated 02/25/2010 PLAN CHECK REVISION (rec'd via email on 3/3/2010) • Structural responses to review comments and revised structural calculations, dated 3/5/2010 • Sheet S9.01, dated 03/04/2010 PLAN CHECK REVISION At this time, all structural plan review comments related to the above documents have been responded to and addressed by the EOR, and are considered closed. Please contact me with any questions. Sincerely, James P. Horne, PE, SE President & Principal Engineer 3/16/2010 Project: Four Seasons Hotel, Plan Review of structural fixes Vail, Colorado / 12600 West 32nd Ave. Suite 400 Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 www.HESLLC.com TRANSMITTAL FORM Revision Submittals: T11 V 1. "Field Set" of approved plans MUST accompany revisions. 0/10 2. No further inspections will be performed until the revisions are approved & the permit is re-issued. 3. Fees for reviewing revisions are $55.00 per hour (2 hour minimum), and are due upon issuance. Permit #(s) information applies to: Attention: i Project Street A dress: (Number) (Street) (Suite Building/Complex Name: 00/5 0 Contact Infor J~ Company: ~~✓G Com y Address: cTl - City: Contact Name: ~70 Contact Phone: q WfYA-1f 1_01- ate: W Zip: g2 cd L - ~b k o Revised ADDITIONAL Valuations (Labor & Materials) (DO NOT include original valuation) Building: Plumbing: Electrical: Mechanical: Total: Q -7 X, Revisions O esponse to Correction Letter _attached copy of correction letter ( ) Deferred Submittal ( ) Other Description / List of Changes: I (use additional sheet if necessary) Date Received: COPY I OFFICE 01-Jan-10 TRANSMITTAL FORM C01, Revision Submittals: j ~ ~ 1. "Field Set" of approved plans MUST accompany revisions. 2. No further inspections will be performed until the revisions are approved & the permit is re-issued. 3. Fees for reviewing revisions are $55.00 per hour (2 hour minimum), and are due upon issuance. P err i~t #(s) information applies to: ` Dl l Project Street ddre ~VL, X-Is ~0 (Number) (Street) Suite # ( ) Response to Correction Letter _attached copy of correction letter j O Deferred Submittal ( ) Other Description /List Changes: Building/Complex Name: Contact nyIn: f mtionn. Compa 16/f,~, "t\ Address: City: Contact Name: CF - Vt L- Contact Phone: (06 E-Mail "4,QP0nY0-.,*-ct/e-' Attention: Revised,ADDITIONAL Valuations (Labor & Materials) (DO NO include original valuation) Building: $ Plumbing: $ Electrical: $ Mechanical: $ Total: $ f OFFICE COPY (use additional sheet if necessary) Date Received: ? FMAR 0 1 2010 S i TOWN OF VAIL l 01-Jan-10 Qom, 3 ~ ~~~spS Charlie Davis &,#JO ~ From: James Horne [fames@hesllc.com] Sent: Friday, March 05, 2010 9:34 AM To: Charlie Davis Cc: Eric Pendley; Barry Kramer Subject: RE: Vail 4 seasons review Attachments: image001.jpg Charlie, I interpret this email to mean that the ECIR will resubmit what you have just mailed down to me...! When I receive the documents from you, which probably will be today, I will plan on contacting the FOR for clarification so I don't duplicate work. Thanks- James P. Horne, PE, SE Horne Engineering Solutions, LLC 12600 West 32nd Avenue, Suite 400 Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 (303) 854-7495 (mobile) (303) 379-7433 (fax) James@HESLLC.com www.HESLLC.com From: Horon Lee [mailto:horon_I@nishkian.com] Sent: Friday, March 05, 2010 9:29 AM To: James Horne Cc: CDavis@safebuilt.com; Eric Pendley; Barry Kramer; Rick Caudel Subject: RE: Vail 4 seasons review James: We will send out the revised drawing and calculation today to Hyder Construction. Note that we will also revise the design & details for the 2nd & 3rd column repair submittals which had been submitted early this week. Thank you. Horon Lee S.E. NISHKIAN MENNINGER CONSULTING & STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS SINCE 1919 1200 Folsom Street San Francisco CA. 94103 Tel: (415) 541-9477Ext:308 Fax: (415) 543-5071 See first email or the first response to read and understand our disclaimer regarding the use of the email From: James Horne [mailto:james@hesllc.com] Sent: Friday, March 05, 2010 7:12 AM To: Horon Lee Cc: CDavis@safebuilt.com; 'Eric Pendley'; 'Barry Kramer' Subject: RE: Vail 4 seasons review Horon, yes my mistake, I meant 21 b. Thank you, your response closes the comments. Charlie, all of the review comments from my letters dated 2-10-10 and 2-19-10 are considered closed. My understanding is that the FOR will revise the drawings per the review comments, and will resubmit for the city's records. Horon, please confirm. Thank you, James P. Horne, PE, SE Horne Engineering Solutions, LLC 12600 West 32nd Avenue, Suite 400 Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 (303) 854-7495 (mobile) (303) 379-7433 (fax) James@HESLLC.com www.HESLLC.com From: Horon Lee [mailto:horon_I@nishkian.com] Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2010 4:31 PM To: James Horne Cc: CDavis@safebuilt.com Subject: RE: Vail 4 seasons review James: What is 14b? If you mean 21b, we will revise the #6 hook to 12" in detail 3/S9.01 Horon Lee S.E. NISHKIAN MENNINGER CONSULTING & STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS SINCE 1919 1200 Folsom Street San Francisco CA. 94103 Tel: (415) 541-9477Ext:308 Fax: (415) 543-5071 See first email or the first response to read and understand our disclaimer regarding the use of the email From: James Horne [mailto:james@hesllc.com] Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2010 3:21 PM To: Horon Lee Cc: CDavis@safebuilt.com Subject: RE: Vail 4 seasons review Horon - #12 a,b,c, and d are considered closed. Also #21 a is closed per our earlier email. Please respond to #14b below, I don't believe I have a response from you on that one. Thank you, James P. Horne, PE, SE Horne Engineering Solutions, LLC 12600 West 32nd Avenue, Suite 400 Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 (303) 854-7495 (mobile) (303) 379-7433 (fax) James@HESLLC.com www.HESLLC.com From: Horon Lee [mailto:horon_I@nishkian.com] Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2010 2:45 PM To: James Horne Cc: CDavis@safebuilt.com Subject: FW: Vail 4 seasons review James: Attached is the revised calc. to answer 12 c & d. Please let me know you have further questions. If you agreed on all our responses, we will forward the stamped copies to TOV. We will then correct the 2"d & 3rd submittals of column repairs. Horon Lee S.E. NISHKIAN MENNINGER CONSULTING & STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS SINCE 1919 1200 Folsom Street San Francisco CA. 94103 Tel: (415) 541-9477Ext:308 Fax: (415) 543-5071 See first email or the first response to read and understand our disclaimer regarding the use of the email From: James Horne [mailto:james@hesllc.com] Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2010 9:33 AM To: Horon Lee; Levon Nishkian Cc: 'Charlie Davis' Subject: Vail 4 seasons review Horon, I thought perhaps it would be faster to email you directly with some questions that I still have on your responses. #12: a) Regarding development of #5 dowels, I calculate 9.7" for Ldh on #5 bar, per below. Please verify 7". b) ACI 318, 12.5.1 specifies 8*db and 6" as minimum Ldh, so it appears 6" minimum is required. c) Also, I believe there is an error in "Qxx" on p. 12, my understanding is that the final term (672) should be the distance between center of area of the drop panel to centroid of the gross section, 4.25" instead of 3", please review. Centroid of the gross section 4.25" is used to calculate Qxx. See revised calculations. d) Something to consider is that it appears you are taking the full punching shear value for Vu horizontal shear check, while shear is coming from three sides of the column. Portion of punching shear going into the column is proportioned by the column perimeter for each direction (i.e. x-dir and y-dir). However, the minimum punching shear used for horizontal shear check in each direction will be'/Z of the total punching shear. #21: a) 100psf live load appears required at corbel fix, detail 3/S9.01, however it appears revisions reflect 100psf live load only at detail 6/S9.01, please verify. b) Similar issue to #5 hook length discussed previously, 6" hook bar tail length is less than 12*db for #6 bars, ref. ACI 318, 7.1. Please feel free to call me to discuss. Thank you, 12 powlopmont and Splice Lengths us ptopsrties 5; t44 ( c}11 sr 100 PV mac per 1: 1 2 LwOwwc tF, t a 1 3 faftot for light wetgtd conoot, Epo,y coaled' N YIN =1 0 for 14-, 15 factor to developmem for 'Y* Stdo Coot > 2 5' Y YIN Hack Qq w > 2' k YM 0 7 factor for both fide cover > 2 5 & and hold cmr > par 12 5 3 Hook wd in3! N YIN 08 fatter for toes provided porponftular or parallel 10 hoots, per 12 5 at sWing > 2db7 Y YIN Clear carer >db? Y Y/N 10 too9, cnlasorrs; 90' or 180' llooksd Bats i Lt'a Cods Rd Bat Size 03 r4 s5 -6 a7 e8 r9 010 nil 014 els 0 375 05, 0 0 75 0 l37 5 1 1 128 1 27 I 41 1693 ? 257 125 6 8 I 'L 9.1 12 iJ 15 12 20 22 26 35 i- V.M.A and Amt.- 14w.1.nn1a1 R..- boa Cka, db relopmem, Id Coda Rot Bat S ize s3 04 a5 06 07 ra 09 010 Nil 018 Arlo 0375 05 066 075 0875 1 1129 127 141 1M 2257 1222 11.62 15 19 23 21 l9 #J 49 i5 66 87 12 15 12 15 19 23 34 39 a4 a9 55 66 87 in it Ir M 74 '1r1 Il a& S7. c• 74 as 111 Y N I:h 3 D-Aolarrxvtt A AXX- aAI`6-, )b J James P. Horne, PE, SE Horne Engineering Solutions, LLC 12600 West 32nd Avenue, Suite 400 Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 (303) 854-7495 (mobile) (303) 379-7433 (fax) James@HESLLC.com www.HESLLC.com 4 y ~Y TRANSMITTAL FORM Revision Submittals: 1. "Field Set" of approved plans MUST accompany revisions. 2. No further inspections will be performed until the revisions are approved & the permit is re-issued. 3. Fees for reviewing revisions are $55.00 per hour (2 hour minimum), and are due upon is~uange. Permit #(s) information applies to: Attention: -Dq~ Projl ct Street QdAress- (Number) (Street) (Suite Building/Complex Name: Contact Information: Company: l/A/ ' Com any Address: V'7~ Cs 1/(s City: State: 60 Zip: Contact Name: _ *70 Contact Phone: ~ - l t E-Mail„ k4 Auqglj~Qf/YDO'UA16. e..:, W - ON Revisions r O Response to Correction Letter _attached copy of correction letter Deferred Submittal Other De ion / List of Changes: scripulftN 1; ~-r D:!W,QCes 4-114, q. n~ct~! 5 vN ~ u U~~~ l 77420 l o J~~/J-) Revised ADDITIONAL Valuations (Labor &RMaterials) (DO NOT include original valuation) Building: $ xJ Plumbing: $ Electrical: $ Mechanical: $ Total: $ (use additional sheet if necessary) Date Received: IEC~fE OME FEB 18 2010 OFFICE COPY ' TOWN OFVAIL 01-Jan-10 SAFEbul It inc. COLORADO SAFEBUILT COLORADO 2nd PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS TO: Contractor Hyder Construction NUMBER OF PAGES: FROM: DATE: BUILDING PERMIT IR REVISION OWNERS NAME: SITE ADDRESS: OCCUPANCY GROUP: TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION: NUMBER OF STORIES: Architect Engineer Hill Glazier Architects Nishkian Menninger Eric Pendley 02/23/2010 B06-0196 10750 31 Black Diamonds Resorts-Vail LLC 1 Vail Road, Vail, Co. 81658 A2, A3, B, E, M, F1, S1, S2, R1 and R2 1 B, Sprinklered 10 The design documents submitted for this project have been reviewed for compliance with the locally adopted codes and amendments. The following comments must be addressed before revisions may be approved for issuance and construction. Design Documents referred to have been submitted for review to address structural elements to be repaired. These documents include the following: - Correspondence from Nishkian Menninger dated January 25, 2010 outlining the submittal - SKSS011410-1 dated 1/14/10 - Seven pages of structural calculations undated - Structural sheets labeled "Bulletin 126" dated 1126/10 containing sheets S1.0.1, S2.02.1 S2.02.2, S2.03.1, S2.03.2, S2.03.3, S2.04.1, S2.04.2, S2.04.3, S2.05.1, S2.05.2, S2.05.3, S2.06.1, S2.06.2, S2.06.3, S2.07.7, S2.07.2, S2.07.3, S2.08.1, S2.08.2, S2.09.1, S2.09.2, S2.10.1, S2.10.2, S5.02 - Additional documents received for responses to the 15t round of comments include: o Level 4 Grids 4/A9.9 o Level 5 Grids 11/A2 o New sheet S9.01 o Response to plan check comments dated 2/17/10 For processing: Please submit (5) complete sets of revised construction documents containing the requested information or plan revisions with all revisions clouded or otherwise identified. SAFEbuilt Colorado Eagle Office ✓ P.O. Box 1618 ✓ 1286 Chambers Avenue, Unit 101 ✓ Eagle, Colorado 81631 Phone: (970)328-1790 ✓ Toll Free: (877) 428-6412 ✓ Fax: (970) 328-1791✓V:\Plan Review\Vail\4 Seasons\tov-b06- 0196.Rev31 IR10750corrections2ndround.doc Please respond in writing to each comment by marking the attached list or creating a response letter. Indicate which plan sheet, detail, specification, or calculation shows the requested information. Please send revisions to the attention of the plans examiner with the building permit application number noted. Responses such as "will comply with code" are not adequate. Revised drawings must clearly show code compliance. A RESPONSE LETTER MUST BE INCLUDED WITH THE REVISED PLAN SUBMITTAL. Please be sure to include on the resubmittal the engineer's or architect's "wet" stamp, signature, registration number and date on the cover page of any structural calculations, all structural details and structural sheets of the plans. BUILDING DEPARTMENT COMMENTS: 1. Attached to this comment letter is a signed and sealed copy of the structural review performed by Horne Engineering Solutions LLC. Reference this document for comments regarding correction and response. This document is dated February 19, 2010. 2. In reference to the document above, it has been noted that the American Concrete Institute (ACI) publication 318-05 has been used for the design and the review of the revised structural package. The 2003 International Building Code (IBC) makes reference to the ACI 318-02 edition. This is discussed in the review letter from Horne Engineering Solutions LLC document within the second paragraph. Please provide clarification that the ACI 318-05 has been used for the original design and that using this referenced standard provides the same level of structural integrity the ACI 318-02 edition referred by the 2003 IBC. Approval from the AHJ (Town of Vail) is also required for the use of the more recent standard. 2003 IBC Section 102.4, 104.11 and Chapter 35. Comment Considered Closed by SAFEbuilt. Adequate response has been provided to determine the ACI318-05 edition referenced by the structural repair submittal does not create any inconsistencies between it and the AC1318-02 editrion referenced by the 2003 International Building Code. EOR/AOR Responses: I believe the issue is the first set of calculation submitted (the standard office drop cap spread sheet) was labeling ACI 318-05 and the corresponding equations. In our plan check response, we wrote that all these calculations is not appropriate and should be discard. However, there is no difference between 318-05 and 318-02 for those equations used for calculate punching shear. 11.5.6.4 changed to 11.5.7.4 but content is the same Eqn 11-16 no change 11.12.1.2 no change 11.12.6 phi factor is added to clarify the term phi*2*sq root F'c 11.12.3.1 no change Horon Lee S.E. NISHKIAN MENNINGER 3. Provide information regarding required special inspections that will be performed for the proposed structural repairs. Information shall include but not be limited to: Special Inspection Company, personnel performing special inspection, types of special inspections anticipated, reporting of inspection results and timing/coordination of special inspection with SAFEbuilt field inspection. 2003 IBC Sections 1704.1.1, 1704.1.2, 1704.3, 1704.3.1, 1704.3.3 & 1704.4. Comment is closed with SAFEbuilt Colorado Eagle Office ✓ P.O. Box 1618 ✓ 1286 Chambers Avenue, Unit 101 ✓ Eagle, Colorado 81631 Phone: (970)328-1790 ✓ Toll Free: (877) 428-6412 ✓ Fax: (970) 328-1791 ✓V:\Plan Review\Vail\4 Seasons\tov-b06- 0196. Rev31 IR10750corrections2ndround.doc the addition of note # 6 found on new sheet S9.01. All special inspections shall be completed prior to request for inspection by SAFEbuilt personnel. This note will be added as a red-line comment at time of final release of the structural repair package for construction. Please refer to the cover sheet for information and instructions for resubmitting plans. In order to avoid delays please check all requested information is included with the resubmitted plans. Plan Review Contact: Eric Pendley, Building Official/ ICC Plans Examiner eric.pendley(a)safebuilt.com SAFEbuilt Colorado Eagle Office ✓ P.O. Box 1618 ✓ 1286 Chambers Avenue, Unit 101 ✓ Eagle, Colorado 81631 Phone: (970)328-1790 ✓ Toll Free: (877) 428-6412 ✓ Fax: (970) 328-1791✓V:\Plan Review\Vail\4 Seasons\tov-b06- 0196.Rev31 IR10750corrections2ndround.doc HORNE ENGINEERING SOLUTIONS,LLC February 19, 2010 Eric Pendley, Building Official SAFEbuilt Colorado, Inc. 1286 Chambers Avenue, #101 Eagle, Colorado 81631 Office: (877) 462-1955 Cell: (970) 977-6270 RE: Four Seasons Hotel, Plan Review of structural slab fixes Vail, Colorado Dear Eric: I have completed my review of the responses to my comment letter dated February 10th. items 1 through 19. 1 have reviewed the submitted responses, calculations and drawing sheet S9.01 dated February 17th. Several of the engineer of record's responses indicate that the previously submitted drawings and calculations were preliminary, and that each slab to column joint is being X-rayed on site to determine what reinforcing has been placed, and that connections requiring structural repairs will follow in subsequent submittals after structural analysis of each connection. The revised submittal identifies two locations that require repairs that are known at this time, as shown on details 3 & 6/S9.01. have the following comments on the February 17th responses, revised calculations and drawings. Closed comments have been removed from the list, please refer to previous plan review letter and the EOR's response for more information. 12. Refer to previous comment #12: Standard hook for #5 bar requires a leg length of approximately 10" instead of 4" as shown. Shear friction calculations for horizontal shear appear to assume fully developed #5 bar area. IBC 1901.2; ACI 318 7.1, 12.5. 14. Refer to previous comment #14: Horizontal shear calculation is not provided for 3/S9.01. Please verify all connections will be reinforced to provide adequate shear flow for monolithic behavior. Shear friction coefficient ,u = 1.0 appears required instead of µ = 1.2 utilized. IBC 1901.2; ACI 318 11.7. New comments: 20. 3/S9.01: Plan S2.04.1 appears to show 12" slab at the area in question, while 8.5" slab thickness was used in the calculations. IBC 1901.2. Project: Four Seasons Hotel, Plan Review of structural fixes Vail, Colorado 1/2 12600 West 32nd Ave. Suite 400 Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 www.HESLLC.com 21. 3/S9.01: Please verify live load used for shear demand Vu, it appears 100psf live load is required in this area. IBC 1607. 22. 3/S9.01: Fix appears to be more of a concrete corbel on each side of the column than a drop panel. Please verify strength on each side of the column per provisions for corbels. IBC 1901.2; ACI 318 11.9. 23. 3/S9.01: Steel column shown in the detail does not appear to be shown on plan S2.04.1. Please verify effect of steel column on punching shear capacity has been considered, i.e. loading Level 3 floor slab below. IBC 1901.2; ACI 318 11.12. Please contact me with any questions. Sincerely, James P. Horne, PE, SE President & Principal Engineer Project: Four Seasons Hotel, Plan Review of structural fixes Vail, Colorado 12600 West 32nd Ave. Suite 400 Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 www.HESLLC.com 2/19/2010 2/2 Revision Submittals: 1. "Field Set" of approved plans MUST accompany revisions. 2. No further inspections will be performed until the revisions are approved & the permit is re-issued. 3. Fees for reviewing revisions are $55.00 per hour (2 hour minimum), and are due upon issuance. Permit #(s) information applies to: Attention: 0 Cy~ Project Street Address: (,rRevisions ( ) Response to Correction Letter -attached copy of correction letter O Deferred Submittal Other Description / List of Changes: (Number) (Street) (Suite #)GG-iJyN t; W [ S S (j L7~ tU f bL! Building/Complex Name: 42 LI! ~ QJV G _5r3?f 4:-MAfA for At" Contact Information: Company: b. /4c IZ1 FU, j-/1; ~ -7 7f%2 Company Address: jrJ ) -T, t City: State: Zip: y a Contact Name: \ 3t3c>F, / t 7p Contact Phone: (20) cr 3 -2 - /).,16 Gt E-Mail i(, r ;vt J n:~ t l h : , c-~f'i`~ i✓)i r G n; T) Z ( /fly U ,`3 ivi.E yi;g4( Revised ADDITIONAL Valuations (Labor & Materials) (DO NOT include original valuation) Building: Plumbing: Electrical: Mechanical: Total: (use additional sheet if necessary) Date Received: OFFICE COPY 01-Jan-10 TRANSMITTAL FORM &~Cwtb 4& ' SAFEbul It inc. COLORADO SAFEBUILT COLORADO PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS TO: Contractor Hyder Construction NUMBER OF PAGES: FROM: DATE: BUILDING PERMIT IR REVISION OWNERS NAME: SITE ADDRESS: OCCUPANCY GROUP: TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION: NUMBER OF STORIES: Architect Engineer Hill Glazier Architects Nishkian Menninger Eric Pendley 02/11/2010 B06-0196 10750 31 Black Diamonds Resorts-Vail LLC 1 Vail Road, Vail, Co. 81658 A2, A3, B, E, M, F1, S1, S2, R1 and R2 1 B, Sprinklered 10 The design documents submitted for this project have been reviewed for compliance with the locally adopted codes and amendments. The following comments must be addressed before revisions may be approved for issuance and construction. Design Documents referred to have been submitted for review to address structural elements to be repaired. These documents include the following: - Correspondence from Nishkian Menninger dated January 25, 2010 outlining the submittal - SKSS011410-1 dated 1/14/10 - Seven pages of structural calculations undated - Structural sheets labeled "Bulletin 126" dated 1/26110 containing sheets S1.0.1, S2.02.1 S2.02.2, S2.03.1, S2.03.2, S2.03.3, S2.04.1, S2.04.2, S2.04.3, S2.05.1, S2.05.2, S2.05.3, S2.06.1, S2.06.2, S2.06.3, S2.07.7, S2.07.2, S2.07.3, S2.08.1, S2.08.2, S2.09.1, S2.09.2, S2.10.1, S2.10.2, S5.02 For processing: Please submit (5) complete sets of revised construction documents containing the requested information or plan revisions with all revisions clouded or otherwise identified. Please respond in writing to each comment by marking the attached list or creatina a response letter. Indicate which plan sheet, detail, specification, or calculation shows the requested information. Please send revisions to the attention of the plans examiner with the building permit application number noted. Responses such as "will comply with code" are not adequate. Revised drawings must clearly show code compliance. SAFEbuilt Colorado Eagle Office ✓ P.O. Box 1618 ✓ 1286 Chambers Avenue, Unit 101 ✓ Eagle, Colorado 81631 Phone: (970)328-1790 ✓ Toll Free: (877) 428-6412 ✓ Fax: (970) 328-1791 ✓V:\Plan Review\Vail\4 Seasons\tov-b06- 0196.Rev31 fR10750corrections.doc A RESPONSE LETTER MUST BE INCLUDED WITH THE REVISED PLAN SUBMITTAL. Please be sure to include on the resubmittal the engineer's or architect's "wet" stamp, signature, registration number and date on the cover page of any structural calculations, all structural details and structural sheets of the plans. BUILDING DEPARTMENT COMMENTS: 1. Attached to this comment letter is a signed and sealed copy of the structural review performed by Horne Engineering Solutions LLC. Reference this document for comments regarding correction and response. This document is dated February 10, 2010. 2. In reference to the document above, it has been noted that the American Concrete Institute (ACI) publication 318-05 has been used for the design and the review of the revised structural package. The 2003 International Building Code (IBC) makes reference to the ACI 318-02 edition. This is discussed in the review letter from Horne Engineering Solutions LLC document within the second paragraph. Please provide clarification that the ACI 318-05 has been used for the original design and that using this referenced standard provides the same level of structural integrity the ACI 318-02 edition referred by the 2003 IBC. Approval from the AHJ (Town of Vail) is also required for the use of the more recent standard. 2003 IBC Section 102.4, 104.11 and Chapter 35. 3. Provide information regarding required special inspections that will be performed for the proposed structural repairs. Information shall include but not be limited to: Special Inspection Company, personnel performing special inspection, types of special inspections anticipated, reporting of inspection results and timing/coordination of special inspection with SAFEbuilt field inspection. 2003 IBC Sections 1704.1.1, 1704.1.2, 1704.3, 1704.3.1, 1704.3.3 & 1704.4. Please refer to the cover sheet for information and instructions for resubmitting plans. In order to avoid delays please check all requested information is included with the resubmitted plans. Plan Review Contact: Eric Pendley, Building Official/ ICC Plans Examiner eric.pendley(cDsafebuilt.com SAFEbuilt Colorado Eagle Office ✓ P.O. Box 1618 ✓ 1286 Chambers Avenue, Unit 101 ✓ Eagle, Colorado 81631 Phone: (970)328-1790 ✓ Toll Free: (877) 428-6412 ✓ Fax: (970) 328-1791 ✓V:\Plan Review\Vail\4 Seasons\tov-b06- 01 96.Rev3 1 IR 10750corrections. doc SAFEbui1ti,,,. COLORADO SAFEBUILT COLORADO PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS TO: Contractor Hyder Construction NUMBER OF PAGES: FROM: DATE: BUILDING PERMIT IR REVISION OWNERS NAME: SITE ADDRESS: OCCUPANCY GROUP: TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION: NUMBER OF STORIES: Architect Engineer Hill Glazier Architects Nishkian Menninger Eric Pendley 02/11/2010 B06-0196 10750 31 Black Diamonds Resorts-Vail LLC 1 Vail Road, Vail, Co. 81658 A2, A3, B, E, M, F1, S1, S2, R1 and R2 1 B, Sprinklered 10 The design documents submitted for this project have been reviewed for compliance with the locally adopted codes and amendments. The following comments must be addressed before revisions may be approved for issuance and construction. Design Documents referred to have been submitted for review to address structural elements to be repaired. These documents include the following: - Correspondence from Nishkian Menninger dated January 25, 2010 outlining the submittal - SKSS011410-1 dated 1/14/10 - Seven pages of structural calculations undated - Structural sheets labeled "Bulletin 126" dated 1/26/10 containing sheets S1.0.1, S2.02.1 S2.02.2, S2.03.1, S2.03.2, S2.03.3, S2.04.1, S2.04.2, S2.04.3, S2.05.1, S2.05.2, S2.05.3, S2.06.1, S2.06.2, S2.06.3, S2.07.7, S2.07.2, S2.07.3, S2.08.1, S2.08.2, S2.09.1, S2.09.2, S2.10.1, S2.10.2, S5.02 For processing: Please submit (5) complete sets of revised construction documents containing the requested information or plan revisions with all revisions clouded or otherwise identified. Please resaond in writina to each comment by marking the attached list or creatinq a response letter. Indicate which plan sheet, detail, specification, or calculation shows the reauested information. Please send revisions to the attention of the plans examiner with the building permit application number noted. Responses such as "will comply with code" are not adequate. Revised drawings must clearly show code compliance. SAFEbuilt Colorado Eagle Office ✓ P.O. Box 1618 ✓ 1286 Chambers Avenue, Unit 101 ✓ Eagle, Colorado 81631 Phone: (970)328-1790 ✓ Toll Free: (877) 428-6412 ✓ Fax: (970) 328-1791✓V:\Plan Review\Vail\4 Seasons\tov-b06- 0196. Rev31 IR 10750correcti ons. doc HORNE ' ENGINEERING SOLUTIONS,LIC February 10, 2010 Eric Pendley, Building Official SAFEbuilt Colorado, Inc. 1286 Chambers Avenue, #101 Eagle, Colorado 81631 Office: (877) 462-1955 Cell: (970) 977-6270 RE: Four Seasons Hotel, Plan Review of structural slab fixes Vail, Colorado Dear Eric: I have completed my review of slab to column connections as identified in structural plans, issued 1/26/10 as Bulletin #126. 1 have also reviewed the structural letter and calculations prepared by Levon Nishkian dated 1/25/2010. 1 understand that concrete slab to column connections on the project are under investigation for incorrectly installed shear rail reinforcing, missing shear rail reinforcing, or damaged shear rail reinforcing. Structural review comments are listed below. The governing code for this review is the 2003 International Building Code (IBC), which adopts by reference the 2002 American Concrete Institute (ACI) publication 318 for reinforced concrete design requirements. Please note that reinforced concrete code references in the comments below correspond to the 2005 ACI 318 publication as the ACI 318-05 was used by the engineer of record as a basis for the submitted calculations, in my opinion does not significantly differ from the ACI 318-02 publication as pertains to this review, and also reflects a more current standard of practice. 1. Please verify that the submitted drawings reflect all locations where shear rails are required to meet code punching shear strength requirements; 227 locations are shown on the drawings while the submitted letter indicates 235. IBC 1604.2; ACI 318 11.12. 2. Please verify all locations where slab punching shear demand to capacity ratio is over 1.0 neglecting shear rail reinforcing strength will be physically investigated to verify adequate shear rail reinforcing has been provided during construction. IBC 1604.2; ACI 318 11.12. 3. Submitted calculations show different demand to capacity ratios than on the drawings. For example p. 5 shows 1.93 and 1.69 for column BB-B4.3 at Level 7, Project: Four Seasons Hotel, Plan Review of structural fixes Vail, Colorado 1/3 12600 West 32nd Ave. Suite 400 Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 www.HESLLC.com while S2.07.3 shows 1.33. Please verify drawings reflect the correct design values. IBC 1604.2. 4. Calculations p. 1-2 assume 10" thick slabs, while slab near column BB-B4.3 at Level 7 is 8.5" thick per S2.07.3. Please verify proposed strengthening will be designed considering the existing slab depth. IBC 1901.2; ACI 318, 11.12. 5. Calculations p. 1-2 assume interior column locations only. Verify factors for perimeter and corner columns will be considered as appropriate. Verify slab openings adjacent to columns, shear rail reinforcing or retrofit drop panels will be considered as appropriate. IBC 1901.2; ACI 318, 11.12. 6. Punching shear force for column BB-B4.3 at Level 7 per calculations p. 1 & 2 is 334k, much larger than the slab tributary area which appears to be closer to 140k factored load. Note, 334k is larger than 6*sgrt(f'c) limit and therefore exceeds code limits for an 8.5" thick slab. IBC 1901.2; ACI 318, 11.12.3.2. 7. Calculations p. 5 show biaxial moment output, while column moment in one axis only has been considered in calculations p. 1-2. Verify moments in the weak column direction also have been considered. IBC 1901.2; ACI 318, 11.12.6. 8. SKS011410-1: It appears temporary slab shoring may be required during repairs. Concern is related to the effect of drilled holes on slab punching shear strength and column strength. IBC 3403.2. 9. SKS011410-1: Please verify drilled holes for dowels from below will not interfere or damage PT tendons in the slab. IBC 1901.2, 3403.2. 10. SKS011410-1: It appears the slab holes drilled from below for epoxy dowels may significantly weaken the net slab section, in particular at banded PT tendons. Please verify compression and tension stresses at remaining net section. IBC 3403.2; ACI 318, 18.4. 11. SKS011410-1: 1" of column cover will be removed. Verify existing reinforcing will not be damaged. Verify column strength is adequate during construction due to reduced area. Also, slab punching shear perimeter length 'bo' will be reduced due to smaller bearing area during construction. IBC 1901.2, 3403.2. 12. SKS011410-1: Slab #5 dowels are not shown to be standard hooks at bottom of bar. Verify adequate development is provided, much less than Ldh is available. IBC 1901.2; ACI 318, 12.5. 13. SKS011410-1: Verify adequate bond will be provided at new drop panel to create a monolithic structure as assumed in calculations p. 1-2. Additional criteria such as bonding agent, low water, consolidation, curing requirements, etc. appears required. IBC 1901.2; ACI 318, Ch. 5. Project: Four Seasons Hotel, Plan Review of structural fixes Vail, Colorado 2/3 12600 West 32nd Ave. Suite 400 Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 www.HESLLC.Com 14. SKS011410-1: Verify adequate horizontal shear capacity is provided for composite section at the construction joint between the existing slab and retrofit drop panel, i.e. VQ/I, typical where repairs are implemented. IBC 1901.2, 1604.4. 15. SKS011410-1: Verify adequate special inspection of repairs will be specified and provided. IBC 1704.4. 16. Calculations p. 1-2 do not appear to reflect the highest punching shear demand to capacity ratio; values of over 2.0 are shown on the drawings and in the calculations. IBC 1604.2, ACI 318-05 11.12. 17.S2.03.2: Please verify if additional dead load from topping slab has been included in calculations for columns supporting ball room floor. Calculations have not been provided for the ballroom slab. IBC 1604.2, 1606.1. 18. S2.03.2: Please explain why ballroom punching shear demand is 1.95 at 14-A8.2 and much smaller at adjacent columns with similar floor area supported. IBC 1604.4, ACI 318-05 11.12. 19. Verify final slab analysis uses concrete strength f'c equal to minimum specified f'c on the drawings, or per the submitted mix strengths delivered to the jobsite. If construction testing data is used, consider reduced average strength based on standard deviation and other factors per ACI. IBC 1901.2; ACI 318, 5.3. Please contact me with any questions. Sincerely, James P. Horne, PE, SE President & Principal Engineer Project: Four Seasons Hotel, Plan Review of structural fixes Vail, Colorado 12600 West 32nd Ave. Suite 400 Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 www.HESLLC.com 2/10/2010 3/3 J, NM Job No. 7083 March 5, 2010 Building Permit No: B06-0196 REVIEW OF STRUCTURAL SLAB FIXES FOUR SEASONS HOTEL Vail, Colorado Portion of punching shear going into the column is proportioned by the column perimeter for each direction (i.e. x-dir and y-dir). However, the minimum punching shear used for horizontal shear check in each direction will be %2 of the total punching shear. REVIEWED BY MAR 17 2010 SAFEBA C*TWD #12: a) Regarding development of #5 dowels, I calculate 9.7" for Ldh on #5 bar, per below. Please verify 7". J20 (0 - 61 ? ('C2 OTFICE COPY PLAN CHECK RESPONSE We are using 5" as our Ldh, and reducing the capacity based on the required Ldh value. b) ACI 318, 12.5.1 specifies 8*db and 6" as minimum Ldh, so it appears 6" minimum is required. 8*db= 5" which should be the minimum Ldh. c) Also, I believe there is an error in "Qxx" on p. 12, my understanding is that the final term (6"/2) should be the distance between center of area of the drop panel to centroid of the gross section, 4.25' instead of 3", please review. Centroid of the gross section 4.25" is used to calculate Qxx. See revised calculations. d) Something to consider is that it appears you are taking the full punching shear value for Vu horizontal shear check, while shear is coming from three sides of the column. #21: a) 100psf live load appears required at corbel fix, detail 3/S9.01, however it appears revisions reflect 100psf live load only at detail 6/S9.01, please verify. The column at level 4, grid 4/A9.9 south of the elevator is a regular unit with 40 psf reducible live load. A small portion is a corridor where we are using 100psf. Please see sheet A2.04.1 b) Similar issue to #5 hook length discussed previously, 6" hook bar tail length is less than 12*db for #6 bars, ref. ACI 318, 7.1. Please see the revised detail 3 on 59.01 which shows the #6 hook as 12" REVIEWED BY MAR 11 1010 SARA Colorado N0. 7~~ JOB V'4 IL NISHKIAN EN!'r INGER CONSULTING AND STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS 1200 Folsom Street, San Francisco, CA 94103 Tel: (415) 541-9477 Fax: (415) 543-5071 SHEET NO. OF CALCULATED BY 7W w DATE r / CHECKED BY DATE SCALE of _ ~ - 227~ ~:.v:~iN (rv/LL AE IS~' SF7, ' :-;>N cOGV~hJ 7'~-Ril-i 5"7~F/`e, . t/ SUNG/ /,vim / N f , : tee'- x t~ ,U~' ! j I fj rJ FUZ-L PL1 Jul ":-H rt/ `PREVIEWED BY xx = G-3 x I x MAR i /rj10 12.r SAFEBuilt Colorado VQ _ 4_ "zf-~ y' G01,7( i ms s. I 7 [~1,2- 4- /4// ✓ NISHKIAN MEIE CONSULTING AND STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS 1200 Folsom Street, San Francisco, CA 94103 Tel: (415) 541-9477 Fax: (415) 543-5071 JOB sF~i ;r✓~ L NO. SHEET NO. OF CALCULATED BY DATE CHECKED BY DATE r Ir-~GZ-Gw /'H~E Z MM Y z vl~EEC IO" REVIEWED BY MAR i -r /fl(iO SAFEBailt Colorado check horizontal shear A2/AA @ L5 Vu = 104.5 k M ux = 143.265 k-ft Muy = 11.232 k-ft panel size Lx = 8 panel dimension in x Ly = 4.33 panel dimension in y x-d i r: Vux = 59.7113 k Vxx 1.40 k Qxx 1545.81 in3 Ixx 16124 in' qxx 5.86 k/in As #5 @ 6 in dowels 0.31 in` bar area Vu 35.15 for 6 in strip # of bars 7 Emb min 6.8 in minimum embedment for bars emb prov 5 embedment provided for bars, max value = 6.8 µ 1.0 ~Vn 71.8 k OK Vn = Af fy µ Eq.11-25 AC1318-02 y-d i r Vuy = 52.25 Vyy 33.09 k Qyy 2856 in3 lyy 29791 in' qyy 8.18 k/in Vu 49.1 for 6 in strip # of bars 15 ~Vn 153.9 k OK Vn = A„f fy µ F- Eq.11-25 AC1318-02 REVIEWED By MAN i r M10 SAFEBuih Colorado "Wn of Vail rx - att WOPY ,26(0 - or 9(, &0 31 TZ1075rD PLAN CHECK RESPONS REVIEW OF STRUCTUR) SLAB FIXES FOUR SEASONS HOTEL Vail, Colorado NM Job No. 7083 February 24, 2010 Building Permit No: B06-0196 12. Refer to previous comment #12: Standard hook for #5 bar requires a leg length of approximately 10" instead of 4" as shown. Shear friction calculations for horizontal shear appear to assume fully developed #5 bar area. IBC 1901.2; ACI 318 7.1, 12.5. In calculating shear flow, #5 bars are not designed to be fully developed (71 % is used due to 5" vs 7" Ldh per talc. page R7: 5/7=0.71) Proposed to use 8" hook. 14. Refer to previous comment 414: Horizontal shear calculation is not provided for 3/S9.01. ' Please verify all connections will be reinforced to provide adequate shear flow for monolithic behavior. Shear friction coefficient µ = 1.0 appears required instead of [t = 1.2 utilized. IBC 1901.2; ACI 318 11.7. For detail 3/S9.01, level 4 -41A9.9, the design concept is to add a column corbel (20"X 66" total) to enlarge the bearing area for support which does not rely on shear flow for composite action. Please also consider the as-built condition, wherein the dead load is already transferred to the column through slab therefore the added corbel will be designed take the added design live load in addition to a portion of the dead load. However, the talc. use full D+L load for checking. REVIEWED BY New Comments: p~ E C 9 0W f1 MAR 0 1 2010 OF VAIL 50tv-o►1 b NISI 27](MAR 17 2010 5'A ti0 Coln( O 20. 3/S9.01: Plan S2.04.1 appears to show 12" slab at the area in question, while 8.5" slab thickness was used in the calculations. IBC 1901.2. The drawing does call out a 8.5" thick slab that has also been confirmed in the field 21. 3/S9.01: Please verify live load used for shear demand Vu, it appears 100 psf live load is required in this area. IBC 1607. Detail 61S9.01 level S 111A2, calculation has been revised with a Vu using 100psf live load ' 22. 3/S9.01: Fix appears to be more of a concrete corbel on each side of the column than a drop panel. Please verify strength on each side of the column per provisions for corbels. IBC 1901.2. ACI 318 11.9. We have provided a calc. for corbel design check. 23'. 3/S9.01: Steel column shown in the detail does not appear to be shown on plan S2.04.1. Please verify effect of steel column on punching shear capacity has been considered. i.e. loading Level 3 floor slab below. IBC 1901.2: ACI 318 11.12. The steel post is only in place as the elevator guide rail support which does not take any gravit}, load It is only shown on the detail as a construction reference. REVIEWED BY MAR 1.! ewo SAFEBuilt Colorado SEE DETAL 1 FOR TYP. NOTES 1024 (D PLAN 3'-0' Vu-- 104.5 K Liu.= 143.3 K-ft Nuy= 11.2 K-ft 0 0 0 0 0 o o 0 0 0 0 0' l 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0~ 1 0 0 0 0 0 o o 0 0 0 0 0 o I M RAL CSOUTH SVE ONLY) S' l 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ o o ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 l I I I c o 0 0 0 0 l o f o o p 0 0 0 0 0' a%' Tw l 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 l I c o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o o f `ADDED 6' TW DROP CAP BELOW 6 ADDED DROP CAP AT LEVEL 5 ~GR® (2) #4 TIES f] (ADD /5 EPOXY DOWELS (3/4' HOLE) - S' O.C. EACH WAY LEVEL (SEE PLAN DET 1 ar~ MAX T SLAB FROM LOWER SCFRT *OE SOFFrr STEPS o = - - - NEW CAP #5 012' TYP. Noac TYP. J .T. Cal1MN B' ROIJM BOTTOM OF SLAB (1/4' MP(T(DD (3) V AND COAT WITH BONDING AGENT CONT. THRU CO(l*M EACH WAY SH PLAN DETJ. SEE P DETAL (WITH Ell= (1' HOLE) t -"Dow C BOat~ 1A HT AROUND AND REVIEWS'. COAT MAR 5 IO NOT DAMAGE ANY COLUMN RENFORCNG 17 f NEW CONCRETE COLUMN CAP REINFORCEMENT MEN TO RAID SLAB BELOW f- Punching Shear Check A2/AA @ L5 @ d/2 from column edge h1= 6 in panel thickness h2 = 8.5 in slab thickness d1= 13 in effective depth Vu = -104.5 k Mux = -143.265 k-ft -1719 k-in Muy = 11.232 k-ft 135 k-in c1= 24 column dimension parallel to x c2= 16 column dimension parallel to y x = 37 in y = 22.5 in bo 82 in f'c = 5000 psi concrete strength -wx 0.342 yvy 0.461 IIEVIEWEG BY MAR 11 ?WO SAFEBuilt Colorado Item Side 1 Side 2 Side 3 x2 -18.5 0 18.5 Y2 3.25 14.5 3.25 L 22.5 37 22.5 d 13 13 13 Ld 292.50 481.00 292.50 1066.00 Ldx2 -5411.25 0.00 5411.25 0.00 Ldy2 950.63 6974.50 950.63 8875.75 X3 Y3 0.00 8.33 x2-x3 -18.50 0.00 18.50 Y2-y3 -5.08 6.17 -5.08 Ld3/12 4119 6774 4119 dL3/12 12340 54874 12340 Parallel to y X Y Ixx X 7537 18334 7537 Ixx Y 23996 79982 23996 lyy X 116567 61648 116567 lyy Y 100108 0 100108 Ixx 23996 18334 23996 66326 lyy 100108 61648 100108 261864 Ixy 27469 0 -27469 0 Point A Point B Point C Point D x4 = -18.5 18.5 185 -18.5 Y4 = 145 14.5 -14.5 -14.5 Vu/bod -0.098 -0.098 -0.098 -0.098 Mux-Vuy3 -849.1 -849.1 -849.1 -849.1 lyy(y4-y3)-Ixy( 1.6167E+06 1.6167E+06 -5.9774E+06 -5.9774E+06 Ixxlyy-lxy2 1.7368E+10 1.7368E+10 1.7368E+10 1.7368E+10 Muy+Vux3 134.784 134.784 134.784 134.784 Ixx(x4-x3)-Ixy( -1.2270E+06 1.2270E+06 1.2270E+06 -1.2270E+06 V, -0.121 -0.129 -0.002 0.006 v, max 0.129 ~V, 0.424 Vc = (2+4/(3c) ~fc bod Eq. 11-33 AC1318-02 0.358 Vc = (30d/bo+2) dfc bod Eq. 11-34 AC1318-02 0.212 Vc = 4Vfc bod E- Eq. 11-35 AC1318-02 0.212 ksi OK i IEWF' MAR 17 i l"O SAFEBailt Goiorado Punching Shear Check h2 = d2 = A2/AA @ L5 @ d/2 from panel edge 8.5 in 7 in Vu = -104.5 k Mux = -143.265 k-ft Muy = 11.232 k-ft cl = 24 c2 = 16 X = 103 i n y = 55-5 in bo 214 in f c = 5000 psi yvx 0.329 1 0.476 VVY -1719 k-in 135 k-in REVIEWED BY MAR 17 '1410 SAFEB61t Cotorado Item Side 1 Side 2 Side 3 X2 -51.5 0 51.5 Y2 19.75 47.5 19.75 L 55.5 103 55.5 d 7 7 7 Ld 388.50 721.00 388.50 1498.00 LdX2 -20007.75 0.00 20007.75 0.00 Ldy2 7672.88 34247.50 7672.88 49593.25 X3 Y3 0.00 33.11 X2-X3 -51.50 0.00 51.50 Y2-Y3 -13.36 14.39 -13.36 Ld3/12 1586 2944 1586 dL3/12 99723 637424 99723 Parallel to y X Y Ixx X 69305 149376 69305 Ixx Y 170614 789744 170614 lyy X 1131709 640368 1131709 lyy Y 1030399 0 1030399 Ixx 170614 149376 170614 490604 lyy 1030399 640368 1030399 2701166 Ixy 267230 0 -267230 0 Point A Point B Point C Point D X4 = -51.5 51.5 51.5 -51.5 Y4 = 47.5 47.5 -8 -8 Vu/bod -0.070 -0.070 -0.070 -0.070 M uX-VuY3 1740.4 1740.4 1740.4 1740.4 IYY(Y4-Y3)-IXY( 3.8880E+07 3.8880E+07 -1.1103E+08 -1.1103E+08 IXXlyy-IXY2 1.3252E+12 1.3252E+12 1.3252E+12 1.3252E+12 M uY+V uX3 134.784 134.784 134.784 134.784 IxX(X4-X3)-Ixy( -2.5266E+07 2.5266E+07 2.5266E+07 -2.5266E+07 V, -0.052 -0.054 -0.119 -0.116 v„ max 0.119 V,: 0.424 Vc = (2+4/(3c) ~f'c bpd Eq. 11-33 AC1318-02 0.158 Vc = (30d/b,, +2) Vf'c bpd Eq. 11-34 AC1318-02 0.212 Vc = 4Vf c bod F Eq. 11-35 AC1318-02 0.158 ksi OK -jEVjFvvED BY MAR 17 2010 SAFEW c as check horizontal shear A2/AA @ L5 Vu = 104.5 k Mux = 143.265 k-ft Muy = 11.232 k-ft panel size Lx = Ly = x-d i r: Vxx 1.40 k Qxx 935.28 in3 Ixx 13201 in4 qxx 7.50 k/in As #5 @ 6 Vu # of bars Emb min emb prov µ #n y-d i r Vyy QYy lyy qyy Vu # of bars #n 0.31 in2 45.02 7 7 in 5 1.0 69.8 k 33.09 k-ft 1728 in3 24389 in4 9.75 k/in 58.5 15 149.5 k 8 panel dimension in x 4.33 panel dimension in y in dowels bar area for 6 in strip minimum embedment for bars embedment provided for bars, max value = 7 OK Vn = Af fy µ F- Eq.11-25 AC1318-02 for 6 in strip OK Vn = Af fy µ E-- Eq.11-25 AC1318-02 REVIEWED BY MAR 17 2010 SAFEBuilt Colorado NISHKIAN MENNINGER CONSULTING AND STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS 1200 Folsom Street, San Francisco, CA 94103 Tel: (415) 541-9477 Fax: (415) 543-5071 JOB A i y~ SHEET NO. OF CALCULATED BY I y°' DATE CHECKED BY DATE ~Y 1 y I 2 22,~) THE (~C~~~►t~~ THE X0757 r-- o 4~7D r~ . ` ; r* J 4f, I SNFtT- , H-y MAk 1 d to 10 SAFEBuilt Colorado NISHKIAN~ CONSULTING AND 5TRUCTURAL ENGINEERS 1200 Folsom Street, San Francisco, CA 94103 Tel: (415) 541-9477 Fax: (415) 543-5071 DA Item Side 1 Side 2 Side 3 c x2 -18.5 0 18.5 Y2 3.25 14.5 3.25 L 22.5 37 22.5 d 13 13 13 Ld 292.50 481.00 292.50 1066.00 Ldx2 -5411.25 0.00 5411.25 0.00 LdY2 950.63 6974.50 950.63 8875.75 Led, ~D x2-x3 -18.50 0.00 18.50 Y2-Y3 -5.08 6.17 -5.08 Ld3/12 4119 6774 4119 dL3/12 12340 54874 12340 Parallel to ; Y X Y Ixx X 7537 18334 7537 Ixx Y 23996 79982 23996 lyy X 116567 61648 116567 lyy Y 100108 0 100108 Ixx 23996 18334 23996 66326 lyy 100108 61648 100108 261864 Ixy 27469 0 -27469 0 In- = Ld(y2 - y3)2 , for side of critical section parallel to X-axis Ld dL3 I_xx = 12 12 Ld(v2 - v3)', for side of critical section parallel to Y-axis Ld~ 12 dL' cRIrY = 17 _ 2 - Ld(xz - x3)- for side seeton allel to X-axis LT = Ld (x2 - x3) 2 , for side of critical section parallel to '1--axis L = Ld (x2 - x3)(y2 - y3), for side of critical section parallel to X-axis or Y-axis JOB /L 512-. SHEET NO. ' OF !j y CALCULATED BY DATE CHECKED BY NISHKIAN EIS CONSUL71NG AND STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS 1200 Folsom Street, San Francisco, CA 94103 Tel: (415) 541-9477 Fax: (415) 543-5071 JOB NOyI~ ~ ^z SHEET NO. ^ , OF I ! CALCULATED BY -7 V DATE ~/2 D CHECKED BY _ DATE kQI/A T-irJ~-rv F G.4,f~:e :1 /v!~ ~U ✓G~a' l Af,G NEA VL Ytix[AfLx - VL-(Y3 - Y'I)] [11-Y(y'4 - Y3) - IkT(x4 - x')] VL'=-+ - bod LdiT - Ik-1 'V ~T[MLT + VU(X3 - x1)] [IXT(x4 - x3) - IkY(y'4 - Y3)] R-dI -y - IkY' n _ Ike _ Ixx, where sides refers to the sides of the critical section for punching shear sides = I n _ IrT = I IrT , where sides refers to the sides of the critical section for punching shear sides =1 n LIT = Ixy , where sides refers to the sides of the critical section for punching shear sides =1 Ile) REVIEWED BY MAR 17 2010 SAFEBuilt Colorado NISHKIAN 9 CONSULTING AND STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS 1200 Folsom Street, San Francisco, CA 94103 Tel: (415) 541-9477 Fax: (415) 543-5071 JOB NO. 7033 SHEET NO. OF P~ CALCULATED BY I "v DATE CHECKED DA 1-Z ~I 0 E ~N 1 ~i M x ON 1 I V V 4 i 0 o 0I u O rtr% E ti i Niz- I~ Lq tF N CY) 4- szS d- 16BAR 117 201 ~ //s~pa ~IJ I II t7'el `-U'gtf rf~tf ` a~ dQ V O O ie 0 0 Ii NISHKIAN MENNINGER CONSULTING AND STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS 1200 Folsom Street, San Francisco, CA 94103 Tel: (415) 541-9477 Fax: (415) 543-5071 S JOB NO. 7 SHEET NO. OF 1 CALCULATED BY 7-LA/ DATE CHECKED BY DATE 1 1 1 1 1 1 I V V, V q V CIA r Ql) 1 ~ t~ O 4- 0 D W V `V 4 0 o ~c N ~ I! ~ v v ~ V •V `i1R V M o ~ cz~ 11 Q o p X } s x D REVIEWED MAR 17 2010 SAFEBuilt Colorado Q 0 i~ ~e- f \1 1[t` 4 //Z s v L _ JOB NO NISHKIAN MEMM~ E CONSULTING AND STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS 1200 Folsom Street, San Francisco, CA 94103 Tel: (415) 541-9477 Fax: (415) 543-5071 SHEET NO. OF CALCULATED BY DATE CHECKED BY DATE Vii = < Mk)( = 3, 6d5 ' M441= l 1, 2 2 tt I PAN f- z F = L X - Z-y = 43-~' Vxx. _ 11,232 ~,4K Gx 1, v t A~x I ~3 .Zxx - ¢3-236 x/2x l~ /32x1 i~ z iz Ixy I 13201 7 5 V'~ 5~i1 X REVIEWED B~ KAR 17 2010 IA I uclt Coloradc 7 -7 4' Y Y I if7 Lc~ Y Ln v N n ~ II II I I T a a 3 N o Q v' a O a ~ ~ c? J w W ~ 3: Ln O O O U7 O d 3 = z O c } J m O O W w ¢ a F w vi m ~o _ a J o f f 3 w~ w o ° w 4/tZ o cc a> x 0 3 0 oQ 0 x a N° C - J o N ~ C Coo n L I qJ fi - U I rl rl w r ~ ~ C- Lij - -J w J lcl~ J v / o W .OZ u) x o J 8B w Q J > < w a. J O n LJ _ H L1 HHl .Z/18 U n O z N Q O 0 w t-= z n U a w w a r w 0 w w cn NISHKIAN ENNINGE CONSULTING AND STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS s 1200 Folsom Street, San Francisco, CA 94103 Tel: (415) 541-9477 Fax: (415) 543-5071 JOB ¢ f"\:~ i V NO. 70t3-> `SHEET NO. OF / i CALCULATED BY y~ DATE V l CHECKED BY DATE )2. _L :3v -IN 2+ y Vv UM, J h r Vv + VM 12 TDWED BY MAR 17 2010 SAFEBuilt Colorado JOB NC - NISHKIAN MENNINGER CONSULTING AND STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS 1200 Folsom Street, San Francisco, CA 94103 ' Tel: (415) 541-9477 Fax: (415) 543-5071 x 2-a fi (2-0--- cA-L-"f~ 1 ~ 1 V~ ~D , 4- -~,z 7k~ ,e,, 1' -71, tic/ SHEET NO. OF / i CALCULATED BY r /j DATE ✓ s 7,`,i CHECKED BY DATE 4,::- &IT , 57~ c)4 1~~a f I a= d &~e Z,-" x-Z~ I 14I ` FiEVIEWE pox fj;l M c4 MAR 17 7 SAFEBuilt Coluc,Ao NISHKIAN ENNINGER CONSULTING AND STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS 1200 Folsom Street, San Francisco, CA 94103 Tel: (415) 541-9477 Fax: (415) 543-5071 JOB L y' eE sly ✓'S NO. 1-1 SHEET NO. OF ~Q CALCULATED BY 1 DATE (.f CHECKED BY _ DATE ✓A 1 ='7 ~x 4~O x D, 4 's- '7/, + 0 1- . tD p- t. G j 0 -REVIEWED. BY 6-73 ~~~Fp _ Strong-Tie ANCHOR SYSTEMS Tension Load Based on Bond Strength Tension Load Based Rebar Drill Embed. Critical Critical on Steel Strength Size Bit Depth Edge Spacing Yc 2000 psi (13.8 MPa) Pc 4000 psi (27.6 MPa) ASTM A615 No. pia. in. Dist. Dist. Concrete Concrete Grade 60 Rebar (mm) in. (mm) in. (mm) in. (mm) Ultimate Std. Dev. Allow. Ultimate Std. Dev. Allow. Allowable lbs. (M) lbs. (kN) Ibs. (M) lbs. (M) lbs. (W) lbs. (kN) Ills. (kN) 4114 63/8 17 16,480 i 245 4,120. 18,320 560 4,580 #4 5/8 (108 (162) 432 73.3 ' 11(18.3) (81.5 (2.5) (20.4) 4,800 (12.7) 6 9 24 19,360 678 4,840 19,360 4,840 (21.4) (152 229) 610 86.1) (3.0 21.5 86.1 !21.5 5 71/2 20 24,600 2,598 6,150 26,040 1,740 6,510 #5 314 122 191 508 109.4 11.6 27.4 115.8 7.7 129.0) 7,440 (15.9) 9318 14 1/8 37 1/2 48,380 2,841 12,095 48,380 12,095 (33.1) 238 359 953 215.2 12.6 (53.8 21.5.2 (53.8 63/4 8 27 38,380 4,044 9,595 40,500 1 1,533 10,125 #6 7/8 257 0,560 1191) 11 1T9_ "9T773- _ 40 =,UZU 3,152 15 255 65,020 16,255 C(47.0) 286 429) 1,143 289.2) 1 114.0 72.3 1289.2 72.3 #7 1 1,3,. 197 (295 (787 212.4 1~'Luu 1 5.6 FF54U 53.1 41,113U 212.4 53.1 14,400 (22.2) 131/8 195/8 521/2 81,560 3,575 20,390 81,560 20,390 (64.1) 333 498 (1.334 362.8 15.9 90.7 .362.8 (90.7 9 13 1/2 36 53,680 13,420 j 53,680 13,420 #8 11/8 229 (343 914 238.8 59.7) 238.6) (59.7 18,960 (25.4) 15 22 1/2 60 94,240 7,520 23,560 I 94,240 23,560 ' (84.3) (381 (572 1.524 (419.2) (33.5) 104.8) 419.2 (104.8 1 101/8 151/4 401/2 53,680 7,977 13,420 53,680 13,420 #9 11/4 257 387 1,029 (238-8) 1 35.5 59.7 238.8 59.7 24.000 (28.6) 16 7/8 25 3/8 67 1/2 111,460 5,753 27,865 111,460 27,865 (106.8) 429 645 (1,715 (495.8) 1 (25.6 1219 495.8 (123.9 11 1/4 16 7/8 45 76,000 1,408 19,000 76,000 19,000 1R (286 429 1,143) 338.1) 6.3) (84.5) (338.1) 1 (84.5 30,480 18 3/4 28 75 125,840 i 9,551 31,460 125,840 l 31,460 (135.6) 1 (476 7111 1,905 (559.8) I (42.5) (139.91 1 i (559.8) 39.9) J 12 3/8 18 5/8 49 1/2 87,500 1 3,498 21,875 87,500 1 21,875 314) (473) 1 1,257 389.2 (15.6 97.3 389.2) 1 (97.3 37,440 9) 20 5/8 28 82 1/2 132 080 11 297 33 020 1 132 0801 1 33 020 (166 5) 524 711 2,096 , -(587.5) 1 , 50.3 , 146.9) I , (587.5 1 , . I 146.9 Shear Loads for Rebar Dowels in Normal-Weight Concrete Shear Load Based on Shear Load Based Concrete Edge Distance on Steel Strength Rebar Drill Embed. Critical Critical Size Bit Depth : Edge Spacing ft 2000 psi (13.8 MPa) ASTM A615 No. Dia. in. Dist. Dist. Concrete Grade 60 Behar (mm) in. (mm) in. in. Ultimate Std Dev I Allow Allowable (mm) (mm) lbs. (M) . . Ibs. (M) . Ibs. (kN) lbs. (M) 41/4 15,156 542 j 3,790 #4 5/8 108 63/8 63/8 1 (67.4 (2.4 16.9) 3,060 (12.7) 6 (162) (162) 15,156 3,790 (13.6) 152 (67.4 16.9) 5 24,245 1,121 6,060 #5 3/4 127 71/2 7112 107.8 5.0 27.0 4,740 (15.9) 93/ 8 (191) (191) 24,245 6,060 (21.1) -JI07.8) 1. All 63 /4 4 8,300 the 6.9 6,730 di ( 1 1 (257) (257) 33,19 5 1 (29.9) s 2 Th 7 36.9 . ed 73/4 47,017 2,227 1 11,755 1 fac #7 1 197 11 5/8 11 5/8 209.1 9.9 (52.3 9,180 All 3 (22.2) 1 8 (295) (295) 7,0 7 5 1 (40.8) . 5 F 333 1 1 52 3 wit 9 58,880 14,720 I by #8 11/8 (229) 131/2 131/2 261.9) (65.5) 12,085 4 Re' (25.4) 15 (343) (343) 58,880 14,720 (53.8) . fac 381 (261.9) (65 5) on 10 1/8 58,880 1,487 , 14,720 5. Re' #9 11/4 257 151/4 151/4 261.9 I 6.6 I 65.5 15,300 Set (28.6) 16 7/8 (387) (387) 58,880 I 14,720 (68.1) adj 429 261.9 I (65.5 6 An 1 111/4 65,840 7,120 1 16,460 . wit #10 1 1/2 (286 16 7/8 16 7/8 (292.9) (31.7) I (712) 19,430 prc (31.8) 18 3/4 (429) (429) 65,840 I 16,460 1 (86.4) set: 476 (292.9) i (732 fire 12 3/8 1 81,400 1 9,596 ! 20,350 car #11 1 5/8 314 18 5/8 18 5/8 (362.1) (42.7) (90.5) 23,870 re s (34.9) 20 5/8 (473) (473) 81,400 j I 20,350 (106.2) cor 524 I (362.1 ! (90.5) ' 41 *See page 5 for an explanation of the load table icons 1. Allowable load must be the lesser of the bond or steel strength. 2. The allowable loads listed under allowable bond are based on a safety factor of 4.0. 3. Allowable loads may be increased by 331A percent for short-term loading due to wind or seismic forces. 4. Refer to allowable load adjustment factors for spacing and edge distance T on pages 47 & 49. y 5. Refer to In-Service Temperature T Sensitivity chart for allowable load adjustment for temperature. 6. Anchors are permitted to be used ti within fire-resistive construction, provided the anchors resist wind or seismic loads only. For use in fire-resistive construction, the anchors can also be permitted to be used to resist gravity loads, provided special consideration has been given to fire exposure conditions. 7. Anchors are not permitted to resist tension forces in overhead or wall installations unless proper consideration is given to fire-exposure and elevated temperature conditions. 8. Allowable load based on bond strength may be interpolated for concrete compressive strengths between 2000 psi and 4000 psi. REVIEWED BY MAR 1 i /110 ~ /,]1y qj'',y~ 7y S wable load must be the lesser of load based on concrete edge ance or steel strength. allowable loads based on concrete e distance are based on a safety :or of 4.0. wable loads may be increased by ercent for short-term loading due to d or seismic forces where permitted ,ode. or to allowable load adjustment ors for spacing and edge distance cages 48 & 50. or to In-Service Temperature sitivity chart for allowable load istment for temperature. hors are permitted to be used tin fire-resistive construction, aided the anchors resist wind or mic loads only. For use in resistive construction, the anchors also be permitted to be used to st gravity loads, provided special sideration has been given to fire )sure conditions. 43 Tension Loads for Rebar Dowels in Normal-Weight Concrete N(p-0 lq(P SUPPLEMENTARY CALCULATIONS Town M Vail OFFICE., COPY FOUR SEASONS HOTELS and RESORT Vail, Colorado for HILL GLAZIER ARCHITECTS 925 Alma Street Palo Alto, CA 94301 by NISHKIAN MENNINGER 1200 Folsom Street San Francisco, CA 94103 NM Job No. 7083 Februarv 17. 2010 REVIEWED BY MAR 17 2010 wF'puilt c0ovadr, S FEB 18 2010 TOWN OF VAIL 1 1 ~ 1 1 i PLAN CHECK RESPONSE FOUR SEASONS HOTEL Vail, Colorado NM Job No. 7083 February 17, 2010 REVIEWED BY MAR 17 zU1U SAFEBailt Colorado Structural Drawings: 1 1. Please verify that the submitted drawings reflect all locations where shear rails are required to meet code punching shear strength requirements: 227 locations are shown on the drawings while the submitted letter indicates 235. IBC 1604.2: ACI 318 11.12. Original submitted drawings represent preliminary results of an ongoing investigation. Final drawings showing investigation results will be submitted ' showing accurate punching shear demand/capacity ratios will be submitted. New Sheet S9.01 is submitted with 2 column repairs shown with calculations. 2. Please verity all locations where slab punching shear demand to capacity ratio is over 1.0 neglecting shear rail reinforcing strength will be physically investigated to verify adequate shear rail reinforcing has been provided during construction. IBC 1604.2: ACI 318 11.12. Original submitted drawings represent preliminary results of an ongoing investigation. Final drawings showing investigation results will be submitted showing accurate punching shear demand/capacity ratios will be submitted. New Sheet 59.01 is submitted with 2 column repairs shown with calculations. 3. Submitted calculations show different demand to capacity ratios than on the drawings. For example p. 5 shows 1.93 and 1.69 for column 1313-B4.3 at Level 7. while S2.07.3 shows 1.33. Please verify drawings reflect the correct design values. IBC 1604.2. ' Original submitted drawings represent preliminary results of an ongoing investigation. Final drawings showing investigation results will be submitted showing accurate punching shear demand/capacity ratios will be submitted. 1 New Sheet 59.01 is submitted with 2 column repairs shown with calculations. ' NISHKIAN MENNINGER CONSULTING AND STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS SINCE 1919 1 1 Plan Check Response Four Seasons Hotel. Vail. CO Februarv 17, 2010 N:le` iT 7 2010 4. Calculations p.1-2 assume 10" thick slabs, while slab near column BB-B4.3,* ~P,,ve1, 7,is 8.5" thick per 52.07.3. Please verify proposed strengthening will be designed considering the existing slab depth. IBC 1901.2: ACI 318. 11.12. t Calculations were submitted for a typical column reinforcing fix. For each specific 1 situation, reinforcing, drop cap panels, and factors for perimeter and corner columns will be considered as appropriate. 1 5. Calculations p. 1-2 assume interior column locations only. Verify factors for perimeter and corner columns will be considered as appropriate. Verify slab openings adjacent to columns. shear rail reinforcing or retrofit drop panels will be considered as appropriate. 1 IBC 1902.1: ACI 318. 11.12. Calculations were submitted for a typical column reinforcing fix. For each specific situation, reinforcing, drop cap panels, and factors for perimeter and corner i~ columns will be considered as appropriate. Punching shear force for column Bb-B4.3 at Level 7 per calculations p. 1 &2 is 334k. much larger than the slab tributary area which appears to be closer to 140k factored load. Note. 334k is larger that 6*sqrt(fc) limit and therefore exceeds code limits for an 8.5" thick slab. IBC 1901.2: ACI 318. 11.12.3.2. The particular location level 4 1313-134.3 submitted for sample repair is inappropriate. The loading and slab thickness used in the calc. was from an older version prior to the design revision. The slab is 8-1/2", correct live load is reducible 40psf without snow load. Calculations p. 5 show biaxial moment output, while column moment in one axis only has been considered in calculations p. 1-2./ Verify moments in the weak column direction also have been considered. IBC 1901.2: ACI 318. 11.12.6. See attached calculations. SKS01 1410-1: it appears temporary slab shoring may be required during repairs. Concern is related to the effect of drilled holes on slab punching shear strength and column strength. IBC 3403.2. Use full size sheet 59.01 detail 1 to show typical added drop cap detail. Temporary shoring notes added. 2 .W Plan Check Response P'VIEWED BY Four Seasons Hotel. Vail. CO ' February 17. 2010 4AR 1 2O1O 9. SKS011410-1: Please verify- drilled holes for dowels from below will not interfere or damage PT tendons in the slab. IBC 1901.2. 3403.2. ' Notes added to detail. Please note that the slab has been scanned to locate all re-bar, stud rails and post-tensioned tendons around the column. 10. SKS011410-1: It appears the slab holes drilled from below for epoxy dowels may significantly weaken the net slab section. in particular at banded PT tendons. Please verify compression and tension stresses at remaining net section. IBC 3403.2: ACI 318. 18.4. The impact of temporary holes around the column is minimal for compression effect. Post tensioned force averaging 700 kip per 32 ft bay has about 22 kip per foot stress.'/a" hole at 8" o.c. will increase the compression force to 24 kip per foot or 235 psi which is within the allowable compressive stress. Since the slab is shored and design live load is not included, the stresses are within the allowable. 11. SKS01 1410-1: 1" of column cover will be removed. Verify existing reinforcing will not be damaged. Verify column strength is adequate during construction due to reduced area. Also. slab punching shear perimeter length 'b,,' will be reduced due to smaller bearing area during construction. IBC 1901.2. 3403.2. Notes specified in detail not to damage column reinforcing. Column strength at reduced section are checked and confirmed adequate. (design live load is not included, with construction load + dead load) Shoring is provided to compensate for the lower shear capacity. 12. SKS011410-1: slab 45 dowels are not shown to be standard hooks at bottom of bar. Verify adequate development is provided. much less than Ldh is available. IBC 1901.2: ACI 318. 12.5. Notes added for standard hook for dowels. Note that the bars are not designed to be fully developed in the horizontal shear demand. See attached calculations. 13. SKS011410-1: Verify adequate bond will be provided at new drop panel to create a monolithic structure as assumed in calculations p. 102. Additional criteria such as bonding agent, low water. consolidation, curing requirements, etc.. appears required. IBC 1902: ACI 318. Ch. 5. Notes added to include bonding agent. Mix design and pouring sequence to be reviewed and inspected per specification. 3 REVIEWED BY Plan Check Response Four Seasons Hotel. Vail. CO February 17. 2010 MAR 17 2010 SHEBt16It Colorado 14. SKS011410-1: Verify adequate horizontal shear capacity is provided for composite section at the construction joint between the existing slab and retrofit drop panel. i.e. VQ/1. typical where repairs are implemented. IBC 1901.2.. 1604.4. See attached calculations. 15. SKS011410-1: Verify adequate special inspection of repairs will be specified and provided. IBC 1704.4. Inspection notes added to detail. 16. Calculations p. 1-2 do not appear to reflect the highest punching shear demand to capacity ratio: values of over 2.0 are shown on the drawings an din the calculations. IBC 1604.2. ACI318-05 11.12. 1 Please discard calculation pl-2. D/C ratio will be updated and submit the final plot to Building official. 17. 52.03.2: Please verify if additional dead load from topping slab has been included in calculations for columns supporting ball room floor. Calculations have not been provided for the ballroom slab. IBC 1604.2. 1601.1. The additional load of topping is checked. It is within the miscellaneous added load in the original calculations. 18. S2.03.2: Please explain why ballroom punching shear demand in 1.95 at 14-A8.2 and much smaller at adjacent columns with similar floor area supported. IBC 1604.4. ACI 318- d 05 11.12. ' Please discard the D/C ratio at this specific location. A final plot will be submitted. 19. Verify final slab analysis uses concrete strength fc equal to minimum specified fc on the drawings. or per the submitted mix strengths delivered to the jobsite. If construction testing data is used. consider reduced average strength based on standard deviation and other factors per ACI. IBC 1901.2: ACI 318. 5.3. F'c of 5,000 Psi of slab is used (Per original design). [End] 4 NISHKIAN~. CONSULTING AND STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS 1200 Folsom Street, San Francisco, CA 94103 Tel: (415) 541-9477 Fax: (415) 543-5071 vu=79 M~ = 3 ~ •5~i k-f-r Mir = /07.5 JOB r-p U Sf~Sar.sS fiDTf L No. 76~J SHEET NO. OF 1 \ CALCULATED BY CHECKED BY DA Ca Lu r-, ~1T S~vTf 5~cT6r~f ~ j Cl fi~ A-2- A-sn /I /-FLY-,t 5, Co L JD A ir --~-//6 /~M£r4S AT Co Lis/•w A2-11) > Co L , 5i z~F 16X2+ 1 0 /OA 3/~)) S ~ I o M REVIEWED BY 4AR 17 2010 ^'t~►~%~T~7 5-5 2=16 r1o -"'G -L~r P=r -2[ b CC 2 - ~ SLAB THS'A=N~SS_ Ag-i-5r 5-5 -AycL5> 55 !2 ' 3 2 t/3•~z5~ -~"~f j3•/Z~~~/3•/2:3)f(3` 2 _ ~37•[~5~1• 094 X7.1,. l g~• ( ~ 41 /3•/ Z2.>r6~ 37.12 5 ~ z _0 _X5978+ ~~95+ 20/p052 = 5,6"7025 " 3-741-5 c ~ V NISNKIAN MNNINGER CONSULTING AND STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS 1200 Folsom Street, San Francisco, CA 94103 Tel: (415) 541-9477 Fax: (415) 543-5071 JOBVi-DrSSD (-JG'L NO. -g3 SHEET NO. OF V CALCULATED BY CHECKED ~-/6 z ur C2X /6 FZ4 t 2/3-►2-s-) `b7 q . 'r 'Z~J L, CA 03 C- (C- 1+ (16 3 - 1 2s& _ 1._ 50q- 0C. 6.17 2 Sul +C2-f- } g2' 25 t C~xl6t~+ 2x1-r2s~ C c C A- g = ~~:)j~~~ BY 17 2010 3 3 3 AR Ag 24+l T . ~6 f o.5l;13-/2s~ •i2s3 -1- x13-J2s) C6•/9 + '6 _3g 31 LS ~•19)Z 6 Q?- ~6~C376.~~ -t- ~~•zs~ 63z~ --Q3.1i~) (37-1 = g5o1. + /8672 67703 ,rr ( - - 0.66 = 0.7tr + 3j C, + WD 5 DEG ~pc-7- stiff Uu . o. 672- K~1- A-- `o~q- 6 M L. NISHKIAN AE NINGER CONSULTING AND STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS 1200 Folsom Street, San Francisco, CA 94103 Tel: (415) 541-9477 Fax: (415) 543-5071 JOB 4S-,L5F- Sr~K ~ NO, 2~ SHEET NO. OF ) CALCULATED BY DATE CHECKED BY DATF M„ss V ss 2 ~G, S S _ ~•46~C3~.5~~CIZ~ C tl3•~~ z67 ozj 44) 3-7845) Z6 76-1 5 O . of 2 { ass © P ~o ~r~s,3T ~X2s x,=16'' , (~z =24'/ ML)p -VIEWED BY wl ` BAR 17 2010 e= rG~-.2~ _ CAS- ct _ C1b~15.19- l6 t p2_ r 2 / 2 ~ f r` 4'`~~fl3 Q7:7°LJro- 649 - S Huc /C,l•5x12+(~J)(Z-s-7)= f 1'75,23 K= 4) r^Y r3 c C0,3~~ C`~ 3~C6-J~~ = D. 06~ ~St Tr L Frrcz-R St SASS` 0-o-?32-t o-olzf+0,0614 0,1467 ass eR 110 NISHKIAN ENNINER CONSULTING AND STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS 1200 Folsom Street, San Francisco, CA 94103 l It~~ Tel: (415) 541-9477 Fax: (415) 543-5071 JOB S rK~SS NO.~ SHEET NO. OF R'7 CALCULATED BY DATE CHECKED BY ~r~ SS LS~''~_ ~v~= 4, C z-r~j y ~~a? ~ 2~ 67 ~G =4~~g ~t~ 12, + 3?-/as 0"Z = C zt?~ o , s,.2 ~s~ > /y 6.? Psi , d x ~~r -ABart s-s i 1(r.:~ _ ~z~ ~Zl4.zs~ _ /5z~ ~ Y `kR 17 2010 ~~,ss = +a~ ~2t C~,-~ d cap C~~) C~~ ~ 7/ s /Z -~-~q~t7/a~j~~•~~..s'Z~~ ~iizs ~~~t-o-~C7r~~~ C9~f~~~) /2 65 Jl7/7 + ~los•4 +Q395• g) (1c~3•/) ~~Il~l•~ -~-.~i6~•~ -t- ~1o4~g4J• 4 2~59~ 2~ ~4 1 NISNKIAN EIER CONSULTING AND STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS 1200 Folsom Street, San Francisco, CA 94103 Tel: (415) 541-9477 Fax: (415) 543-5071 JOB fp-" 1- 4+z-rj&t- N0. L ~S SHEET NO. OF CALCULATED BY DA CHECKED BY 0 'S24 = 0-476 /+7 ~o3-r z~ c~~2 ~ X5.56 52-A,= ~ ( , -.f-'--- 2-- 2-4) = Q zp (z'k ;2 4-~6-~ 2x7-lzs~ 1 = /,5.2 - T,,,'_ C C, -f- ~L- II- , (52-t 7-1 'L~ 90 97. -1- Z 2Cf-7C2-+-)-4) x52-+9~+27'7-lzs~ _ CC, tc~ C~2-t- 7-+"~-~l~.~ = ~l•!6 2 =C~Zt7 /Zs X~-~~ ~7• 11 + C~7-/ as~ ~~4• y+ztl-/6 ~96+7•tzz~ (~~-4~~' 3 33 ~9. 4C t 345 q o6 152361 5mlll 7 its ` fv 5W 0. 0? Vi, A 17 2010 f ~c?~2 ~ s~~/ - SASS ~u ; Af fflullt Colorado T) cT 5 +9'h ~u 79 - 0.051 F ks!' A- /52-6 1 NISHKIAN 7 ENNIN ER CONSULTING AND STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS 1200 Folsom Street, San Francisco, CA 94103 Tel: (415) 541-9477 Fax: (415) 543-5071 JOB 577P~911S S T 1 _~FL NO.. 7-0 9 2 SHEET NO. OF IR I F_ CALCULATED BY DATE CHECKED BY _ DATE p'T~,ss 0.47 31.544K ss ~~59/~► = o, 004. Ks2 J Jr V v AR 17 2'010 Hoe. = coq-;~1z ~{79~ rojorado rv M~ e "mss p• Z Z / vrn F-p_c_T~ D 5qt-,.w 57pes5 = o-o5/g-~- o--oa_?4 ° 237 cla, = 79.1 pS7 Iv6 p-v- 79 NISHKIAN MENNINGER CDNSJLTINC AND 57 R'J7JRA- ENGINEERS 1200 Folsom Street, San Francisco, CA 94103 Tel: (415) 541-9477 Fax: (415) 543-5071 SHEET NO. OF R CALCULATED BY ~V y DATE CHECKED BY DATE r 71 It , 14 xX = 3 5 K ~"yy D'i.,5 K 1 61K- x VX X = - i' s ~x 11 Ux x ~72~ J 11 /4' -'~Xx = 6 -X (2. x . Gr ~ XX 71 t-7,3),>- 1-7Z6 il[ZVIEVVED BY 2 14AR 17 2010 KX ~A) X S y8~~ ~V'? = VAX 8 56161 071 x DI -7S x x 31 x x/.2 30,7k q . ~ NISHKIAN MENNINGER CONSULTING AND STRJC'JRAL ENGINEERS 1200 Folsom Street, San Francisco, CA 94103 Tel: (41S) 541-9477 Fax: (415) 543-5071 CHc C/C Y_ P/ f,7' - ~j 2 JOB ~7 UI~ NO. 7L' SHEET NO. -r / OF R/JV CALCULATED BY 1 y ✓ DATE CHECKED BY DATE / = 2 1 ` C., 1 S f) / Qyy = yy = ~4` 33 12> ~ x3 1 7;, lvj 3 Vvi Iyy ¢~~x _;7 x L2 - r3z00 I,?4- 117 15 z -/71 d, 75 6, x J, z / x ~0 x l2 = 7/ 3 K ~ 0 Az, REVIEWED BY MAR 17 2010 SAFEBuilt Colorado JOB T6U i~- r N0. 727'~ NISHKIAN MENNINGER SHEE7NO. OF CDNSJL'ING AND S-RUC-UkAL ENGINEERS 12DO Folsom Street, San Francisco, CA 94103 CALCULATED BY N) DATE 1;G Tel: (415) 541-9477 Fax: (415) 543-5071 CHECKED BY DATE SCALE /C\ V/4 = 12 I, C-~;' uX = 75,5 K-' f\A U.y = g4 = 20 TN~~IL~ - ~~'z 14 e( 7 l h 7~ (2 2Q+ / 2x -7, Gxe;' CArT*~, C " = 6~~. Iz- - . -7 2- It 4- -Fd (Z- Y, 7-0 1~71 r~ -'ViEVVED BY i4AR 17 2010 MEMO Colorado /~1i JOB NISNKIAN MENNINGER CONSJ-TINC AIJD STRUC "JRA- =NONEERS a 1200 Folsom Streei, San Francisco, CA 941D3 I,IG~ Tel: (415) 541-9477 Fax: (415) 543-5071 SHEET NO. OF CALCULATED BY 7111 DATE i/ CHECKED BY DATE T~ I ~ v 5,77-5 1 3 012-7l 2~. Arv CG-rr ~ 2-7~ /x -7 C2, 1o1, ' REVIEWED BY MAR 17 2010 ' SAFEBuilt Colorado 1 JOB NG. NISHKIAN MENNtNGEit CDNSJ_-[NG AND STRJCT'JR-- ENGINEERS 12DO Folsom Street, San Francisco, CA 94103 Tel: (415) 541-9477 Fax: (415) 543-5071 SHEET NO. OFD 1 r CALCULATED BY +JJ DATE i CHECKED BY DATE SCALE J ~2 170 ~ 30 x -7 ~7-000 _ cs. 0 REVIEWED BY MAR 17 P110 SAFEBuilt w.-4r