The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutFour Seasons Resort "Review Of Life Safety Report 03-06-2007" �� TOWN OF VAIL Vail Fire& Emergency Services 42 West Meadow Drive Vail, Colorado 81657 970-479-2250 March 6,2007 All}m Vaughn RJA Las Vegas,NV 89109 Re: Review of LSR(Life Safety Report)02/21/2007 Dear Mr.Vaughn: In essence, I do not object to what Four Seasons is trying to accomplish. For the most part,I do not object to the requests. I do however,strenuousty object to the basis and premises upon which the requests are made,to wit,the Four Seasons is not a high rise without aclrnowledgement that the project fails to meet the most basic of requirements for fire department access. The IFC and Town of Vail Design Guidelines,as adopted by the Town Council,requires all points of the exterior of the first floor to be within 150 feet of approved fire deparnnent access. The proposal fails to meet this minimum requirement for 75%of the project. Secondly,fire department staging requirements as outlined in the Town of Vail Design Guidelines dictates a minimurn staging area. 7'he project fails to meet this requirement as well. Suffice to state that if the Fire Deparpnent elects to stage on West Meadow Drive(the south end of the project),the building is more than 75 feet to the highest occupied floor and therefore a"high rise". Such an allegation could have significant impacts on your code aaalysis and some cost impacts as well. I object to the repeated assertion that the project is"not a high rise." I recommend the repeated and what I deem an unnecessary repetition be deleted from the body of the document. I am not willing to sign a document that obliges the Town to such an aclrnowledgement without an admission the project fails to meet minimum access requirements. The whole concept of"high rise" dictates a different approach towards fire suppression. T'hose who hava not had the opportunity to engage a fire in a structure where access is limited or so severely restricted do not have an empirical appreciation for the challenges. I will not e�ctend khe Town's liability to assume an ertoneous assartion. An"engineered equivalency"is acceptable. Such a performance based appmach is well documented and acceptable to the Fire Department. It is not however,under duress we accept such an approach. The second issue is the delineation of parties in the"Design Team"that concerns us. The firm of Rybka Smith&Ginsler is listed as the "Mechanical/Electrical/Plumbing&Fire Protection Eng.". We have not had and substantial conversation, discussion or rneetings with Rybka Smith&Ginsler to the eactent we(VFES)are willing or able to determine they have"suitable credentials"by virtue of "training and experience"or even State of Colorado professional registration or licensure as a fire protection engineering firm. Likewise,we have only seen Todd Daily of RJA,Denver office,one time. As the Fite Code Official,I am concerned there is a gross lack of communication and a lack of understanding between the Town and the designated parties of the"design team." It was tough enough to get you back to the table over a two year period. If Rubka,Smith&Ginsler are in fact the FPE's on this project,I suggest they present their credentials and come to the table as well as Mr. Daiiy. We cannot resolve issues in abstentia. I want the roles and responsibilities spelled out in a clear and concise manner. If contracts need to be changed,so be it. The code re uires a responsible person in charge. Who is it? Review of LSR(Life Safety Report)02/21/2007 Page 2 Page 3 of the LSR states"Details of compliance are left to the construction documents and the contractors." This is not an acceptable approach. No agreement will be signed without supporting documents and exhibits to delineate the specific agreements. We will not sign a"biank check." No final approval will be granted until the permit set of drawings are subrnitted with sufficient detail to delineate critica issues as noted on Page 4 of the LSR under the title of Fire Protection Outiine. VFES still objects to taking a reduction in the fue rating of the raof supports(Page 5,II A. !.b)until sufficient plans are submitted showing the demising walls and the fire sprinkler design area below the ceiling from walls that run floor to slab. An overall fire protecrion plan has not been submitted showing adequate fire hose coverage from standpipe to standpipe within 30 feet of any wall(Page 7,II,A,5,a.6). Shaw the exit plan discussed on Page 8,III,A,2., via an exhibit or formal Exit Plan. Storage rooms discussed an Page 8.III,B.Z&3,are subject to strict rec�uirements under NFPA 13. Disclose the commodities and heat release rate(HRR)and we will discuss the density_ We caution the intent proposed on Page 10,D 1.b.to take the exception for closers on doors between guest rooms. The depth of the header between rooms must be disclosed under the premonition both rooms may be required to be considered under the`9argest room rule." The notation on Page 10,D.4.b.,with respect to"smoke da�mpers...activated individually by local smoke detection per IBC 716.3.2 as amended"may be subject to requirements under NFPA 72 and VFES Standards. Submit shop drawings and a matrix and we will consider your proposal. Page 11,N A i,Flame spread,will be reviewed upon submission of detailed data. We will not accept an undue risk to the public health,safety and welfare upon such a broad statement. The Pre-function occupancy azgument presented in the LSR was discussed during our most recent meeting. It appears the content of the discussion was missed. VFES will not accept an assumption the pre-function lobby will not be used simultaneously. If the applicant wished to submit an egress analysis to substantiate the supposition,then provide a detailed analysis(Page 12 V.B.6 and D 1.)for review. Page 17,VII,A,5,uses the term"automatic sprinkler systems." The code does not recognize anything other than"sutomatid' in this application. Is there some application we missed other than"automatic sprinklers."? Page 18,VII,C,3,calls for a"combination fire protection and domestic water main." VFES is requesting a sepazate water main for each. The code allows for a combination main subject to a hydraulic analysis. Such"analysis"has not been submitted and as of this point is not approved. Any such analysis shall take into account season pesk de�nand and SFR equivalencies and a validated model confirmed by actual field tests. Page 20,J,Manual fire alarm pull stations shall be subject to VFES Standards as published as to location and type. Plans shall be submitted to show intended locations. Page 23,X,A,Fire Command Center—Again there is a statement t�►e building is"not a high rise"and implies the fire command center is excessive as to code requirements. VFES objects to the implications and requires the FCC be designed to facilitate emergency operations. Page 26,XIII,F,Elcvators—Emergency rescue techniques shail be provided to VFES at no cost to thc Town as part of the commissioning process prior to turning over the elevators for use. Append'u�A,Fire Alarm Matrix notes"'fhe functional matrix will be updated and expanded upon as part of the fire alarm contractors shop drawing submittal process to identify specific devices and control sequences for the system being installed." Design-build fire alann system are not allowed. Bngineering specifications shall be provided prior to issuance bf the building permit. No exceptions. Review of LSR(Life Safety Report)02/Z 1/2007 Page 3 The MOU's for smoke management systems are not accepted for due cause as previously discussed. Provide specifications(.OS in. water column). Revise and resubmit. The Emergency Generator,Page 4 of the MOU,appears to he designed for two hours operation only. The Four Seasons Hotel will not qualify as a designated refuge facility with only two hours of emergency power. Provisions for stand-by power are delineated in the codes. AMR#2,reduction of smoke dampers in exhaust ducts,has not been justified in the absence of mirigating measures as noted in the foregoing review. AMR#3,Page 2,makes a false assumprion in that the occupants of this facility may not be familiar with the layout. Without mitigating measures as note in the preceding review comments,an adequate justification has not been presented. End of Review Michaei McGee Fire Marshal Vail Fire&Emergency Services 03/06/2007 ; " �-� �1� V��. � �� 5 � � � .,:3:.. . . . 'k . :�21 . .. '�,�'�*r#,kA ,R� � a,�:..-a.. , .. . .. . . _ � . � . .-