The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutB06-0018-Plan Review CommentsColorado Ins ecfiion਍ഀ AGENCY਍ഀ REVIEWED BY਍ഀ J U L 10 2006਍ഀ COLORADO INSPECTION਍ഀ AGENCY਍ഀ COLORADO INSPECTION AGENCY PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS਍ഀ TO: Contractor Architect਍ഀ Hyder Construction 4220਍ഀ Doug Thompson Randy Hart਍ഀ EMAIL: dthomson(a).hyderinc.com rhart .4240arch.com਍ഀ FAX਍ഀ NUMBER OF PAGES:਍ഀ 20਍ഀ FROM:਍ഀ Matthew Royer਍ഀ DATE:਍ഀ 03/10/2006਍ഀ BUILDING PERMIT਍ഀ B06-0018਍ഀ OWNERS NAME:਍ഀ Vail Resorts Co.਍ഀ SITE ADDRESS:਍ഀ Building A and Site਍ഀ SUBDIVISION:਍ഀ Mill Creek਍ഀ OCCUPANCY GROUP:਍ഀ S-2਍ഀ TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION:਍ഀ I-A਍ഀ NUMBER OF STORIES:਍ഀ 3਍ഀ Engineer਍ഀ Monroe & Newell Eng਍ഀ 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 a building਍ഀ permit is issued.਍ഀ For processing:਍ഀ Please submit (2) 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 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 For commercial or multi-family projects all sheets of the plans਍ഀ must be stamped.਍ഀ C:\Documents and Settings\mroyer\My Documents\Plan Review\Front Door\tov-b06-0018. DOC Page 1 of 20਍ഀ BUILDING DEPARTMENT COMMENTS:਍ഀ Common Project Comments: (CPC are attached to each permit comment letter)਍ഀ 1. Land Swap with US Forest Service must be complete prior to final approval and issuance of the਍ഀ Building Permit.਍ഀ 2. When plans are resubmitted for review; complete sets of plans for each building which includes the਍ഀ addendum sheets. Separate addendum packets will not be accepted and approved for initial਍ഀ permitting.਍ഀ 3. Preliminary plan review meetings had discussion regarding the submittal of Memorandum of਍ഀ Understandings (MOU). MOU's defined in these meetings would be "used to define or clarify the use਍ഀ of a code section, agreement to the installation of a system not covered specifically by the code or਍ഀ clarify the use or component of a building. None of the agreed upon MOU's were submitted for਍ഀ review. Please provide the following MOU's for review:਍ഀ a) Use of assumed property lines and fire separation distance.਍ഀ b) Fire command room਍ഀ c) Smoke management systems਍ഀ d) Opening between parking garage and Lodge Tower parking garage਍ഀ e) Fire separation between the new building and existing buildings਍ഀ f) Use of 508.2 for creating separate buildings as it relates to each building਍ഀ g) The separation between One Vail Place and new Skier Services਍ഀ 4. Preliminary plan review submittal meetings had discussion regarding the submittal of Administrative਍ഀ Modifications (AM). AM's as defined in these meetings would be based on International Building਍ഀ Code Section 104.10. Where practical difficulties are involved in carrying out the provision of this਍ഀ code, a modification to the code may be granted by the building official after justification that the਍ഀ modification will not lesson health, accessibility, life and fire safety, or structural requirements. The਍ഀ following AM's have been discussed and are being implemented into the plans. Please provide the਍ഀ following or amend plans accordingly to comply with the code.਍ഀ a) Separation between Chalet buildings਍ഀ b) Elimination of elevator smoke doors at residential levels of the Chalet buildings਍ഀ 5. Be sure to amend the Fire & Life Safety Report as necessary when changes are made to the plans਍ഀ that may affect the discussions made by the Report.਍ഀ 6. Provide a precise site plan showing exact locations of assumed property lines. If locations of assumed਍ഀ property lines are close enough to exterior walls to require rating of walls and opening protection,਍ഀ provide details.਍ഀ 7. Fire and Life Safety Report states the use of 1 hour fire walls per IBC Table 705.4. This table does਍ഀ not allow for 1 hour fire walls anywhere. Please clarify.਍ഀ 8. Fire walls are called out in the fire and life safety report to separate buildings. What is the purpose਍ഀ and use of the fire walls and the separations? Is it to separate property owners?਍ഀ It appears that fire separation distances are being used to determine the ratings for the walls਍ഀ identified as fire walls between the different building and spaces. Our interpretation of this section is਍ഀ that once the 3 hour separation is used to make a separate building then everything that is not਍ഀ separated by a fire wall per 705.4 will be considered as one building.਍ഀ 9. Accessibility requirements do not appear to be included within any plan for this project. Please਍ഀ amend plans to include the following:਍ഀ a) Accessible parking spaces and loading zones.਍ഀ b) Accessible route from the parking and loading zones to the buildings.਍ഀ c) Accessible routes to each building on the site which are required to be accessible.਍ഀ CADocuments and Settings\mroyer\My Documents\Plan Review\Front Door\tov-b06-0018. DOC Page 2 of 20਍ഀ d) Signage details for parking, striping, routes, restrooms, etc.਍ഀ e) Restroom details for fixtures, grab bars and accessories.਍ഀ 10. Amend plans to include stair signage plan, details and identify the location of the signage. Many of਍ഀ the exit enclosures require the occupants to travel up to get to exit discharge. Clearly identify the਍ഀ direction of travel to the exit discharge.(IBC 1019.1.6)਍ഀ 11. Amend plans to include gates located at the level of exit discharge to eliminate occupants of the਍ഀ building from entering an enclosure and passing by the level of exit discharge. (IBC 1019.1.6)਍ഀ 12. Elevator door which do not open into a lobby need to be provided with a smoke control door in਍ഀ accordance with IBC Section 715.3.5.3਍ഀ 13. Clearly identify the location of safety glazing per IBC Chapter 24 either in the window schedule or on਍ഀ the plan.਍ഀ 14. The size of main elevator cars used for fire/emergency access needs to be determined by the Town਍ഀ of Vail Building and Fire Departments. Standard 24" x 76" required by code will not accommodate the਍ഀ stretchers used by emergency personnel. Please confirm the required size.਍ഀ Architectural Comments:਍ഀ Site Comments:਍ഀ 15. Coordinate pool equipment room in Bldg B with pool piping shown on Site Plan sheet W1.0਍ഀ 16. Provide compliant barrier to pool and spa areas. Change detail reference to L207. L208 is used for਍ഀ pool coping as called out on L202.਍ഀ 17. Fence shown on L207 shows the bottom of the fence to far above grade. Max distance between਍ഀ grade and bottom of fence 2 inches. (IBC 3109.4)਍ഀ 18. Sheet L202 references sheet L209, but this sheet does not exist. Please amend plan.਍ഀ 19. Amend plans to show gates compliant with the pool barrier requirements. (IBC 3109.4.1.7)਍ഀ 20. Boulder wall used at waterfall of pool shall not be climbable or an approved barrier shall extend਍ഀ around boulder wall. Show detail of wall or amend barrier to encompass this area.਍ഀ 21. Some of the exterior stairs from the lift ticket area only show handrails on one side. Amend plans to਍ഀ show handrails on both sides of all stairs throughout the site. (IBC 1109.11)਍ഀ 22. Sheet L102 for the chalets show some exterior stair locations with handrails on only one side. Hand਍ഀ rails are required on both sides of stairs per 1009.11 2003 IBC.਍ഀ 23. Sheet L102 calls out Stairs and Handrails on sheet L107. Sheet L07 does not exist.਍ഀ 24. Sheet L202 calls out fireplace detail on L208. This detail is on L207. Correct drawings to specify਍ഀ which sheet fireplace detail is located.਍ഀ 25. Sheet L207 states exterior gas fireplace. Provide manufacturers listing for exterior gas appliance. Also਍ഀ Sheet L202 has wood storage next to the fireplace called out as gas. Clarify.਍ഀ 26. Detail for all exterior stairs does not meet profile requirement of 1009.3.2 IBC 2003.਍ഀ CADocuments and Settings\mroyer\My Documents\Plan ReviewWront Door\tov-b06-0018. DOC Page 3 of 20਍ഀ 27. There are changes in elevation of one step coming from west side of ski club down to walkway that਍ഀ require a handrail unless tread depth of elevation change is the same or greater than the dimension਍ഀ of a required landing. (IBC 1009)਍ഀ 28. Sheet L302 calls out stair and handrail details on L307. There are no stair and handrail details on਍ഀ L307. Clarify.਍ഀ 29. Amend plans to include all component which will be required and specified within the Administrative਍ഀ modification for the opening between the Parking Garage (2 places) and the existing Lodge Tower.਍ഀ The existing Lodge Tower plan has identified the parking garage as Type I-B. This needs to be taken਍ഀ into consideration when exercising IBC section 508.2. Same type of construction was used during the਍ഀ pre-submittal meetings that discussed the separation. Please address the type of construction਍ഀ separation and opening protection accordingly. Please coordinate plans and design with the Lodge਍ഀ Tower designers.਍ഀ Mechanical Comments:਍ഀ 30. Provide positive pressure and outside air to valet booth. (IMC 404.3)਍ഀ 31. How is pool and spas being heated? There are no boilers shown in equipment room in bldg B. on਍ഀ P201.਍ഀ 32. Where is the gas piping for the fountain coming from? Sheet L308 is referenced and does not exist.਍ഀ 33. Spec Manual calls out CO detector to send alarm to panel at 35 PPM. If this setting also activates਍ഀ exhaust fans it must be lowered to 25 PPM per 2003 IMC sec 404. Show compliance with 2003 IMC਍ഀ for fan activation.਍ഀ Plumbing Comments:਍ഀ 34. Clarify where continuation of plumbing for pool to equipment room is shown.਍ഀ Electrical Comments:਍ഀ 35. TVSS needs to have short circuit rating equal to or greater than available fault current. Provide rating਍ഀ and calculation for TVSS. (NEC 285.6)਍ഀ 36. Provide nameplate information for generator. (NEC 445.13)਍ഀ 37. Feeder 50 to panel SLW should be 45.਍ഀ 38. Panels SLID, W and E not identified on panel schedule pages.਍ഀ 39. Panic hardware required on electrical room (A109) doors. (NEC 110.26(C)(2))਍ഀ 40. Feeder 51 must be 2"C minimum. (NEC table 5 and 4)਍ഀ 41. Grounding electrode conductors need to be bonded at both ends if installed in metallic conduit. (NEC਍ഀ 250.92(A)(3))਍ഀ 42. Maintain clearances around electrical equipment. (NEC 110.26 & 450.21)਍ഀ 43. Provide performance test in accordance with NEC 230.95(C) for GFCI service equipment.਍ഀ CADocuments and Settings\mroyer\My Documents\Plan Review\Front Door\tov-b06-0018.DOC Page 4 of 20਍ഀ 44. Are electrical rooms being separated with fire rated assemblies in lieu of the sprinkler system in that਍ഀ room?਍ഀ Energy Code Review:਍ഀ Envelope Com Check਍ഀ 45. The IECC requires all conditioned spaces to be included in the building envelope. The parking garage਍ഀ and storage areas are being heated. We are unable to determine the areas used in the COM check਍ഀ for conditioned spaces. Provide calculations for all areas used in the envelope COM check. If the਍ഀ parking garage is not considered a conditioned space then vestibules are required for spaces that are਍ഀ conditioned and open into the garage. (IECC 802.3.6)਍ഀ Mechanical Com Check਍ഀ 46. The mechanical system list is incomplete for all areas which have conditioned space. Please provide਍ഀ more information.਍ഀ 47. Provide load calcs. per 1997 ASHRAE fundamentals or equivalent.਍ഀ Electrical Energy Check਍ഀ 48. There is insufficient information to show compliance with IECC section 805.5.਍ഀ Site Structural Comments:਍ഀ Note: structural comments are numbered "S1,S2...... and are also given a designation with regards to the topic, as follows:਍ഀ DC = design criteria; F= foundations; D = drawings; C = structural calculations; LS = lateral system.਍ഀ Site Comments:਍ഀ S1. D Specs 02925 appear to indicate that construction of EPS should not be done under "high਍ഀ winds", however wind speed is not defined. Suggest place notes regarding this requirement on the਍ഀ drawings and potential mitigating construction measures.਍ഀ S2. D Specs also indicate combustibility and fire retardant be used - suggest plate notes to this਍ഀ effect on the drawings.਍ഀ S3. D SF101: verify lower strength EPS is correctly shown what appears to be underneath the Ski਍ഀ Club, Volume 4 drawings. Seems a higher strength is required for bearing.਍ഀ S4. D SF sheets: It seems a finished elevation @ top of EPS would be useful for construction, it is਍ഀ not clear how the elevation will be correctly achieved with the current drawings.਍ഀ S5. F SF sheets: verify pavement / subgrade above the EPS under roadway (20 psi) has been਍ഀ designed to span between HS-20 tires, or depth is sufficient to distribute loads such that 20 psi is a਍ഀ sufficient strength under the roadway.਍ഀ S6 F SF sheets: It appears EPS fill has not been designed underneath Volume 6 Chalet (Bldg E).਍ഀ It is not clear how backfill is intended to be placed at these structures; in some locations Bldg E bears਍ഀ half on the concrete tunnel and half on presumably engineered soil backfill. Please confirm that Bldg.਍ഀ C:\Documents and Settings\mroyer\My Documents\Plan Review\Front Door\tov-b06-0018. DOC Page 5 of 20਍ഀ E bears on engineered backfill. Verify deflection compatibility of Bldg. E bearing on top of tunnel and਍ഀ backfill and associated differential deflection.਍ഀ S7 DC Sheet L202: FOR to verify that various landscaping structures such as boulders, ponds,਍ഀ stone walls, pavers, and other superimposed dead loads have been appropriately considered in the਍ഀ structural design; verify any concentrated bearing on EPS filler (i.e. such as due to any retaining਍ഀ walls, 6/1_205, or massive stone structures, 3/L.208, etc.)਍ഀ S8 F 7/L.207: verify EPS will not be damaged over time due to fireplace heat.਍ഀ S9 D A/W4.8: verify reinforcing at base of lift਍ഀ Building A Structural Comments:਍ഀ Note: structural comments are numbered "S1,S2...... and are also given a designation with regards to the topic, as follows:਍ഀ DC = design criteria; F= foundations; D = drawings; C = structural calculations; LS = lateral system.਍ഀ General Structural Comment: Due to the inherent connectivity between the various structures in this project, there may be਍ഀ comments from this Volume's details in other Volume's comments, and vice versa. Note also that this review and eventual਍ഀ approval does not permit the violations of any section of the building code, or any other ordinance or State law.਍ഀ S1. DC S001 Note that City of Vail requires 90 mph basic wind speed (IBC 2003, ASCE 7-02, 3s਍ഀ gust wind speed). It appears 100 mph basic wind speed was used in the designs, please਍ഀ verify / confirm (typical all project volumes).਍ഀ S2. F Soils report, page 33-34 recommends against supporting the parking structure on a਍ഀ combination of natural soils and bedrock, due to guaranteed differential settlement between਍ഀ the two supporting materials. The soils report goes on to recommend that foundation bearing਍ഀ elevation be lowered to allow the entire foundation to be supported by bedrock, or a਍ഀ combination spread footing (on bedrock) and deep foundation system (on natural soils) to਍ഀ reduce differential settlement. The structural drawings indicate "footing elevations may need਍ഀ to be lowered due to soil conditions." This note is unclear, if bearing on bedrock is required,਍ഀ please change the note to clearly state this requirement. If bearing on bedrock is not required਍ഀ throughout, please explain the structural design philosophy used to mitigate the differential਍ഀ settlement issue.਍ഀ S3. F Soils report, page 26-27 discusses temporary and permanent dewatering for this site.਍ഀ Appears that the vault and sump basin on S101, approx. @ grids 12.8/L.5 is part of the਍ഀ dewatering system. 12 ft. deep is unclear, provide a top of mat slab elevation. Consider the਍ഀ need for a hatch in the structural lid, provide reinforcing around the hatch. Provide structural਍ഀ lid for precast sump (if not provided by manufacturer) . Note that lids over sumps seem to਍ഀ require HS-20 or other truck loading not the typical 50 psf garage loading - verify this loading਍ഀ has been coordinated and will be verified in the review of the precast sump pit. Verify਍ഀ buoyant forces vs. self weight.਍ഀ S4. F Soils report, page 38, items 7 & 8 discusses underpinning of existing structures adjacent to਍ഀ new construction. Please discuss how the existing structures will be supported during਍ഀ construction and permanently. Verify that vertical surcharge loading has been applied to the਍ഀ below grade permanent foundation walls and parking structure as appropriate. Verify਍ഀ underpinning system does not conflict with the new foundations for this parking structure.਍ഀ S4A F Calculations (p. FW5) don't appear to include soil full height at existing building. This appears਍ഀ correct west of gridline 18, as slab on grade / offices will be constructed here, however west਍ഀ C:\Documents and Settings\mroyer\My Documents\Plan ReviewWront Door\tov-b06-0018. DOC Page 6 of 20਍ഀ of the ski club foundation walls, there appears to be soil for two stories tall, creating a two਍ഀ span condition at some exterior concrete walls. Verify soil backfill height and verify਍ഀ calculations. Provide calcs for 2-story at-rest retaining wall conditions. See also comment਍ഀ S4B.਍ഀ S4B. F/ LS It appears that the ramp at the south end, as well as the permanent shoring at the south਍ഀ side create an unbalanced lateral soil loading at the parking structure, at the upper parking਍ഀ level, and lid level. Verify that concrete diaphragm and concrete shear walls below have been਍ഀ designed to resist this unbalanced soil lateral loading. Verify drag loads / connections from਍ഀ diaphragms to concrete walls. Provide calculations.਍ഀ S4C. F/LS It seems that the parking structure compressible material is required between the਍ഀ permanent shoring wall and the parking structure to allow the two systems to behave਍ഀ independently, and to avoid the permanent soil retaining system from loading the parking਍ഀ structure. Details 13&14/S004 do not indicate this is being done. Also, it appears from਍ഀ 13/S004 that the new concrete walls will be constructed directly against the permanent਍ഀ shoring system, which it seems would move into the structure over time. Please comment.਍ഀ S5. D S001: Column Schedule. Schedule includes (2) line items "Configuration". These various਍ഀ configurations do not seem to be defined anywhere in the documents.਍ഀ S6 D S001: Column Schedule. Reinf. Lap splices are shown for f'c = 5000 psi. However concrete਍ഀ general notes indicates concrete with f'c = 3500 & 4000. Lap splices for these lower strengths਍ഀ are longer than those for f'c = 5000. Please check.਍ഀ S7 D S001:Typical Column Details do not seem to be cut in the documents. Also, alternate਍ഀ longitudinal bars must be supported by the corner of a tie and bars spaced greater than 6"਍ഀ clear must also be supported by the corner of a tie. (ACI 318 7.10.5.3)਍ഀ S8 D S001: Section 1 Stud Rail Detail. Section AA indicates the rails extend several inches into the਍ഀ column. These extensions into the columns is not required, besides they will foul on the਍ഀ column vertical rebar.਍ഀ S9 D S002: Beam Reinforcing Layout.:਍ഀ a) Provide dimensions should be provided for all rebar cut off points. (1/4 span points do not਍ഀ align with rebar end locations).਍ഀ b) It appears a cantilever layout is required- see comment S163.਍ഀ S10 D S002:Section 1. Section 1 is cut thru Bm B10 on Sheet S108.਍ഀ a) Section does not accurately show bars per schedule (bot bars are too many, top bars not਍ഀ shown).਍ഀ b) Is the top part of what could be part of B10 included in 50" vert depth? Does not appear਍ഀ dowels to slab / beam above would meet shear flow requirements (VQ/1), please confirm.਍ഀ If top part of the beam is indeed part of the beam B10, stirrups should be designed across਍ഀ the con'st joint to carry the full shear.਍ഀ c) Verify only half T-beam width has been used for compression, due to slab step (depends਍ഀ on answer to b) above)਍ഀ d) It seems that bottom bars from the beam on the left side should extend a min 6" into the਍ഀ supporting beam, similar to slabs, per ACI 318 Figure 13.3.8.਍ഀ CADocuments and Settings\mroyer\My Documents\Plan Review\Front Door\tov-b06-0018. DOC Page 7 of 20਍ഀ S11 D S002:Section 2. Section 2 is cut thru BM B12 on Sht S108਍ഀ a) Bottom & top bars do not match those shown in the beam schedule.਍ഀ b) Stirrups through the horiz const joint should be designed to carry the full shear, please਍ഀ confirm.਍ഀ c) Details 1 and 2 appear at odds, some clarifying notes are required to define the required਍ഀ dimensions in each case.਍ഀ S12 D S002: Section 4 & 5.਍ഀ a) See comment S11, similar਍ഀ b) Dowels from supporting beam to supported beam are not identified. It appears that these਍ഀ dowels much carry the entire beam reaction thru shear friction, please confirm. See Ski਍ഀ Club (Vol 4) comment S29.਍ഀ S13 D S002: Beam Schedule: Please check number of top & bot rebar with beam widths & ACI min਍ഀ clearances i.e. beam B18 (ACI 318 7.6).਍ഀ S14 D S003: PB1 & PB2 PB 1-1 & PB7-2 and PB 8-1 and P138-2 continuous spans which are not਍ഀ clearly represented in your PT layout, however calculations seem to satisfy continuous beam਍ഀ design. Please verify that beams are represented correctly on the drawings. Tendon drape਍ഀ transition is not clear, P137-1 and P138-1 shows same drapes at both ends which are਍ഀ interpreted as conflicting with the drapes given at the left ends of P137-2 and P138-2. Please਍ഀ verify drawings and PT beam schedule.਍ഀ S15 D S003: P139 & PB10 with variable depths appear to be missing PT info. Also, because of the਍ഀ variable depths the A dimension will not be valid at both ends of the beams. It is suggested਍ഀ that a dimension J be added. Please consider and revise as necessary to meet code.਍ഀ S16 - not used਍ഀ S17 D S004: Section 1. Indicates what appears to be a layer of free draining granular material below਍ഀ the S06. This material is not otherwise defined? Pis define, typical all sections. Verify if਍ഀ vapor retarder is required.਍ഀ S18 D S004: Section 9. Will 3'-0 square isolation pour fit around column, please verify.਍ഀ S19 F S004: Section 10. Is drainage a consideration in the structural design for retaining wall਍ഀ (typical all walls)? Verify Lateral pressures include hydrostatic pressures as req'd, the garage਍ഀ extends well below the measured water table per soils report. Also, wall scales 1'-2 thk, but਍ഀ plan says 1'6. Which is correct?਍ഀ S20 F S004: Section 11, 12, 14. Footing rebar is not identified, pis verify. Define rebar length &਍ഀ spice length. (Typ as occurs)਍ഀ CADocuments and Settings\mroyer\My Documents\Plan Review\Front Door\tov-b06-0018. DOC Page 8 of 20਍ഀ a .਍ഀ S21 F,D S001: concrete general notes: consider using air entrainment at loading dock slabs and other਍ഀ garage level concrete that will be exposed to weather- clarify notes as required.਍ഀ S22 F,D S004: Section 5, 6. Provide min horiz. Reinforcing in fndn. Walls (ACI 318 14.3).਍ഀ S23 F,D S005: Section 1.਍ഀ a) The area between these walls appears to be occupied by concrete stair, not a SOG at the਍ഀ low level shown in this section. Check building code for max number of risers allowed਍ഀ without an intermediate landing.਍ഀ b) Outside wall scales V-6, is shown as V-10 on plan? Inside wall scales V-2 is shown V-4਍ഀ on plan?਍ഀ c) Do the dowels from the footing extend to the top of the wall as indicated - verify graphics.਍ഀ S24 F S005: Section 2. Horizontal rebar in wall not indicated.਍ഀ S25 D S005: Section 3. Are #5 @ 4'-0 in the CMU Vertical or Horiz? This notation occurs typically਍ഀ @ most CMU, please clarify.਍ഀ S26 F S005: Section 4. Same as section 3. Top rebar short way in this strup ftg's not defined, verify਍ഀ req'd.਍ഀ S27 D not used.਍ഀ S28 D S005: Section 8. Define what appears to be a beam w/ties over a wall opening into the air਍ഀ tunnel.਍ഀ S29 D S005: Section 9. It's very tight to use (2) layers of rebar in an 8" thk wall. Verify tolerances਍ഀ are practical and verify ACI tolerances & Min cover are met (ACI 318 7.6 & 7.7)਍ഀ S30 F S005: Section 10. Consider drainage behind this retain. Wall. Either weep holes or cont਍ഀ drain to daylight.਍ഀ S31 F S005: Section 10, 11. Where are elevation of the ledges defined? #8 is not developed for full਍ഀ tension capacity over V-1" embedment -verify reinf.਍ഀ S32 F S005: Section 10, 11. Verify details 9, 10, 11 are cut on plan. Verify top of retaining walls are਍ഀ shown.਍ഀ S33 D S005: Section 12. Indicate rebar in this section.਍ഀ S34 F S101: Bldg A fndn plan. Provide a section @ west - most wall on this sheet; add gridlines.਍ഀ S35 F S101: Provide a foundation section thru the east wall adjacent to the temp਍ഀ retaining wall at the 12'-9 footing projection. The footing, reinf, thickness, is not defined.਍ഀ CADocuments and Settings\mroyer\My Documents\Plan Review\Front Door\tov-b06-0018.DOC Page 9 of 20਍ഀ S36 D S101: What is elevation of SOG in the vicinity of 12.3 & L.5 (Loading Dock)? Provide਍ഀ max/min elevations on plan.਍ഀ S37 D S101: Detail 6/S005 cut at the stair wall near Q.5 10.8 is not correct. Fix callout.਍ഀ S38 D S101: Detail 6/S005 cut at the stair wall near L.5 16.5 in not correct. Fix callout.਍ഀ S39 D S101: What is the top of footing elevation at the elevator near L.5 16.5? Is the combined਍ഀ footing below the stair and col C14 all at this lower elevation? If so, define backfill SOG @਍ഀ stair (detail cut 6/S005 is incorrect?). The 3'-0 detail at east side of stair is not well placed to਍ഀ define dimensions.਍ഀ S40 D S101: Bldg A fndn plans. Missing detail ID @ 10.8 K @ footing.਍ഀ S41 F S101: Bldg A fndn plans. There are (2) columns, C1 & C3 on an F17 footing (west side of਍ഀ sht) which may or may not be in the footing schedule. This footing scales 11' x 16'. The C3਍ഀ cols on lines 14.3 & 12.9 are on F11 footing which are 16'-3 & 16-3. This does not look਍ഀ consistent. Please clarify drawings.਍ഀ S42 D S101: Bldg A fndn plans. None of the foundation walls or foundations off grid appear to have਍ഀ dimensions. Indicate on plan where dimensions can be found (i.e Arch drawings).਍ഀ S43 F S101: Bldg A fndn plans. Footing F22 is not in your footing schedule.਍ഀ S44 F S101: Bldg A fndn plans. Footing F19 thru F22 are called out on plans but are not included in਍ഀ the footing schedule. Revise footing schedule.਍ഀ S45 F S101: Bldg A fndn plans. Footings F16& F17 seemed to have been graphically combined in਍ഀ the footing schedule so as to be unreadable. Revise footing schedule.਍ഀ S46 F S101: Bldg A fndn plans. Reinforcing in F1 not indicated. Provide reinf.਍ഀ S47 F S101: Bldg A fndn plans. Footings at (3) C3 columns on line Q3 are not identified on the plan.਍ഀ S48 D S101: Bldg A fndn plans. Seems you need an elevator separator beam between the double਍ഀ elevator near 10.8 Q.5; please verify (typical all double car shafts).਍ഀ S49 F S101: Bldg A fndn plans. Ftg F18 in footing schedule reinf. is not noted top, bot or which਍ഀ way?਍ഀ S50 D 7/S302: verify spacing of 3'-0" on embed - seems large for a 24k truck loading - also please਍ഀ verify L4x4x3/8 for the max 24k truck point loading਍ഀ S51 D S101.5 Much of this sheet is identified on S102 - suggest provide gridlines & match lines for਍ഀ clarity.਍ഀ S52 F S101.5 Provide sections (details) @ curved retaining walls, NW area.਍ഀ S53 F S101.5 The conc wall on line R is dimensioned as 1'-6 on the west and 1'-2 on the east end?਍ഀ Fix dimensions (seems 1-'6" is correct.)਍ഀ S54 D S101.5 Section 10/S004 at the wall @ S.W. side appears to be incorrect.਍ഀ C\Documents and Settings\mroyerNy Documents\Plan Review\Front Door\tov-b06-0018. DOC Page 10 of 20਍ഀ S55 F S101.5 It appears that you have anew footing below a C9 col that extends a significant਍ഀ distance below an existing bldg. Pis check, or design & show underpinning as required.਍ഀ S56 F S101.5 Verify 23'-4" wall/slab step @ ramp entrance (8162'-8" to 8186'-0"); Detail 2/S005਍ഀ does not show this. Fix dimensions/clarify.਍ഀ S57 F S101.5 Show ftg rebar/section at CMU "C" wall @ existing bldg.਍ഀ S58 F S102 Provide section thru new chase North of line R. Provide details at junction with existing਍ഀ concrete chase.਍ഀ S59 D S102: Section 6/S003 cut near line U.5 in the NE part of the sheet is incorrect.਍ഀ S60 D S102 Provide grid lines for unidentified col. Lines, or provide dimensions.਍ഀ S61 F S103 General Comment: Wall strip foundation reinforcement does not appear to be called਍ഀ Out anywhere on this or other sheets? Pis provide or clarify drawings.਍ഀ S62 F S103 Sand and oil interceptor needs further definition: footing; walls; lid; location.਍ഀ S63 F S103 Need detail thru 1'-6" thk wall near line 17 & @ sections thru 1'-6" conc wall @ west਍ഀ end of area.਍ഀ S64 D S103 Openings seem to be shown south of the cols @ the gridline one bay North of the਍ഀ exterior wall. Are these openings thru the SOG below or openings overhead? Pis clarify.਍ഀ S65 F S103 Verify Min 48" frost depth is achieved @ exterior/exposed loading dock areas - some਍ഀ footing elevations are not identified, ref. detail 5/S004 also. Consider corrosion of SOG reinf.਍ഀ due to salts & temp effects.਍ഀ S66 C Wall beam calculations B1-B84 contain much information that the drawings S201, S202, S203਍ഀ do not seem to reflect. For example, calcs page B16 shows different top and bottom਍ഀ reinforcing, as well as a seemingly very important pilaster below a large beam, and #5x60"਍ഀ diagonal bars at corners and pockets. The pilaster is not detailed on the structural drawings.਍ഀ Please coordinate required reinforcing per calculations with the drawings, drawings appear਍ഀ incomplete.਍ഀ S66a D Wall beams typically have a slab connecting in at the top of the beam, providing lateral਍ഀ bracing of the compression flange, however at the bottom of the wall beam, typically no slab਍ഀ exists. Verify that sufficient lateral bracing restraint is provided at negative moment regions਍ഀ where the bottom of the wall beam is in compression, i.e. WB4 at the intermediate column਍ഀ support.਍ഀ S66b D WB4, S202: verify #8 stirrups at the supported beam perpendicular to the wall - the radius on਍ഀ these bars is quite large such that they can not be placed as drawn, and it is not clear what਍ഀ the purpose is for these bars is. Section 16/S302 cut on plan at this location does not show਍ഀ these #8 stirrups.਍ഀ S66c D 16/302: W134 detail: verify direction of shear friction hook; as bar elongates concrete cover will਍ഀ burst out at this location if not extraordinarily well developed. See ACI figure R11.9.2 (similar਍ഀ to corbels). Verify hook development length in the wall and development length into the਍ഀ beam, this information needs to be shown in the detail.਍ഀ CADocuments and Settings\mroyer\My Documents\Plan Review\Front Door\tov-b06-0018. DOC Page 11 of 20਍ഀ S66d. D S202: W134 elevation apparently defines the top & bottom beam reinf. req'd for all beams:਍ഀ Suggest place the required rebar on all elevations; note calculations B17 show 10 #10਍ഀ bottom, and (8) #10 top, different than called out on S202, please verify reinforcing. Also,਍ഀ calcs do not seem to reflect the large notch in the main span; this notch needs dimensions for਍ഀ depth, width, and location along span.਍ഀ S67 D S104 slab to wall connectors are not detailed. Pis show a detail. See comment S66c.਍ഀ S68 D S104/S201 Thickness of wall beams (WB#) is not shown on plans or on wall elevations.਍ഀ Suggest provide wall beam thicknesses on plan.਍ഀ S69 D S104 Bms @ line L are not identified - show on plans.਍ഀ S70 D S104 This is the first sheet where "wall beams" are identified. The drawings do not identify਍ഀ which way the elevations are taken. These elevations are also do not include grid lines which਍ഀ could be used for orientation. These graphics could lead to erroneous interpretation, please਍ഀ check. See comment S66.਍ഀ S71 D S104 Defining sections seem required thru these wall beams. Note that there are no full਍ഀ height sections cut thru these very important wall beams, please consider.਍ഀ S72 D S105 Regarding the various 5" slab on grade over existing building North of line 9, suggest਍ഀ clarify if this a new or existing slab. Indicate if demo of (E) SOG is req'd - verify any demo਍ഀ does not compromise the existing structure.਍ഀ S72 D S105 Additional rebar shown in 12" slab @ line 21.3. Is this "typ" additional reinf typ @ line਍ഀ 21.3 or line N or typ at all lines within the 12" slab area? If typ @ all lines within 12" slab਍ഀ shouldn't the bottom lengths very depending on the spacing of the columns.਍ഀ S73 D S105 New 8" SOG south of L: do you want control joints? If so please define the spacing਍ഀ and depth਍ഀ S74 D S105 Seems you need a defining section thru the top of the conc wall at the north tunnel wall਍ഀ at rectangular columns / PT beam / flat slab / vertical wall intersection btwn N & L.਍ഀ S75 D S105 Does section 6/S004 apply at what appears to be a loading dock north of Line R near਍ഀ line 25? Verify.਍ഀ S76 D S105 Pis provide a section thru the trench drain north of line R at the west end. See previous਍ഀ comment re: wall slab step.਍ഀ S77 D S105 Col/bm details at lines 24, 23, & 22 seem complicated. A section or description is਍ഀ required for checking.਍ഀ S78 D S105 Area south of line L has 6" steel studs @ V-4 o/c. What structural sheathing਍ഀ is on top of these steel studs? Define/detail connection to CMU & conc walls.਍ഀ S79 D S106 Section 5/S302: Cut thru a conc wall in the NW area of this sheet appears to be਍ഀ incorrect in that it does not represent plan conditions. Pis Clarify.਍ഀ S80 D S106 Beams B18 scales 36" wide, however bm schedule says 42"? Pis clarify.਍ഀ S81 D S107 Refer to wall beam WB4.਍ഀ a) Plan says bot wall @ 8168'-6 but elevation on sht S202 says bot of wall is @ 8169'-0.਍ഀ CADocuments and Settings\mroyer\My Documents\Plan Review\Front Door\tov-b06-0018. DOC Page 12 of 20਍ഀ b) A conc col near the north end of W134 is not orthogonal to the beam. Rather, it is on a਍ഀ skew to the wall. This situation requires a detail: col rebar.਍ഀ S82 D S107 Should wall beam WB8 framing between WB8 & WB5 be corrected to read W136?਍ഀ S84 D S108 Galy. Gating @ skier services does not include snow drift from bldg geometry . Pis਍ഀ Verify.਍ഀ S85 D S108 There seems to be a pool btwn R & N @ west end - How deep? Verify water loads are਍ഀ considered.਍ഀ S86 D S108 There seems to be 8 or 9 conc bms @ slab step & @ pool edge in the west end of this਍ഀ floor that do not have a mark or design? Call out beams; provide section @ step.਍ഀ S87 D S108 Is beam B24-9 followed by B24-10 or is the short bm a cantilever. Does this cantilever਍ഀ bm support the skewed unidentified beam? Pis clarify.਍ഀ S88 D S108 Is the 18" thk slab near 16.5 @ P reinforced with #6 @ 12" ea way top and bottom as਍ഀ stated in note 4 on sht S105? Added reinf. Is shown at one col & is said to be typical on n/s਍ഀ col. Lines, however it is unclear if this means typical @ e/w col lines or typ in each direction?਍ഀ Pis clarify.਍ഀ S89 D S108 A type stud rails are shown at one col. Are these stud rails typ at cols; clarify.਍ഀ S90 D S108 North West area: There seems to be a missing east/west beam between (2)਍ഀ unidentified conc. Beams; clarify.਍ഀ S91 D S108 Verify shear friction for 100% of shear loads for the following beams (see ski club਍ഀ comments)਍ഀ B11 -Span 1 & Span 3਍ഀ B10 -Span 1਍ഀ B12 -Span 1਍ഀ B9 - South End.਍ഀ (Ref. 16/S302) Verify dowel development length - seems also vert dowel should be turned਍ഀ downwards, ref. comment S66c.਍ഀ S92 D S108 It is unclear what supports intersecting bms B6 with B11, span 1, at slab edge਍ഀ illustrated by detail 9/S303?਍ഀ S93 D S108 Verify Edge Strip reinf @ cantilever edge is defined, see 9/S303.਍ഀ S94 D S109 Bm @ west end of pool is not identified?਍ഀ S95 D S109 Bms B13, B14, B15 - Span 1 are cantilevered from B13, B14, B15 Span 2 instead of਍ഀ as noted in the beam schedule- please verify schedule.਍ഀ S96 D S109 Detail 14/S301 is cut on S109. This detail seems to define new steel framing as well਍ഀ existing framing to be removed:਍ഀ a) Detail 13/S301 Appears to be a section thru this area however is not referenced anywhere਍ഀ - cut 13/S301 on plan or detail.਍ഀ b) Dims @ 3 places 14/S301 is cut appear different; are these the same detail & framing?਍ഀ Please verify.਍ഀ c) Verify W16 frames into (E) W12਍ഀ CADocuments and Settings\mroyer\My Documents\Plan Review\Front Door\tov-b06-0018. DOC Page 13 of 20਍ഀ d) Provide Load for TS hanger.਍ഀ S97 D S109 A prestressed beam near line 19 is identified as (2) PB9; seems this beam should be਍ഀ one PB similar to PB36; consider differential deflection btwn (2) PB9 & adjacent PB6.਍ഀ S98 D S109 PB1 is identified as 30 x 60 in the schedule on S003. PB2 is identified as 20 x 28" in਍ഀ that schedule. These beam sizes appear very different sizes. Also, these beams appear਍ഀ continuous yet they are detailed as (2) single spans, verify performance will be as expected at਍ഀ center support. Also, the plan width scales 42" wide while the width of PB1 is 30" and PB2 is਍ഀ 20" in the schedule. These & other PT bm designs should be checked & corrected as req'd.਍ഀ S99 D S110 General Comment: Seems several details @ various sloping & stepping bearing਍ഀ conditions are req'd to ensure a complete load path & shear transfer. Consider axial਍ഀ shortening of Pt bms vs. restraint from monolithic slab & walls above and below.਍ഀ S100 D S110 Outside foundation walls at the east end of building are shaded which I think, indicated਍ഀ that the wall extends up past the plane of this framing plan, which is confusing as it seems਍ഀ this plan represents the "lid" or top framing plan. Pis clarify. Detail PT beam to wall conn. &਍ഀ slab to wall conn.਍ഀ S101 D S110 Seems the PT dead ends or stressing ends need to be detailed because of the skewed਍ഀ angle btwn the PT beam and the wall - detail or explain.਍ഀ S101 D S110 PB8-1 & PB8-2, PB7-1 & PB 7-2 are obviously 2 span continuous beams. However the਍ഀ PB schedule does not provide PT or mild steel arrangements for 2 span bms? Pis verify.਍ഀ S102 D S110 Call out (2) conc bms spanning east & west between PB 7-2 bms are not identified, for਍ഀ ski club support.਍ഀ S103 D S110 There seems to be a major step/trench (2) PB1 beams bear line 11.1 This drop਍ഀ requires an explanatory detail. Also, it seems obvious that the PB1 beams on each side of਍ഀ the drop should not be the same as PB1 beams with a full tee beam flange. Pis check.਍ഀ S104 D S110 Two PB11 beams, single span, seem to bear on a conc wall at a right angle bend in the਍ഀ wall. It would appear that the 320k tension will act to tear the rt angle wall apart. Suggest the਍ഀ FOR check. (Near 9.7)਍ഀ S105 - not used਍ഀ S106 D S201 These elevations do not seem to indicate construction joints or allowable lap splice਍ഀ locations. If this info is critical. It is the EOR's responsibility to indicate this on the dwgs per਍ഀ ACI 301.਍ഀ S107 D S201 Wall Beam WB1: Special rebar is req'd above and below the large wall opening. Detail਍ഀ 14/S302 indicates 8 hz bars in the bottom of the wall. This is contradicted on shts S202਍ഀ where 15410 in (3) layers are mentioned. Verify rebar T & B. Note it seems that the wall਍ഀ acts more like coupling beams and tension/compression columns @ this large opng - design਍ഀ for shear and combined bending and axial loads.਍ഀ S108 D S201 Wall Beams WB2,WB3: Special rebar above & below openings (sim to WB1). Opening਍ഀ shown scales 6'x 6', plan says 5'x5'- coordinate plan and elevation.਍ഀ S109 D S201 Show detail @ intersection of WB3 & WB4਍ഀ CADocuments and Settings\mroyerWy Documents\Plan Review\Front Door\tov-b06-001 8. DOC Page 14 of 20਍ഀ S110 D/C S201-3 Verify wall beams consider ACI provisions for deep beams regarding nonlinear਍ഀ distribution of strain and lateral buckling (ACI 318 10.7. 1) - calculations do not appear to਍ഀ consider these provisions.਍ഀ S110a C deep beam calcs, B12 assumes that shear strength is 10*sgrt f'c, however the calculation of਍ഀ Vc +Vs is not provided. Quick calculations show that typical shear reinforcement of #4 @ 9"਍ഀ O.C. vertical and #4 @ 12" O.C. vertical are roughly 6*sgrt f'c. This typically does not appear਍ഀ to cause a problem with shear capacity, however for certain beams (WB11, calcs p. B49) this਍ഀ seems to cause an overstressed condition. Also, the phi factor does not seem to have been਍ഀ applied, f=0.75 for shear. Please review calcs and increase shear reinforcing as required.਍ഀ S111 D S202 Elevation says (15) #10 bot in 3 rows. Verify this amount of bot steel will fit in all walls.਍ഀ Sim. for (10) #10 top.਍ഀ S112 D S202 WB5: Do the interior columns extend up from 8168'-0? See 13/S002 Bldg D.਍ഀ S113 D S202 WB7: What is special reinforcing is req'd @ double openings in the wall above 8182.-6?਍ഀ (ties, T&B bars); sim @ center column btwn doorways- these elements need individual਍ഀ designs and details as columns and beams - calcs p. B30-34 do not show these designs.਍ഀ S114 D S202 WB8: The right side of this elevation seems to transition to a footing supported਍ഀ retaining wall on the plan. This is not shown on the elevation. Pis modify detail if W138 is਍ഀ integral w/retaining wall.਍ഀ S115 D S203. WB11 Verify 5'-0" long hooks @ end - verify this satisfies ACI 12.12.4਍ഀ S116 D S301 Detail 5:਍ഀ a) This is a good standard detail for reinf in a one way slab, however this detail is not਍ഀ referenced on the plans anywhere. Pis coordinate this detail w/plan reinf.਍ഀ b) This detail does not show reinf perp to slab span - provide temp & shrinkage reinf..਍ഀ S117 D S301 Section 6: Two layers of reinf in an 8" thk wall is trough to fit & maintain cover &਍ഀ spacing - pls verify (typical as occurs).਍ഀ S118 D S301 Section 9: Is this CMU wall, fully grouted, per CMU gen'I notes? Pls. clarify dtl.਍ഀ S119 D S301 Section 10: Refers to see plan - Nothing shown on plan - coordinate plan and detail.਍ഀ S120 D S301 Section 13: This appears to be an incomplete detail re: rebar in CMU, elevations,਍ഀ grouting etc - reference 14/S301 as appropriate.਍ഀ S121 D S301 Detail 14: See comments above, similar.਍ഀ S122 D S302 Section 1 & plan sheets: Please add wall thickness, preferably on the plan; call out਍ഀ dowels @ center - need to transfer out of plane shear from soil lateral loads and in-plane਍ഀ shear loads (as applies).਍ഀ S123 - not used਍ഀ S124 D S302 Section 6: Many dowels not specified? Grouting? It appears that the lower slab is਍ഀ hanging from the upper tee beam const. however bars do not appear adequately developed਍ഀ for tension.਍ഀ C:\Documents and Settings\mroyer\My Documents\Plan Review\Front Door\tov-b06-001 8. DOC Page 15 of 20਍ഀ S125 D S302 Section 9: Detail refers to plan -there is nothing on plans. Horiz wall beam reinf does਍ഀ not match 12/S302? Verify.਍ഀ S126 D S302 4/S302: #5 Dowel is not developed on either end (Ldh or Ld); also hook turned਍ഀ upwards will blow out conc corner. Roughen for shear friction.਍ഀ S127 D S302 Sections 12&13:਍ഀ a) Bot rebar shows 18 bars, not consistent with wall elev.਍ഀ b) Wall beam shown, not detailed਍ഀ c) Show dimensions਍ഀ d) Verify #8 hooks; legs do not appear developed. #8 radius is not shown to scale.਍ഀ S128 - not used਍ഀ S129 D S302 Section 14: Define bot steel਍ഀ S130 D S302 Section 15: Define rebar਍ഀ S131 D S302 Section 15: Suggest pocket the wall for more positive beam bearing instead of tension਍ഀ hanger See also S126.਍ഀ S132 D S303 Section 2: Refers to "re plan", there is nothing shown on plans - please verify.਍ഀ S133 - not used਍ഀ S134 D S303 Section 5: Detail not drawn per scheduled beams on plan, beams are not the same਍ഀ depth, revise detail. Consider mild top steel @ support.਍ഀ S135 D S303 Section 6: Appears to be a beam, however the bot rebar is not identified. Stirrup hooks਍ഀ are not realistically shown, please verify.਍ഀ S136 D S303 Section 7: Plan S108 says this is wall beam 5 which appears to be 12" thk; please਍ഀ clarify if this is a beam or a wall beam. What is top & bot reinf shown. What are beam਍ഀ stirrups shown?਍ഀ S137 D S303 Section 8਍ഀ a) This section indicates a wall of various thicknesses without actually dimensioning wall਍ഀ thickness.਍ഀ b) Various rebar is shown with very long hooks that are not identified.਍ഀ c) A Hz beam appears below the bearing level of the tee beam on the left. No definition of਍ഀ this beam is furnished. Doweled to the top PT beam are not identified.਍ഀ d) FOR please review & clarify detail਍ഀ S138 D S303 Section 9: This is a confusing section - is this slab cantilevered from interior or a col਍ഀ strip? Define reinforcing. Call out expansion anchor embedment਍ഀ S139 D S303 Section 10: Reinf is not defined. Pis define. Verify slab to wall beam dowel/shear਍ഀ friction.਍ഀ S140 D S303 Section 11: Reinf dowels to concrete pad are not specified. Pis specify; anchor W16਍ഀ skids to pad for wind and seismic loads for equipment.਍ഀ CADocuments and Settings\mroyer\My DocumentsMan Review\Front Door\tov-b06-0018. DOC Page 16 of 20਍ഀ S141 D 13/S303: Define expansion anchor size spacing, edge distance - verify that top of CMU does਍ഀ not cause edge distance issues. Verify if expansion anchor is stainless, indicate as such if਍ഀ req'd.਍ഀ S142 D 14/S303: Please specify rebar and dimensions.਍ഀ S143 DC S001: Appears ground snow load is required for ground level lid design, in lieu of roof snow਍ഀ load used: pg = 100/.7=143 psf. Please verify.਍ഀ S144 C Transfer loads from buildings above the parking garage appear to be conservatively taken as਍ഀ the exterior soil load plus the snow / truck load. Please verify all point loads and line loads਍ഀ are accounted for and transferred through to the footings.਍ഀ S145 D,C S110: Transfer beams for building C located between consecutive PT beams are not called਍ഀ out on plans. Please provide details and calculations for all such beams.਍ഀ S146 D,C S108: At the 18" thick concrete slab the specified amount of reinforcement does not match਍ഀ the calculations. It appears the top and bottom continuous reinforcement is not specified on਍ഀ the plans. Please verify.਍ഀ S147 D,C S104: The calculations for the 12" thick concrete slab (page S44) indicate punching shear਍ഀ reinforcement is required at column 9 (grids 0.7-14.3). Please verify and provide the਍ഀ appropriate shear reinforcement.਍ഀ S148 D S001: The tie spacing for column C9 exceeds the requirements of ACI. Please verify. (ACI਍ഀ 318 7.10.5.2.)਍ഀ S149 DC It appears that the PT stressing ends are not encapsulated. Per ACI all tendons exposed to਍ഀ corrosive environments need to be encapsulated with a water tight membrane. Please verify਍ഀ PT general notes. (ACI 318 18.16.4)਍ഀ S150 DC Please provide a Post-Tensioning Specification section.਍ഀ S151 C Calculations for the B12 span3 do not match the drawings. Please verify.਍ഀ S152 C Please verify the long term deflection for beam B18 meets ACI tolerances.਍ഀ S153 C,D S109: East and west pool beams are not specified on plans. Please provide calculations and਍ഀ detail for the specified beams.਍ഀ S154 - not used਍ഀ S155 D S109: The beam at the entrance of the tunnel near grids R.5-25.5 is not scheduled. Please਍ഀ specify mild reinforcement, shear reinforcement, and PT tendons.਍ഀ S156 D S001: The general notes specify where to splice continuous reinforcement in walls and਍ഀ beams. Please clarify top and bottom reinforcement for walls, consider using inside face and਍ഀ outside face (I.F. and O.F.).਍ഀ S157 D Per the general notes it is unclear where to splice the continuous reinforcement in the਍ഀ structural slabs. Please clarify. See also S116.਍ഀ S158 C S110: The calculations for the PB1 PT beams did not account for the steps near grid line਍ഀ 11.1. The two beams adjacent to the steps can only account for one compression flange਍ഀ C:\Documents and Settings\mroyer\My Documents\Plan ReviewWront Door\tov-b06-001 8. DOC Page 17 of 20਍ഀ (high side of the step only). Please provide calculations verifying the two PB1 beams have਍ഀ adequate reinforcement and strength providing they only have a one-sided compression਍ഀ flange.਍ഀ S159 C,D S109: Please schedule reinforcement for beams PB9 and P131 0. Please provide calculations਍ഀ for these beams accounting for a one sided compression flange.਍ഀ S160 D Detail at stair cores reference the wrong detail. Please provide a detail through the stair cores਍ഀ specifying the reinforcement.਍ഀ S161 - not used਍ഀ S162 D Is the wall beam reinforcement continuous at corners. If so please provide details for corner਍ഀ reinforcement and lap splices. Congestion may be a problem at these locations.਍ഀ S163 C,D S002: In the cantilever portions of beams B4, B13, B14, and B15 ACI requires ties be spaced਍ഀ <_3db for the development length of the top reinforcement. Please provide a detail at cantilever਍ഀ beam sections to clarify the stirrups in these locations per the beam schedule call out for ties.਍ഀ (ACI 318 12.5.4)਍ഀ S164 D S301: In section 13 a CMU wall is shown under the cantilever portion of the structural slab. If਍ഀ CMU is not designed to take the weight of the structural slab, a slip connection is required਍ഀ between the CMU wall and the slab to allow for long term deflections in the slab, please਍ഀ provide a detail.਍ഀ S165 D S108: Please clarify where plan note 6 occurs by hatching the specific areas and verify all਍ഀ calculations take the extra soil weight into account.਍ഀ S166 D Concrete cover and fire ratings are not clearly specified on plans. Please verify all਍ഀ reinforcement coverage meet the required fire ratings.਍ഀ S167 C,D S002: Section 3 indicates the one-way slab reinforcement spanning perpendicular to the਍ഀ beam is located below the longitudinal reinforcement for the beam. Refer to calculations page਍ഀ R4. The beams are reinforced with #4 stirrups and #6 top bar giving a d of the slab equal to਍ഀ d=8-(1.5+1/2+6/8+(5/8)/2)=4.9". A d=6.5" was used in the calculations. If the d=4.9" is used਍ഀ the provide amount of top reinforcement does not provide a ~Mn>_Mu. There are several਍ഀ locations where calculations were not provided for all one-way slabs spanning between਍ഀ beams. Please verify all one-way slabs spanning between beams identifying the appropriate਍ഀ d distance for the negative moments and positive moments. Consider all conditions਍ഀ specifically where #10 bar is called out in the one-way slabs.਍ഀ S168 D Demo plan, D101 appears to show that an existing column / bearing wall between levels 0਍ഀ and level 1, approx. @ grids 20.8 / will remain, however this is not completely clear on the਍ഀ architectural or structural drawings. Please confirm existing column remains, or provide਍ഀ design for column transfer beam. Please confirm walls removed @ existing building are non਍ഀ load bearing.਍ഀ S168 LS Soil restraint will be removed at the south and east faces of the existing South Lodge Condo,਍ഀ during construction (excavation and demolition) and in the final condition (due to 2" gap਍ഀ between slabs at grade level, per note on S109). This seems to create an unbalanced lateral਍ഀ load situation at this existing building, due to lateral soil loads acting upon the north and west਍ഀ faces of the building. Provide calculations to show the existing South Lodge has a lateral load਍ഀ path due to lateral soil loads during and after construction, or confirm that this issue will be਍ഀ coordinated by the contractor (permanent shoring @ existing structure, etc).਍ഀ CADocuments and Settings\mroyer\My Documents\Plan Review\Front Door\tov-b06-001 8. DOC Page 18 of 20਍ഀ S169 S105 Column missing at grid 17/L਍ഀ S170 S109 Grid intersection 23.2/N elevation of B22 and P133 beam is not apparent. Referring to਍ഀ Section 6 S303, it is not apparent if beam B22 is measured from the bottom of PB3 or B24.਍ഀ The column at this intersection is shown supporting both the PB3 and B22 beams but these਍ഀ beams are shown on the detail to be at different elevations. Provide column connection਍ഀ detail, and all elevations of PB3 and B22.਍ഀ S171 S108 grid intersection 21.3/L, the elevation of the 12" slab north of beams B22 and B21 can not be਍ഀ determined. On plan the P134 and P65 beams are shown higher than the 12" slab to the north਍ഀ as indicated by a step symbol; however, section 7 on S303 shows the PT beams lower than਍ഀ the slab. Please provide on plan: elevations of the north slab adjacent to the supporting਍ഀ beams B22 and B21, and elevations of the PT beams and non-PT supporting beams. Also਍ഀ please correlate these elevations to detail 7 on S303. Please provide the reinforcing detail at਍ഀ grid intersection 21.3/L showing interfacing of reinforcing for P1310,1322-5, B21-1, the column਍ഀ below, and the slabs.਍ഀ S172 S109 Please indicate if a specific pour sequence is intended or required to satisfy design਍ഀ assumptions.਍ഀ S173 S109 Please clarify if elastic shortening has been considered due to post-tensioning਍ഀ S174 S109 S003 provide calculations and conformance to AC1318 section 18.13 Post-tensioned tendon਍ഀ anchorage zones.਍ഀ S175 S110 P131 requires approximately 38 tendons to achieve the final effective force of 1015k. Please਍ഀ provide detail of anchorages and tendon profile to get the drapes specified considering਍ഀ congestion of bursting, shear and flexural reinforcing. Please specify if multi strand਍ഀ anchorages are intended. The initial dead load seams to be overbalanced. Please indicate if਍ഀ stage stressing is required.਍ഀ S176 S001 and general. Reinforcing cover appears to be specified only on S001. Calculations provided਍ഀ in Ram Concept format does not indicate cover used considering layering of reinforcing in two਍ഀ directions. Confirm either specific sequencing is specified or the calculations allow for਍ഀ flexibility in reinforcing sequencing.਍ഀ S177 C U24 and PT7 shows #9 top bars needed. Please verify development. For the PT7 case, the਍ഀ boundary conditions suggest pinned condition. Clarify the top bars at this location per the਍ഀ calculations.਍ഀ S178 C M10. Please provide reinforcing covers used in the calculations.਍ഀ S179 C M10 beam 1-3 calls for 20410 top left side. B27-3 on S002 calls for a lesser amount of਍ഀ 17#10. Please provide justification for the reduced reinforcing from the calculated amount.਍ഀ S180 C/D M7 and M8 shows reaction moments where connected to the BM22. Provide calculations for਍ഀ BM22 considering torsional effects. Also section 6 on S303 does not appear to address this਍ഀ fixity. See S135.਍ഀ S181 C M6 shows column heights of 40 feet. With the increased column lengths the column਍ഀ moments are reduced. Please provide justification for modeling the columns extremely long.਍ഀ Please provide a reference for the column design considering applied moments from the floor਍ഀ designs shown on M1 and M14.਍ഀ CADocuments and Settings\mroyer\My Documents\Plan Review\Front Door\tov-b06-0018. DOC Page 19 of 20਍ഀ S182 C S105 M24-M27 Calculations appear to conclude #5 top and bot reinforcing. The plans show਍ഀ #6 top and bot with #5 add bars. The spacing on the plan appears to specify much more਍ഀ reinforcing than the calculations conclude. Is there another load case or condition that਍ഀ controls? It is not clear if the added reinforcing shown at 21.3/N is to be used at all column਍ഀ locations including the short spans on grid L.5.਍ഀ S183 C F6 shows f'c = 5000psi S001 specifies f'c = 4000psi for the footings- verify footings have been਍ഀ designed per plans.਍ഀ S184 D Building C S102: Please verify transfer load from column above for beam 5. See comment਍ഀ S12 Volume #4 Ski Club. Please verify deflections and strength of beam.਍ഀ S185 D Building C S102: Please provide splice positions for top and bottom continuous reinforcement਍ഀ for the one way slab.਍ഀ Please refer to the cover sheet for information and instructions for resubmitting plans. The recheck of plans਍ഀ usually occurs within 3-5 working days of plan re-submittal. In order to avoid delays please check all requested਍ഀ information is included with the resubmitted plans.਍ഀ Contact Person:਍ഀ Matthew Royer਍ഀ Building Official/ Project Manager਍ഀ Colorado Inspection Agency਍ഀ 970-328-1790਍ഀ matt. royer(a)coinspect.com਍ഀ Plans Examiners and Engineers:਍ഀ Barry Kramer- Building Official਍ഀ Todd Dunkin- Electrical Plans Examiner਍ഀ Dennis Lohmeier- Plumbing Plans Examiner਍ഀ Duskin Lowe- Plans Examiner਍ഀ James P. Horne, P.E., S.E. - Structural Review Project Manager਍ഀ C\Documents and Settings\mroyer\My Documents\Plan Review\Front Door\tov-b06-0018. DOC Page 20 of 20਍ഀ COLORADO INSPECTION AGENCY PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS਍ഀ TO: Contractor਍ഀ Hyder Construction਍ഀ Doug Thompson਍ഀ EMAIL: dthompson@hyderinc.com਍ഀ Architect਍ഀ 4240਍ഀ Randy Hart਍ഀ rhart@4240a.rch.com਍ഀ Engineer਍ഀ Monroe & Newell Eng਍ഀ FAX਍ഀ NUMBER OF PAGES:਍ഀ FROM:਍ഀ DATE:਍ഀ BUILDING PERMIT਍ഀ OWNERS NAME:਍ഀ SITE ADDRESS:਍ഀ SUBDIVISION:਍ഀ OCCUPANCY GROUP:਍ഀ TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION:਍ഀ NUMBER OF STORIES:਍ഀ 20਍ഀ Matthew Royer਍ഀ 03/10/2006਍ഀ B06-0018਍ഀ Vail Resorts Co.਍ഀ Building A and Site਍ഀ Mill Creek਍ഀ S-2਍ഀ I-A਍ഀ 3਍ഀ 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 a building਍ഀ permit is issued.਍ഀ For processing:਍ഀ Please submit (2) complete sets of revised construction documents containing the requested਍ഀ information or plan revisions with all revisions clouded or otherwise identified.਍ഀ Please respond in writina to each comment by markina the attached list or creating 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.਍ഀ 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. For commercial or multi-family projects all sheets of the plans਍ഀ must be stamped.਍ഀ C:\DOCUME-I\dhopp\LOCALS-I\Temp\A Site -Response to ToV-b06-0018.DOC Page I of I਍ഀ BUILDING DEPARTMENT COMMENTS:਍ഀ Common Project Comments: (CPC are attached to each permit comment letter)਍ഀ 1. Land Swap with US Forest Service must be complete prior to final approval and issuance of the਍ഀ Building Permit.਍ഀ The agreement was signed on January 18th, 2006 and is now in a 45 day review period.਍ഀ 2. When plans are resubmitted for review; complete sets of plans for each building which includes the਍ഀ addendum sheets. Separate addendum packets will not be accepted and approved for initial਍ഀ permitting.਍ഀ Plans have been modified and are to be resubmitted for the Town of Vail Building and Fire਍ഀ Department review, approval and issuance of a permit.਍ഀ 3. Preliminary plan review meetings had discussion regarding the submittal of Memorandum of਍ഀ Understandings (MOU). MOU's defined in these meetings would be "used to define or clarify the use਍ഀ of a code section, agreement to the installation of a system not covered specifically by the code or਍ഀ clarify the use or component of a building. None of the agreed upon MOU's were submitted for਍ഀ review. Please provide the following MOU's for review:਍ഀ a) Use of assumed property lines and fire separation distance.਍ഀ b) Fire command room਍ഀ c) Smoke management systems਍ഀ d) Opening between parking garage and Lodge Tower parking garage਍ഀ e) Fire separation between the new building and existing buildings਍ഀ f) Use of 508.2 for creating separate buildings as it relates to each building਍ഀ g) The separation between One Vail Place and new Skier Services਍ഀ A Memorandum of Understanding dated April 3, 2006 addressing these issues has been completed਍ഀ and will be submitted to the Building, Fire Department and Colorado Code Inspection for review and਍ഀ approval.਍ഀ 4. Preliminary plan review submittal meetings had discussion regarding the submittal of Administrative਍ഀ Modifications (AM). AM's as defined in these meetings would be based on International Building਍ഀ Code Section 104.10. Where practical difficulties are involved in carrying out the provision of this਍ഀ code, a modification to the code may be granted by the building official after justification that the਍ഀ modification will not lesson health, accessibility, life and fire safety, or structural requirements. The਍ഀ following AM's have been discussed and are being implemented into the plans. Please provide the਍ഀ following or amend plans accordingly to comply with the code.਍ഀ a) Separation between Chalet buildings਍ഀ b) Elimination of elevator smoke doors at residential levels of the Chalet buildings਍ഀ A Request for Administrative Modification dated April 3, 2006 addressing these issues has been਍ഀ completed and will be submitted to the Building, Fire Department and Colorado Code Inspection for਍ഀ review and approval.਍ഀ 5. Be sure to amend the Fire & Life Safety Report as necessary when changes are made to the plans਍ഀ that may affect the discussions made by the Report.਍ഀ An updated Life Safety Report for The Vail Front Door Buildings A, B, C and D dated April 3, 2006਍ഀ has been completed and coordinated with the G - Series Code Drawings. This report and਍ഀ attachments will be submitted to the Building, Fire Department and Colorado Code Inspection for਍ഀ review and approval.਍ഀ 6. Provide a precise site plan showing exact locations of assumed property lines. If locations of assumed਍ഀ property lines are close enough to exterior walls to require rating of walls and opening protection,਍ഀ provide details.਍ഀ 4240 has updated the G - Series Code Drawings indicating the locations of property lines and਍ഀ assumed property lines.਍ഀ C:\DOCUME- I\dhopp\LOCALS-1\Temp\A Site - Response to ToV-b06-0018.DOC Page 2 of 2਍ഀ 7. Fire and Life Safety Report states the use of 1-hour fire walls per IBC Table 705.4. This table does਍ഀ not allow for 1 hour fire walls anywhere. Please clarify.਍ഀ The Life Safety Report has been modified to reflect the approach taken for the building separations.਍ഀ As indicated in the report numerous meetings were held with the building and fire department਍ഀ identifying buildings, construction types and openings. The buildings and proximity to the property਍ഀ lines will not meet the prescriptive requirements of the building code. The design team has identified਍ഀ on the G - Series Code Drawings that the project will use a variety of 3-hour horizontal and vertical਍ഀ fire resistive separations as well as 2-hour and 1-hour occupancy separation walls. This approach of਍ഀ compartmentation with the use of automatic sprinkler protection and detection though-out will not਍ഀ compromise the life safety of the occupants.਍ഀ 8. Fire walls are called out in the fire and life safety report to separate buildings. What is the purpose਍ഀ and use of the fire walls and the separations? Is it to separate property owners?਍ഀ It appears that fire separation distances are being used to determine the ratings for the walls਍ഀ identified as fire walls between the different building and spaces. Our interpretation of this section is਍ഀ that once the 3 hour separation is used to make a separate building then everything that is not਍ഀ separated by a fire wall per 705.4 will be considered as one building.਍ഀ The Life Safety Report has been modified to reflect the approach taken for the building separations.਍ഀ As indicated in the report numerous meetings were held with the building and fire department਍ഀ identifying buildings, construction types and openings. The buildings and proximity to the property਍ഀ lines will not meet the prescriptive requirements of the building code. The design team has identified਍ഀ on the G - Series Code Drawings that the project will use a variety of 3-hour horizontal and vertical਍ഀ fire resistive separations as well as 2-hour and 1-hour occupancy separation walls. This approach of਍ഀ compartmentation with the use of automatic sprinkler protection and detection though-out will not਍ഀ compromise the life safety of the occupants.਍ഀ 9. Accessibility requirements do not appear to be included within any plan for this project. Please਍ഀ amend plans to include the following:਍ഀ a) Accessible parking spaces and loading zones.਍ഀ b) Accessible route from the parking and loading zones to the buildings.਍ഀ c) Accessible routes to each building on the site which are required to be accessible.਍ഀ d) Signage details for parking, striping, routes, restrooms, etc.਍ഀ e) Restroom details for fixtures, grab bars and accessories.਍ഀ The drawings have been modified to show accessible parking spaces and loading zones, accessible਍ഀ routes and confirmed that restroom details for fixtures, grab bars and accessories has been provided.਍ഀ All signs related to accessibility are listed in a separate contract with the client and will be a deferred਍ഀ submittal to the building for review and approval.਍ഀ 10. Amend plans to include stair signage plan, details and identify the location of the signage. Many of਍ഀ the exit enclosures require the occupants to travel up to get to exit discharge. Clearly identify the਍ഀ direction of travel to the exit discharge.(IBC 1019.1.6)਍ഀ The design team will modify the drawings to reflect required stair signage and directional signage. It਍ഀ would be the intent of the design team to identify with the fire department additional egress signage or਍ഀ directional signage to ensure occupants will be directed to a an egress stair/passage way and to a਍ഀ public way.਍ഀ 11. Amend plans to include gates located at the level of exit discharge to eliminate occupants of the਍ഀ building from entering an enclosure and passing by the level of exit discharge. (IBC 1019.1.6)਍ഀ Gates have been added to the plans to meet this requirement and direct occupants to the exterior or਍ഀ from continuing below or above a level of exit discharge.਍ഀ 12. Elevator door which do not open into a lobby need to be provided with a smoke control door in਍ഀ accordance with IBC Section 715.3.5.3਍ഀ None of the elevators penetrate more than 3 stories. Thus, smoke control and venting is not required.਍ഀ C:\DOCUME-I\dhopp\LOCALS-1\Temp\A Site - Response to ToV-b06-0018.DOC Page 3 of 3਍ഀ 13. Clearly identify the location of safety glazing per IBC Chapter 24 either in the window schedule or on਍ഀ the plan.਍ഀ Bldg. B: Per A610 for window types with tempered glazing and reference building elevations for਍ഀ location of such window types.਍ഀ Bldg. C: Per A610 & A611, tempered glazing is indicated at/in the following locations:਍ഀ - within 24" of door edges that are less than 60" AFF.਍ഀ - within units that have panes greater than 9 s.f.਍ഀ - and in units that are within 18" of the floor.਍ഀ See the updated window schedule that shows additional tempered glazing for units with panes਍ഀ greater than 9 s.f.਍ഀ Bldg D: Per A610, tempered glazing is indicated at/in the following locations:਍ഀ - within 24" of door edges that are less than 60" AFF.਍ഀ - within units that have panes greater than 9 s.f.਍ഀ - and in units that are within 18" of the floor.਍ഀ See the updated window schedule that shows additional tempered glazing for units with panes਍ഀ greater than 9 s.f.਍ഀ Bldg. E. Per A610 for window types with tempered glazing and reference building elevations for਍ഀ location of such window types.਍ഀ 14. The size of main elevator cars used for fire/emergency access needs to be determined by the Town਍ഀ of Vail Building and Fire Departments. Standard 24" x 76" required by code will not accommodate the਍ഀ stretchers used by emergency personnel. Please confirm the required size.਍ഀ The elevator cabs are currently designed to comply with the standard stretcher requirement as਍ഀ adopted by the code. In the case of the Chalets the elevator serves 4 levels or 3 stories. Based on਍ഀ that interpretation the stretcher accessible would not be required. The design team is providing a਍ഀ stretcher accessible elevator to each unit beyond what would be required by code. The current਍ഀ elevators will be 2474 inches.਍ഀ Architectural Comments:਍ഀ Site Comments:਍ഀ 15. Coordinate pool equipment room in Bldg B with pool piping shown on Site Plan sheet W1.0਍ഀ The pool piping information on W1.0 is directed to the pool equipment room detailed on sheet W2.0.਍ഀ Sheet W0.0 shows the piping corridor routes from the pool to the equipment room.਍ഀ 16. Provide compliant barrier to pool and spa areas. Change detail reference to L207. L208 is used for਍ഀ pool coping as called out on L202.਍ഀ Detail sheet numbers have been corrected to correspond with plan call-outs.਍ഀ 17. Fence shown on L207 shows the bottom of the fence to far above grade. Max distance between਍ഀ grade and bottom of fence 2 inches. (IBC 3109.4)਍ഀ Details have been revised to show 2" clearance.਍ഀ 18. Sheet L202 references sheet L209, but this sheet does not exist. Please amend plan.਍ഀ Detail sheet numbers have been corrected to correspond with plan call-outs.਍ഀ 19. Amend plans to show gates compliant with the pool barrier requirements. (IBC 3109.4.1.7)਍ഀ Details have been revised to show 2" clearance.਍ഀ C:\DOCUME-I\dhopp\LOCALS-I\Temp\A Site - Response to ToV-b06-0018.DOC Page 4 of 4਍ഀ 20. Boulder wall used at waterfall of pool shall not be climbable or an approved barrier shall extend਍ഀ around boulder wall. Show detail of wall or amend barrier to encompass this area.਍ഀ The stone veneer wall with fence has been redesigned to extend behind the waterfall and provide a਍ഀ continuous barrier between the sidewalk and the waterfall. See sheet L202਍ഀ 21. Some of the exterior stairs from the lift ticket area only show handrails on one side. Amend plans to਍ഀ show handrails on both sides of all stairs throughout the site. (IBC 1109.11)਍ഀ Stair areas have been revised to show handrails on both sides.਍ഀ 22. Sheet L102 for the chalets show some exterior stair locations with handrails on only one side. Hand਍ഀ rails are required on both sides of stairs per 1009.11 2003 IBC.਍ഀ Stairs have been revised to show handrails on both sides.਍ഀ 23. Sheet L102 calls out Stairs and Handrails on sheet L107. Sheet L07 does not exist.਍ഀ Detail sheet numbers have been corrected to correspond with plan call-outs.਍ഀ 24. Sheet L202 calls out fireplace detail on L208. This detail is on L207. Correct drawings to specify਍ഀ which sheet fireplace detail is located.਍ഀ Detail sheet numbers have been corrected to correspond with plan call-outs.਍ഀ 25. Sheet L207 states exterior gas fireplace. Provide manufacturers listing for exterior gas appliance. Also਍ഀ Sheet L202 has wood storage next to the fireplace called out as gas. Clarify.਍ഀ Manufactures listing information is called on detail 7, sheet L-208. Wood storage call-out on L202 has਍ഀ been changed to blanket storage.਍ഀ 26. Detail for all exterior stairs does not meet profile requirement of 1009.3.2 IBC 2003.਍ഀ Nosing design on sheet L106, detail 10 has been changed from a beveled edge nosing to a square਍ഀ condition.਍ഀ 27. There are changes in elevation of one step coming from west side of ski club down to walkway that਍ഀ require a handrail unless tread depth of elevation change is the same or greater than the dimension਍ഀ of a required landing. (IBC 1009)਍ഀ A handrail on both sides of the steps has been added.਍ഀ 28. Sheet L302 calls out stair and handrail details on L307. There are no stair and handrail details on਍ഀ L307. Clarify.਍ഀ Detail sheet numbers have been corrected to correspond with plan call-outs.਍ഀ 29. Amend plans to include all component which will be required and specified within the Administrative਍ഀ modification for the opening between the Parking Garage (2 places) and the existing Lodge Tower.਍ഀ The existing Lodge Tower plan has identified the parking garage as Type I-B. This needs to be taken਍ഀ into consideration when exercising IBC section 508.2. Same type of construction was used during the਍ഀ pre-submittal meetings that discussed the separation. Please address the type of construction਍ഀ separation and opening protection accordingly. Please coordinate plans and design with the Lodge਍ഀ Tower designers.਍ഀ See Memorandum of Understanding... As discussed with the TOV Fire Department at several਍ഀ meetings, a water curtain will be provided at the connection of the Lodge Tower parking garage and਍ഀ the new Building A Parking Garage. This opening between these two buildings is located on the਍ഀ property line and a cross easement agreement has been executed between the Lodge Tower and਍ഀ Vail Front Door owners. Prescriptively in accordance with the building code this opening would not be਍ഀ permitted. If the opening were permitted the protection of the opening would normally be done with a਍ഀ 90-minute fire shutter. Because of the difficulty of maintaining access should the fire shutter be਍ഀ activate it was agreed to by the building and fire department to protect the opening with a water wash਍ഀ from the sprinkler system. The water curtain shall be designed to provide a density of 3 gallons per਍ഀ C:\DOCUME-I\dhopp\LOCALS-I\Temp\A Site - Response to ToV-b06-0018.DOC Page 5 of 5਍ഀ minute per lineal foot across the opening. This protection will be from a closed sprinkler head water਍ഀ curtain and not a deluge system. The sprinkler heads at the opening will be spaced 6 feet on center਍ഀ and within 12 inches of the opening. The water curtain is to be located on the Vail Front Door side of਍ഀ the opening. Additionally, a rate compensating heat detector is being provided on both sides of the਍ഀ opening from the adjacent fire alarm systems for notification of an alarm condition at either Lodge਍ഀ Tower the Vail Front Door. The contractor through the sub-contractor will prepare shop drawings and਍ഀ construction sequencing for the modifications to the fire protection system for this special protection.਍ഀ The shop drawings and construction sequencing will be reviewed and approved by BCER਍ഀ Engineering for submittal to the TOV Fire Department for their review and approval during the shop਍ഀ drawing permit process.਍ഀ Mechanical Comments:਍ഀ 30. Provide positive pressure and outside air to valet booth. (IMC 404.3)਍ഀ Outside air has been added, see Bldg. C, sheet M101.਍ഀ 31. How is pool and spas being heated? There are no boilers shown in equipment room in bldg B. on਍ഀ P201.਍ഀ Refer to Bldg. B, sheet M101 P, keynote # 3.਍ഀ 32. Where is the gas piping for the fountain coming from? Sheet L308 is referenced and does not exist.਍ഀ ABS could not find reference to sheet L308. Refer to Bldg. D, response # 29.਍ഀ 33. Spec Manual calls out CO detector to send alarm to panel at 35 PPM. If this setting also activates਍ഀ exhaust fans it must be lowered to 25 PPM per 2003 IMC sec 404. Show compliance with 2003 IMC਍ഀ for fan activation.਍ഀ ABS could not find reference to 35 PPM in specification. See 15975 3.13 D. for sequence (fans are਍ഀ activated at 9 PPM).਍ഀ Plumbing Comments:਍ഀ 34. Clarify where continuation of plumbing for pool to equipment room is shown.਍ഀ The pool design is by STO Design and all plumbing piping for pools and spas shall be provided by਍ഀ them, with the exception of make-up water and backwash discharge standpipe, which ABS has਍ഀ supplied in the pool equipment room.਍ഀ Electrical Comments:਍ഀ 35. TVSS needs to have short circuit rating equal to or greater than available fault current. Provide rating਍ഀ and calculation for TVSS. (NEC 285.6)਍ഀ Calculations for available fault current at TVSS and specification of short circuit rating have been਍ഀ added, see sheet E002.਍ഀ 36. Provide nameplate information for generator. (NEC 445.13)਍ഀ Nameplate information will not be available until contractor selects generator manufacturer.਍ഀ Specification section 16403 1.04 has been revised to add a note that submittals shall include਍ഀ nameplate rating as designated in NEC section 445.13.਍ഀ 37. Feeder 50 to panel SLW should be 45.਍ഀ Feeder has been upsized to compensate for voltage drop.਍ഀ 38. Panels SLD, W and E not identified on panel schedule pages.਍ഀ Panel SLD is shown on Bldg D sheet E004. Panels SLW and SLE have been added to bldg A sheet਍ഀ E004.਍ഀ CADOCUME-I\dhopp\LOCALS-1\Temp\A Site - Response to ToV-b06-0018.DOC Page 6 of 6਍ഀ 39. Panic hardware required on electrical room (A109) doors. (NEC 110.26(C)(2))਍ഀ A note has been added to sheet E201 to require panic hardware. 4240 needs to revise architectural਍ഀ documents as necessary.਍ഀ 40. Feeder 51 must be 2"C minimum. (NEC table 5 and 4)਍ഀ Feeder 51 has been revised to be a 2" conduit.਍ഀ 41. Grounding electrode conductors need to be bonded at both ends if installed in metallic conduit. (NEC਍ഀ 250.92(A)(3))਍ഀ Specification section 16450-2.02 has been revised to add the following note. "Grounding electrode਍ഀ conductors shall be bonded at both ends if installed in metallic conduit per NEC 250.92(A)(3)."਍ഀ 42. Maintain clearances around electrical equipment. (NEC 110.26 & 450.21)਍ഀ The following general note has been to Sheet E002. "ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT MUST FIT IN THE਍ഀ SPACE PROVIDED AND MEET ALL CLEARANCE REQUIREMENTS PER NEC 110.26 & 450.21.਍ഀ REFER TO PLANS FOR SPACE ALLOCATION".਍ഀ 43. Provide performance test in accordance with NEC 230.95(C) for GFCI service equipment.਍ഀ Specification section 16065-2.02-5 has been revised to add the following note. "Provide performance਍ഀ test in accordance with NEC 230.95(C) for GFCI service equipment."਍ഀ 44. Are electrical rooms being separated with fire rated assemblies in lieu of the sprinkler system in that਍ഀ room?਍ഀ Electrical rooms are sprinkled.਍ഀ Energy Code Review:਍ഀ Envelope Corn Check਍ഀ 45. The IECC requires all conditioned spaces to be included in the building envelope. The parking garage਍ഀ and storage areas are being heated. We are unable to determine the areas used in the COM check਍ഀ for conditioned spaces. Provide calculations for all areas used in the envelope COM check. If the਍ഀ parking garage is not considered a conditioned space then vestibules are required for spaces that are਍ഀ conditioned and open into the garage. (IECC 802.3.6)਍ഀ The only conditioned space in this building is the Dock Office. See attached Envelope Compliance਍ഀ Certificate for compliance. Radiant heating of Dock and Valet area are allowed per ASHRAE 90.1-਍ഀ 2004, Section 6.5.8.1. The ceiling plenums that are shown, for heating of plumbing piping from਍ഀ above, are included in the related buildings' Envelope Compliance Certificate's (Bldg's B & D). The਍ഀ lower level of the Ski Club (Bldg. C) has a vestibule between the conditioned spaces and the garage.਍ഀ All other spaces adjacent to the garage fall into exception # 2 or 4 of IECC 802.3.6; they are all਍ഀ equipment rooms or are less than 3,000 sq. ft. in area.਍ഀ Mechanical Corn Check਍ഀ 46. The mechanical system list is incomplete for all areas which have conditioned space. Please provide਍ഀ more information.਍ഀ See attached Envelope Compliance Certificate for Dock Office only.਍ഀ 47. Provide load calcs. per 1997 ASHRAE fundamentals or equivalent.਍ഀ See attached Load Calcs for your reference.਍ഀ Electrical Energy Check਍ഀ 48. There is insufficient information to show compliance with IECC section 805.5.਍ഀ ABS Response: Buildings A, C and D share a common electrical service. The combined lighting਍ഀ wattage for this service is within compliance, see original letter issued with Com Check calculations.਍ഀ Due to limitations within the Com Check program the three calculations could not be combined. This਍ഀ was due to the garage not being eligible to be calculated as an individual space. In an effort to bring਍ഀ C:\DOCUME-I\dhopp\LOCAL'>-t\Temp\A Site -Response to ToV-b06-0018.000 Page 7 of 7਍ഀ Building C closer to individual compliance the lighting load has been reduced from 18,797 watts to਍ഀ 17,013 watts on the modified drawings. See the modified Com Check report for Building C.਍ഀ Site Structural Comments:਍ഀ Note: structural comments are numbered "S1,S2,..." and are also given a designation with regards to the topic, as follows:਍ഀ DC = design criteria; F= foundations; D = drawings; C = structural calculations; LS = lateral system.਍ഀ Site Comments:਍ഀ S1. D Specs 02925 appear to indicate that construction of EPS should not be done under "high winds",਍ഀ however wind speed is not defined. Suggest place notes regarding this requirement on the drawings਍ഀ and potential mitigating construction measures. ✓਍ഀ Specifications have been revised to read " High Winds over 20 MPH" ClaSaot਍ഀ S2. D Specs also indicate combustibility and fire retardant be used - suggest plate notes to this effect਍ഀ on the drawings.਍ഀ Specifications for project are submitted to Foam Molders for manufacturing of material. Required by਍ഀ Federal Law to include Flame Retardant in this type of application. c(c&eA,਍ഀ S3. D SF101: verify lower strength EPS is correctly shown what appears to be underneath the Ski Club,਍ഀ Volume 4 drawings. Seems a higher strength is required for bearing.਍ഀ The EPS placed under the Ski Services is only for filler material. This is not bearing the G cdl ✓਍ഀ foundation/footing for the structure. Placing fill material਍ഀ S4. D SF sheets: It seems a finished elevation C top of EPS would be useful for construction, it is not਍ഀ clear how the elevation will be correctly achieved with the current drawings.਍ഀ Next Submittal has the depth of the top of the EPS detailed. The thickness/depth of the top layer will਍ഀ outline the various elevations.਍ഀ S5. F SF sheets: verify pavement / subgrade above the EPS under roadway (20 psi) has been designed਍ഀ to span between HS-20 tires, or depth is sufficient to distribute loads such that 20 psi is a sufficient਍ഀ strength under the roadway.਍ഀ Calculations verify the 20 psi is sufficient under roadways with an eight inch slab thickness. If the slab਍ഀ is reinforced then the density can be decreased dependirlg on the amount of reinforcement used.਍ഀ n/a7k C'35 fLe ~s Of t(ara- vet/ ca~~d°uM਍ഀ S6 F SF sheets: It appears EPS fill has not been designed underneath Volume 6 Chalet (Bldg E). It is਍ഀ not clear how backf ill is intended to be placed at these structures; in some locations Bldg E bears half਍ഀ on the concrete tunnel and half on presumably engineered soil backfill. Please confirm that Bldg. E਍ഀ bears on engineered backfill. Verify deflection compatibility of Bldg. E bearing on top of tunnel and਍ഀ backfill and associated differential deflection.਍ഀ In this application the EPS is placed to reduce vertical loading on the underground structure from਍ഀ landscaping features. The foundation system of Building E has been designed to accommodate the਍ഀ fact that part of the building is bearing on the concrete tunnel and a portion of the building will be /਍ഀ placed on soil. ✓਍ഀ S7 DC Sheet L202: FOR to verify that various landscaping structures such as boulders, ponds, stone਍ഀ walls, pavers, and other superimposed dead loads have been appropriately considered in the਍ഀ structural design; verify any concentrated bearing on EPS filler (i.e. such as due to any retaining਍ഀ walls, 6/1-205, or massive stone structures, 3/L.208, etc.) C oref f'਍ഀ Worst case is 4.0 diameter boulder. EPS calculations verify stability under this situation. r਍ഀ 38 F 7/L.207: verify EPS will not be damaged over time due to fireplace heat.਍ഀ With three feet of material distance between the Fireplace and the EPS material there is enough heat਍ഀ dissipation to decrease the chances of deformation due to heat.਍ഀ S9 D A/W4.8: verify reinforcing at base of lift਍ഀ C:\DOCUME-1\dhopp\LOCAIS-1\Temp\A Site - Response to ToV-b06-0018.DOC Page 8 of 8਍ഀ The reinforcement at the base of the handicap lift is sufficient to adequately anchor the lift and਍ഀ support the max vertical load of 470 lbs. All that is required per the manufacturer's specific-a~tlion is a਍ഀ concrete footing and STO has provided the rebar in addition to this requirement. Ci, VA਍ഀ Building A Structural Comments:਍ഀ See attached Structural Comments from Monroe & Newell Engineers.਍ഀ Contact Person.਍ഀ Matthew Royer਍ഀ Building official/ Project Manager਍ഀ Colorado Inspection Agency਍ഀ 970-328-1790਍ഀ m tt.roWr@coinspect.com਍ഀ Plans Examiners and Engineers:਍ഀ Barry Kramer- Building Official਍ഀ Todd Dunkin- Electrical Plans Examiner਍ഀ Dennis Lohmeier- Plumbing Plans Examiner਍ഀ Duskin Lowe- Plans Examiner਍ഀ James P. Horne, P.E., S.E. - Structural Review Project Manager਍ഀ C:\DOCUME-I\dhopp\LOCAI -I\Temp\A Site - Response to ToV-b06-0018.DOC Page 9 of 9਍ഀ Colorado Ins ecdon਍ഀ AGENCY਍ഀ COLORADO INSPECTION AGENCY PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS਍ഀ 2nd review comments are shown below the original comment in bold italics. Comments that were਍ഀ addressed have been removed from the list.਍ഀ TO: Contractor Architect਍ഀ Hyder Construction 4220਍ഀ Doug Thompson Randy Hart਍ഀ EMAIL: dthomson(a)-hyderinc.com rhart(a)-4240arch.com਍ഀ FAX਍ഀ NUMBER OF PAGES:਍ഀ 18਍ഀ FROM:਍ഀ Matthew Royer਍ഀ DATE:਍ഀ 05/08/2006਍ഀ BUILDING PERMIT਍ഀ B06-0018਍ഀ OWNERS NAME:਍ഀ Vail Resorts Co.਍ഀ SITE ADDRESS:਍ഀ Building A and Site਍ഀ SUBDIVISION:਍ഀ Mill Creek਍ഀ OCCUPANCY GROUP:਍ഀ S-2਍ഀ TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION:਍ഀ I-A਍ഀ NUMBER OF STORIES:਍ഀ 3਍ഀ Engineer਍ഀ Monroe & Newell Eng਍ഀ 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 a building਍ഀ permit is issued.਍ഀ 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 writina to each comment by marking the attached list or creating 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.਍ഀ 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. For commercial or multi-family projects all sheets of the plans਍ഀ must be stamped.਍ഀ CADocuments and Settings\mroyer\My Documents\Plan Review\Front Door\tov-b06-0018.2. DOC Page 1 of 18਍ഀ BUILDING DEPARTMENT COMMENTS:਍ഀ Common Project Comments: (CPC are attached to each permit comment letter)਍ഀ 3. Preliminary plan review meetings had discussion regarding the submittal of Memorandum of਍ഀ Understandings (MOU). MOU's defined in these meetings would be "used to define or clarify the use਍ഀ of a code section, agreement to the installation of a system not covered specifically by the code or਍ഀ clarify the use or component of a building. None of the agreed upon MOU's were submitted for਍ഀ review. Please provide the following MOU's for review:਍ഀ a) Use of assumed property lines and fire separation distance.਍ഀ b) Fire command room਍ഀ c) Smoke management systems਍ഀ d) Opening between parking garage and Lodge Tower parking garage਍ഀ This item should be submitted as an Administrative Modification.਍ഀ e) Fire separation between the new building and existing buildings਍ഀ f) Use of 508.2 for creating separate buildings as it relates to each building਍ഀ This may be an Administrative Modification depending on writing and design.਍ഀ g) The separation between One Vail Place and new Skier Services਍ഀ This item should be submitted as an administrative Modification.਍ഀ 4. Preliminary plan review submittal meetings had discussion regarding the submittal of Administrative਍ഀ Modifications (AM). AM's as defined in these meetings would be based on International Building਍ഀ Code Section 104.10. Where practical difficulties are involved in carrying out the provision of this਍ഀ code, a modification to the code may be granted by the building official after justification that the਍ഀ modification will not lesson health, accessibility, life and fire safety, or structural requirements. The਍ഀ following AM's have been discussed and are being implemented into the plans. Please provide the਍ഀ following or amend plans accordingly to comply with the code.਍ഀ a) Separation between Chalet buildings਍ഀ b) Elimination of elevator smoke doors at residential levels of the Chalet buildings਍ഀ c) Opening between parking garage and Lodge Tower parking garage. When writing this਍ഀ modification be sure to use the correct Type 1B construction type for Lodge Tower.਍ഀ Please amend G sheets to correctly identify the Lodge Tower as Type IB construction.਍ഀ d) The separation between One Vail Place and new Skier Services਍ഀ 5. Be sure to amend the Fire & Life Safety Report as necessary when changes are made to the plans਍ഀ that may affect the discussions made by the Report.਍ഀ As discussed in the meeting on 0510212006; the Fire and Life Safety Report, Memorandums of਍ഀ Understanding and Administrative Modifications will be reformatted for clarification and ease਍ഀ of understanding.਍ഀ 6. Provide a precise site plan showing exact locations of assumed property lines. If locations of assumed਍ഀ property lines are close enough to exterior walls to require rating of walls and opening protection,਍ഀ provide details.਍ഀ Please show the location of the actual property line between the new Spa and the Lodge਍ഀ Tower. Sheet G016 shows an assumed property line between these two buildings at 5'6" from਍ഀ the Spa and 21' 11 " from the Lodge Tower. As a result of this assumed property line, the਍ഀ Lodge Tower would need a rated wall and protected openings. Please clarify?਍ഀ Chalet property lines are also a concern. During the 0510212006 meeting we were told to਍ഀ reference G026 for location of property lines. This sheet shows the Chalet buildings crossing਍ഀ over or placed on the property lines. Please clarify.਍ഀ 7. Fire and Life Safety Report states the use of 1 hour fire walls per IBC Table 705.4. This table does਍ഀ not allow for 1 hour fire walls anywhere. Please clarify.਍ഀ CADocuments and Settings\mroyer\My Documents\Plan ReviewWront Door\tov-b06-0018.2. DOC Page 2 of 18਍ഀ The Fire and Life Safety Report was modified in an attempt to clear this issue. This somewhat਍ഀ still remains. We understand the intent after the last revision. Please clarify based on the਍ഀ example below. For instance:਍ഀ Page 17 of the April 3 Fire and Life Safety Report has a table regarding separations between਍ഀ buildings. I would like to use the 3rd item in the table as an example. Table States-਍ഀ Description: Mid-Level Parking garage/ Spa for Lodge at Vail Lower Level; Separation Reason:਍ഀ Spa Construction Type; Occupancy Group: S-2 Type IA; Fire Ratin_g: 1 hour Occupancy਍ഀ Separation Wall.਍ഀ Based on the plan, the Lodge at Vail is Type IA, the parking garage is Type IA. The reason for਍ഀ separation is not really type of construction because they are both the same type. The reason਍ഀ for the separation is occupancy. The Fire Rating isn't an occupancy separation wall because਍ഀ this doesn't exist in the IBC; the plan is actually shown correctly as a 1 hour barrier.਍ഀ I believed the confusion was coming from the table (Fire and Life Safety Report) saying one਍ഀ thing and the plans showing another. Please clarify.਍ഀ 9. Accessibility requirements do not appear to be included within any plan for this project. Please਍ഀ amend plans to include the following:਍ഀ a) Accessible parking spaces and loading zones.਍ഀ b) Accessible route from the parking and loading zones to the buildings.਍ഀ c) Accessible routes to each building on the site which are required to be accessible.਍ഀ d) Signage details for parking, striping, routes, restrooms, etc.਍ഀ e) Restroom details for fixtures, grab bars and accessories.਍ഀ This packet is normally not a deferred submittal. Amend plans and specification for all਍ഀ required signage per IBC Section 1110.਍ഀ Show the location of required Site Signage on sheet C37.0 (signage plan).਍ഀ The response states that parking spaces were provided. 2 were located on the plans. Please਍ഀ respond with sheet numbers and locations of which all accessible parking spaces can be਍ഀ found. Also, include the parking calculations used to determine the required number of਍ഀ spaces. The space and loading zone shown on sheet A106 needs to be dimensioned. Be sure਍ഀ to include the required number of accessible spaces and van accessible spaces.਍ഀ When the plan shows the location of inaccessible entrances and the required number of਍ഀ accessible parking spaces then the accessible routes will be reviewed for code compliance.਍ഀ The routes may need to be identified on a separate sheet or sheets to be clearly represented.਍ഀ 10. Amend plans to include stair signage plan, details and identify the location of the signage. Many of਍ഀ the exit enclosures require the occupants to travel up to get to exit discharge. Clearly identify the਍ഀ direction of travel to the exit discharge.(IBC 1019.1.6)਍ഀ We were unable to locate the signage if it was provided with this submittal. Please provide or਍ഀ respond with the location in which to find this information.਍ഀ 11. Amend plans to include gates located at the level of exit discharge to eliminate occupants of the਍ഀ building from entering an enclosure and passing by the level of exit discharge. (IBC 1019.1.6)਍ഀ The response states that gates have been added. Provide written response of where these਍ഀ gates were added. What sheets were modified?਍ഀ 12. Elevator door which do not open into a lobby need to be provided with a smoke control door in਍ഀ accordance with IBC Section 715.3.5.3਍ഀ CADocuments and Settings\mroyerNy Documents\Plan ReviewWront Door\tov-b06-0018.2. DOC Page 3 of 18਍ഀ The Chalet Building elevators penetrate more then 3 stories which would require smoke਍ഀ control. Please amend plans accordingly. This was a topic at the 0510212006 meeting and may਍ഀ be handled by an Administrative Modification.਍ഀ 14. The size of main elevator cars used for fire/emergency access needs to be determined by the Town਍ഀ of Vail Building and Fire Departments. Standard 24" x 76" required by code will not accommodate the਍ഀ stretchers used by emergency personnel. Please confirm the required size.਍ഀ This has been a topic of discussion at various 42401Town of Vail meetings. The question is਍ഀ not whether or not you are compliant with the letter of the code, but whether or not you have਍ഀ coordinated with the Town of Vail Fire Department regarding the elevator sizes. This building਍ഀ is unique in design with regard to emergency access. This is one of the smoke management਍ഀ and other conditions within this project that are being provide above and beyond the code.਍ഀ The Fire Department is looking at several items in respect to performance. The comment here਍ഀ is to verify that coordination is occurring with the Fire Department to ensure they have਍ഀ adequate emergency access. The topic has surfaced because the stretchers used by the਍ഀ Town of Vail emergency personnel are larger than the code required size for stretchers.਍ഀ Architectural Comments:਍ഀ Site Comments:਍ഀ 17. Fence shown on L207 shows the bottom of the fence to far above grade. Max distance between਍ഀ grade and bottom of fence 2 inches. (IBC 3109.4)਍ഀ Please amend detail 2/L208. In one location this detail shows 3-314" at the bottom of the਍ഀ barrier.਍ഀ 19. Amend plans to show gates compliant with the pool barrier requirements. (IBC 3109.4.1.7)਍ഀ Clearly show gate as self-latching, show location of latch and protection of the latch if located਍ഀ less than 54" above the walking surface.਍ഀ 28. Sheet L302 calls out stair and handrail details on L307. There are no stair and handrail details on਍ഀ L307. Clarify.਍ഀ Handrail shown in detail 3IL307 must be gripable and comply with IBC section 1009.11.3.਍ഀ Amend plan to clearly show this handrail is compliant.਍ഀ 29. Amend plans to include all component which will be required and specified within the Administrative਍ഀ modification for the opening between the Parking Garage (2 places) and the existing Lodge Tower.਍ഀ The existing Lodge Tower plan has identified the parking garage as Type I-B. This needs to be taken਍ഀ into consideration when exercising IBC section 508.2. Same type of construction was used during the਍ഀ pre-submittal meetings that discussed the separation. Please address the type of construction਍ഀ separation and opening protection accordingly. Please coordinate plans and design with the Lodge਍ഀ Tower designers.਍ഀ This comment was discussed in the 0510212006 meeting with 42140, BCER, Town of Vail and਍ഀ Colorado Inspection Agency. An Administrative Modification will be created to clarify the਍ഀ opening and equivalencies provided to allow this opening on the property line between the਍ഀ two buildings. This Administrative Modification must be consistent with the Modification਍ഀ created by the Lodge Tower. It was discussed that one document be created that is signed਍ഀ and agreed upon by both property owners.਍ഀ CADocuments and Settings\mroyer\My Documents\Plan Review\Front Door\tov-b06-0018.2. DOC Page 4 of 18਍ഀ Mechanical Comments:਍ഀ 32. Where is the gas piping for the fountain coming from? Sheet L308 is referenced and does not exist.਍ഀ Amend plans to show the location of a gas shutoff valve near the fire pit.਍ഀ Energy Code Review:਍ഀ Envelope Com Check਍ഀ The Town of Vail recently established the heating degree days and cooling degree days for a਍ഀ base of 65 degrees. The numbers provided are:਍ഀ Heating degree days (base 65 degree F): 9826਍ഀ Cooling degree days (base 65 degree F): 3਍ഀ 1 apologize for the notice of these numbers; however I have been instructed to pass this਍ഀ information on and require modification of the Envelop Compliance Certificate and design.਍ഀ Amend reports to reflect the design criteria established by the Town of Vail.਍ഀ Site Structural Comments:਍ഀ Note: structural comments are numbered "S1,S2...... and are also given a designation with regards to the topic, as follows:਍ഀ DC = design criteria; F= foundations; D = drawings; C = structural calculations; LS = lateral system.਍ഀ Site Comments:਍ഀ S5. F SF sheets: verify pavement / subgrade above the EPS under roadway (20 psi) has been਍ഀ designed to span between HS-20 tires, or depth is sufficient to distribute loads such that 20 psi is a਍ഀ sufficient strength under the roadway.਍ഀ KMA, 515106: Note, sheet C35.0 shows a 6" roadway slab, please verify adequacy.਍ഀ S7 DC Sheet L202: FOR to verify that various landscaping structures such as boulders, ponds,਍ഀ stone walls, pavers, and other superimposed dead loads have been appropriately਍ഀ considered in the structural design; verify any concentrated bearing on EPS filler (i.e.਍ഀ such as due to any retaining walls, 6/1-205, or massive stone structures, 3/L.208, etc.)਍ഀ M&N Response:਍ഀ These issues have been discussed with the EPS Designer and the Landscape Designer.਍ഀ The retaining walls were designed based on the allowable bearing pressure on the EPS.਍ഀ The designer of the boulder walls will need to be informed of these allowables also.਍ഀ KL&A, 5/5/06: See also comment in Volume 1 section. No calculations have been provided at਍ഀ this time. We assume that bearing capacity and stability of landscaping or stone structures਍ഀ designed by others will be reviewed and checked by the FOR during the submittal process.਍ഀ Comment closed.਍ഀ Building A Structural Comments:਍ഀ Note: structural comments are numbered "S1,S2...... and are also given a designation with regards to the topic, as follows:਍ഀ DC = design criteria; F= foundations; D = drawings; C = structural calculations; LS = lateral system.਍ഀ General Structural Comment: Due to the inherent connectivity between the various structures in this project, there may be਍ഀ comments from this Volume's details in other Volume's comments, and vice versa. Note also that this review and eventual਍ഀ approval does not permit the violations of any section of the building code, or any other ordinance or State law.਍ഀ C\Documents and Settings\mroyer\My Documents\Plan Review\Front Door\tov-b06-0018.2. DOC Page 5 of 18਍ഀ S4. F Soils report, page 38, items 7 & 8 discusses underpinning of existing structures adjacent to਍ഀ new construction. Please discuss how the existing structures will be supported during਍ഀ construction and permanently. Verify that vertical surcharge loading has been applied to the਍ഀ below grade permanent foundation walls and parking structure as appropriate. Verify਍ഀ underpinning system does not conflict with the new foundations for this parking structure.਍ഀ M&N Response:਍ഀ Underpinning of existing structures is responsibility of General Contractor. Surcharges਍ഀ from vertical loading was included in design of new, below structural walls.਍ഀ KL&A, 515106: No surcharges seem to have been included in the lateral pressures in਍ഀ the calculations. Surcharges are shown acting vertically but the horizontal loads are਍ഀ not increased, please indicate where these calculations are located.਍ഀ S4A F Calculations (p. FW5) don't appear to include soil full height at existing building. This appears਍ഀ correct west of gridline 18, as slab on grade / offices will be constructed here, however west਍ഀ of the ski club foundation walls, there appears to be soil for two stories tall, creating a two਍ഀ span condition at some exterior concrete walls. Verify soil backfill height and verify਍ഀ calculations. Provide calcs for 2-story at-rest retaining wall conditions. See also comment਍ഀ S4B.਍ഀ M&N Response:਍ഀ Please refer to the calculations sheet FW1 for a "key". The calc on FW5 applies to the north਍ഀ foundation wall from west of grid 25 to grid 17. The only two-story retaining walls are along਍ഀ the south wall per "F", "J", and "I" in the key.਍ഀ KL&A, 5/5/06: Please address the unbalanced soil lateral load issue. Describe the਍ഀ lateral load path at the intermediate slab. We suggest holding a meeting to discuss਍ഀ and resolve this issue, as needed.਍ഀ S41B. F/ LS It appears that the ramp at the south end, as well as the permanent shoring at the south਍ഀ side create an unbalanced lateral soil loading at the parking structure, at the upper parking਍ഀ level, and lid level. Verify that concrete diaphragm and concrete shear walls below have been਍ഀ designed to resist this unbalanced soil lateral loading. Verify drag loads / connections from਍ഀ diaphragms to concrete walls. Provide calculations.਍ഀ M&N Response:਍ഀ The permanent shoring will resist the unbalanced soil loading. The permanent shoring਍ഀ is to be designed and detailed by an engineer of the shoring subcontractor.਍ഀ KL&A, 5/5/06: This response does not address the issue. FW45 & FW67 show two਍ഀ span walls, please explain how the center reaction is transmitted to the supporting soil.਍ഀ Verify load to middle parking level acting southwards from the north walls is਍ഀ transmitted to the perimeter walls and cores with appropriate lateral connections਍ഀ (dowels, shear friction, foundation bearing pressure due to moments in short walls,਍ഀ etc.). We suggest holding a meeting to discuss and resolve this issue, as needed.਍ഀ S4C. F/LS It seems that the parking structure compressible material is required between the਍ഀ permanent shoring wall and the parking structure to allow the two systems to behave਍ഀ independently, and to avoid the permanent soil retaining system from loading the parking਍ഀ CADocuments and Settings\mroyer\My Documents\Plan Review\Front Door\tov-b06-0018.2.DOC Page 6 of 18਍ഀ structure. Details 13&14/S004 do not indicate this is being done. Also, it appears from਍ഀ 13/S004 that the new concrete walls will be constructed directly against the permanent਍ഀ shoring system, which it seems would move into the structure over time. Please comment.਍ഀ M&N Response:਍ഀ Section 14/S004 occurs within the building with no shoring. Section 13/S004 is the only਍ഀ section that has the wall cast against permanent shoring. M&N's design and detailing were਍ഀ completed per direction from the General Contractor and Shoring Contractor.਍ഀ KL&A, 5/5/06:This response does not address the issue. Please confirm that the walls਍ഀ were designed for lateral soil loads where not adjacent to permanent shoring walls.਍ഀ S5. D S001: Column Schedule. Schedule includes (2) line items "Configuration". These various਍ഀ configurations do not seem to be defined anywhere in the documents.਍ഀ M&N Response:਍ഀ These configurations are nomenclature used by CRSI. We have added notes to the schedule਍ഀ to clarify.਍ഀ KL&A, 5/5/06: FOR please verify cross-tie in one direction only @ 4F tie configuration਍ഀ on S001.਍ഀ S19 F S004: Section 10. Is drainage a consideration in the structural design for retaining wall਍ഀ (typical all walls)? Verify Lateral pressures include hydrostatic pressures as req'd, the garage਍ഀ extends well below the measured water table per soils report. Also, wall scales 1'-2 thk, but਍ഀ plan says 1'6. Which is correct?਍ഀ M&N Response:਍ഀ A permanent dewatering system is to be provided so the hydrostatic pressure does not need਍ഀ to be accounted for. Drawings are not necessarily to scale nor should they be scaled for਍ഀ dimensions. Written dimensions shall govern.਍ഀ KL&A, 5/5/06:Closed regarding hydrostatic pressure & scaling issues. Verify edge਍ഀ distance for shear friction dowel from wall to footing. It appears dowel will burst out਍ഀ the back of the wall. Please verify. Similar at 11,12,13/S004.਍ഀ S21 F,D S001: concrete general notes: consider using air entrainment at loading dock slabs and other਍ഀ garage level concrete that will be exposed to weather- clarify notes as required.਍ഀ M&N Response:਍ഀ Concrete for slabs on grade in tunnel parking garage and loading dock will be noted as਍ഀ needing to have 6% to 8% air entrainment.਍ഀ KL&A, 5/5/06: This does not appear to have been noted on the drawings. FOR to਍ഀ coordinate communicating this decision with the contractor. Comment Closed.਍ഀ S24 F S005: Section 2. Horizontal rebar in wall not indicated.਍ഀ CADocuments and Settings\mroyer\My Documents\Plan Review\Front Door\tov-b06-0018.2. DOC Page 7 of 18਍ഀ M&N Response:਍ഀ Please refer to revised plan.਍ഀ KL&A, 5/5/06: Rebar does not meet ACI minimum of 0.002 (ACI 14.3.3)਍ഀ S31 F S005: Section 10, 11. Where are elevation of the ledges defined? #8 is not developed for full਍ഀ M&N Response:਍ഀ Elevations of ledges are shown on the plans.਍ഀ KL&A, 5/5/06: Address development at 10/S005 vertical bar.਍ഀ S39 D S101: What is the top of footing elevation at the elevator near L.5 16.5? Is the combined਍ഀ footing below the stair and col C14 all at this lower elevation? If so, define backfill SOG @਍ഀ stair (detail cut 6/S005 is incorrect?). The 3'-0 detail at east side of stair is not well placed to਍ഀ define dimensions.਍ഀ M&N Response:਍ഀ Please refer to the revised plans and section.਍ഀ KL&A, 5/5/06: Note it is not clear where the 5 foot thick tower crane footing ends /਍ഀ begins and how the mat footing and other adjacent monolithic footings tie together,਍ഀ suggest revisit this area. FOR please coordinate these issues as required, comment਍ഀ closed.਍ഀ S49 F S101: Bldg A fndn plans. Ftg F18 in footing schedule reinf. is not noted top, bot or which਍ഀ way?਍ഀ M&N Response:਍ഀ Please refer to revised plans.਍ഀ KL&A, 5/5/06: Plans have not been changed.਍ഀ S61 F S103 General Comment: Wall strip foundation reinforcement does not appear to be called਍ഀ Out anywhere on this or other sheets? Pis provide or clarify drawings.਍ഀ M&N Response:਍ഀ Please refer to item S20.਍ഀ KL&A, 515/06:਍ഀ S65 F S103 Verify Min 48" frost depth is achieved @ exterior/exposed loading dock areas - some਍ഀ footing elevations are not identified, ref. detail 5/S004 also. Consider corrosion of SOG reinf.਍ഀ due to salts & temp effects.਍ഀ M&N Response:਍ഀ The loading dock is interior heated space.਍ഀ CADocuments and Settings\mroyer\My Documents\Plan Review\Front Door\tov-W-0018.2. DOC Page 8 of 18਍ഀ KL&A, 5/5/06: Consider slab reinforcing corrosion due to salts and moisture from਍ഀ vehicles at the slab on grade and at flat plate slabs at all levels. Ref. ACI Ch. 4:਍ഀ increased cover, increased use of pozzolans, epoxy coated rebar, epoxy coating on਍ഀ driving surface, etc. Please comment.਍ഀ S66 C Wall beam calculations 131-1384 contain much information that the drawings S201, S202, S203਍ഀ do not seem to reflect. For example, calcs page B16 shows different top and bottom਍ഀ reinforcing, as well as a seemingly very important pilaster below a large beam, and #5x60"਍ഀ diagonal bars at corners and pockets. The pilaster is not detailed on the structural drawings.਍ഀ Please coordinate required reinforcing per calculations with the drawings, drawings appear਍ഀ incomplete.਍ഀ M&N Response:਍ഀ Please refer to the revised wall beam elevations and calculations.਍ഀ KL&A, 5/5/06: Diagonal bars and details @ wall to column connection are still not਍ഀ detailed, please review. Sheet S201, ref: "typical wall intersection detail." Ref.਍ഀ comment S109.਍ഀ S66a D Wall beams typically have a slab connecting in at the top of the beam, providing lateral਍ഀ bracing of the compression flange, however at the bottom of the wall beam, typically no slab਍ഀ exists. Verify that sufficient lateral bracing restraint is provided at negative moment regions਍ഀ where the bottom of the wall beam is in compression, i.e. W134 at the intermediate column਍ഀ support.਍ഀ M&N Response:਍ഀ Per PCA notes for deep flexural members, all the wall beams are adequately braced to਍ഀ satisfy ACI provisions. Refer to attached calculations.਍ഀ KL&A, 5/5/06: We feel that PCA guidelines do not apply to conventionally reinforced਍ഀ concrete structures. ACI 10.7 states specifically that lateral torsional buckling and਍ഀ nonlinear strain distribution need to be considered. ACI References are given, of these਍ഀ 10.22, the Park and Paulay text seems a more appropriate reference. We suggest਍ഀ holding a meeting to discuss and resolve this issue, as needed.਍ഀ S66c D 16/302: W134 detail: verify direction of shear friction hook; as bar elongates concrete cover will਍ഀ burst out at this location if not extraordinarily well developed. See ACI figure R11.9.2 (similar਍ഀ to corbels). Verify hook development length in the wall and development length into the਍ഀ beam, this information needs to be shown in the detail.਍ഀ M&N Response:਍ഀ Please refer to the General Notes on S001 for development length information. Note: Due਍ഀ to head height constraints, dowels cannot be turned down.਍ഀ KL&A, 5/5/06: Development into beam is insufficient: Ld = 48" for bottom bars਍ഀ (which may not be accurate as a great number of bars are required and no position is਍ഀ shown in the detail), and 2'-9" at most is provided with a 4'-0" horizontal leg. Also at਍ഀ the hooked end, Ldh = 19", larger than the V-5" available. Shear friction calculations਍ഀ appear to consider the reinforcing fully developed on each side of the joint. Please਍ഀ revisit the beam to wall and slab to wall details for adequate rebar development.਍ഀ S67 D S104 slab to wall connectors are not detailed. Pls show a detail. See comment S66c.਍ഀ CADocuments and Settings\mroyer\My Documents\Plan Review\Front Door\tov-b06-0018.2. DOC Page 9 of 18਍ഀ M&N Response:਍ഀ Please refer to section 4/S302 and section cut at grid N.1 near grid 12.9.਍ഀ KL&A, 515/06: Ref. S66c: verify rebar development.਍ഀ S72 D S105 Additional rebar shown in 12" slab @ line 21.3. Is this "typ" additional reinf typ @ line਍ഀ 21.3 or line N or typ at all lines within the 12" slab area? If typ @ all lines within 12" slab਍ഀ shouldn't the bottom lengths very depending on the spacing of the columns.਍ഀ M&N Response:਍ഀ Please refer to revised plan.਍ഀ KL&A, 5/5/06: Plans are not revised, please address.਍ഀ S73 D S105 New 8" SOG south of L: do you want control joints? If so please define the spacing਍ഀ and depth਍ഀ M&N Response:਍ഀ Provide control joints per General Note 5.C/S001 except sawcut on 1" deep. General਍ഀ Contractor to provide proposed layout.਍ഀ KL&A, 5/5/06: Verify 1" depth is shown on the drawings, see S65 regarding rebar਍ഀ corrosion.਍ഀ S74 D S105 Seems you need a defining section thru the top of the conc wall at the north tunnel wall਍ഀ at rectangular columns / PT beam / flat slab / vertical wall intersection btwn N & L.਍ഀ M&N Response:਍ഀ See new Section 20/S301.਍ഀ KL&A, 5/5/06: See S91 regarding shear friction dowels.਍ഀ S77 D S105 Col/bm details at lines 24, 23, & 22 seem complicated. A section or description is਍ഀ required for checking.਍ഀ M&N Response:਍ഀ See new Section 21/S301.਍ഀ KL&A, 5/5/06: See S91 regarding shear friction dowels. Column is not shown, address਍ഀ column / beam detail.਍ഀ S78 D S105 Area south of line L has 6" steel studs @ 1'-4 o/c. What structural sheathing਍ഀ is on top of these steel studs? Define/detail connection to CMU & conc walls.਍ഀ M&N Response:਍ഀ Refer to revised plans.਍ഀ KL&A, 5/5/06: Address connections of beams and deck in 8/S302.਍ഀ C\Documents and Settings\mroyer\My Documents\Plan Review\Front Door\tov-b06-0018.2. DOC Page 10 of 18਍ഀ S79 D S106 Section 5/S302: Cut thru a conc wall in the NW area of this sheet appears to be਍ഀ incorrect in that it does not represent plan conditions. Pis Clarify.਍ഀ M&N Response:਍ഀ There is a section cut for 15/S302 in the area described.਍ഀ KL&A, 5/5/06: Call out rebar in 15/S302. Verify dowel for 50 plf guardrail loading.਍ഀ S91 D S108 Verify shear friction for 100% of shear loads for the following beams (see ski club਍ഀ comments)਍ഀ 611 -Span 1 & Span 3਍ഀ B10 -Span 1਍ഀ B12 -Span 1਍ഀ B9 - South End.਍ഀ (Ref. 16/S302) Verify dowel development length - seems also vert dowel should be turned਍ഀ downwards, ref. comment S66c.਍ഀ M&N Response:਍ഀ See response to Comment S66C.਍ഀ B11 - Span 1 is designed as a cantilever section so it is not meant to be supported on਍ഀ its left side. B11 - Span 3 is supported 100% by shear friction transfer as well as B-9਍ഀ South End. B-10 and B-12 are supported by the ledge that exists in WB4, but can be਍ഀ supported 100% by shear friction. See revised calculations. Dowel development਍ഀ length should be determined by the parameters set forth by the General Notes on਍ഀ S001.਍ഀ KL&A, 5/5/06: Detail 16/S302 says (9) #9; calculation shows (14) #10 for B11, (12) #9 for਍ഀ B9, and (8) #10 for B10. Calculations and drawings appear to conflict. Suggest use a਍ഀ schedule for dowels required at all beams supported by shear friction. Nothing is਍ഀ called out at the west end of B11 on S104. Verify all beam dowels and connections.਍ഀ See also comment S66c.਍ഀ S92 D S108 It is unclear what supports intersecting bms B6 with 1311, span 1, at slab edge਍ഀ illustrated by detail 9/S303?਍ഀ M&N Response:਍ഀ Detail 9/S303 is on the 8183'-6" level. Refer to Section 5/S002 for B6 to 1311਍ഀ connection.਍ഀ KL&A, 5/5/06: The issue is the support of the west end of B11, span 1. Please਍ഀ comment.਍ഀ S94 D S109 Bm @ west end of pool is not identified?਍ഀ M&N Response:਍ഀ Refer to item S86਍ഀ KL&A, 5/5/06: S108 & 109: beams at the west and east ends of the pool are still not਍ഀ identified (3'-0" wide). Please verify.਍ഀ CADocuments and Settings\mroyer\My Documents\Plan Review\Front Door\tov-b06-0018.2. DOC Page 11 of 18਍ഀ S95 D S109 Bms B13, B14, B15 - Span 1 are cantilevered from B13, B14, B15 Span 2 instead of਍ഀ as noted in the beam schedule- please verify schedule.਍ഀ M&N Response:਍ഀ This area where the cantilever beams are located has been revised completely for਍ഀ construction sequencing. See revised S102, S105, and S109.਍ഀ KL&A, 5/5/06: Beam schedule S002 still shows a cantilever span, please verify਍ഀ schedule is correct.਍ഀ S96 D S109 Detail 14/S301 is cut on S109. This detail seems to define new steel framing as well਍ഀ existing framing to be removed:਍ഀ a) Detail 13/S301 Appears to be a section thru this area however is not referenced਍ഀ anywhere - cut 13/S301 on plan or detail.਍ഀ b) Dims @ 3 places 14/S301 is cut appear different; are these the same detail &਍ഀ framing? Please verify.਍ഀ c) Verify W16 frames into (E) W12਍ഀ d) Provide Load for TS hanger.਍ഀ M&N Response:਍ഀ a) Please refer to revised drawing.਍ഀ b) Refer to architectural drawings for actual layout. Layout to be field verified.਍ഀ C) The W16 frames into the (E) W12.਍ഀ d) 6000lbs਍ഀ KL&A, 5/5106:਍ഀ a) Comment closed.਍ഀ b) FOR to coordinate, comment closed.਍ഀ C) Please verify, this is a difficult connection with the load criteria on the general਍ഀ notes, S001. Comment closed.਍ഀ d) This is required on the drawings for connection design. Alternatively, call out a਍ഀ weld. FOR to coordinate, comment closed.਍ഀ S102 D S110 Call out (2) conc bms spanning east & west between PB 7-2 bms are not identified, for਍ഀ ski club support.਍ഀ M&N Response:਍ഀ Beams will be Type "134" from schedule on S002.਍ഀ KL&A, 5/5/06: Please identify the beams on plan with the B4 keyed note.਍ഀ S104 D S110 Two PB11 beams, single span, seem to bear on a conc wall at a right angle bend in the਍ഀ wall. It would appear that the 320k tension will act to tear the rt angle wall apart. Suggest the਍ഀ FOR check. (Near 9.7)਍ഀ M&N Response:਍ഀ The beam will be shifted to the west. (Note: This did not get revised on the 4/3/06਍ഀ drawings but will be coordinated with future addendum.)਍ഀ KL&A, 5/5106: FOR to coordinate, comment closed.਍ഀ CADocuments and Settings\mroyer\My Documents\Plan Review\Front Door\tov-b06-0018.2. DOC Page 12 of 18਍ഀ S107 D S201 Wall Beam WB1: Special rebar is req'd above and below the large wall opening. Detail਍ഀ 14/S302 indicates 8 hz bars in the bottom of the wall. This is contradicted on shts S202਍ഀ where 15410 in (3) layers are mentioned. Verify rebar T & B. Note it seems that the wall਍ഀ acts more like coupling beams and tension/compression columns @ this large opng - design਍ഀ for shear and combined bending and axial loads.਍ഀ M&N Response:਍ഀ Details are general and are not intended to show specific items unless specifically਍ഀ called out. See attached calculations.਍ഀ KL&A, 5/5/06: Shear stirrups are required by new calcs. Also, it seems column ties are਍ഀ required per ACI chapter 10 (stirrups plus cross ties per typical column details). Call਍ഀ out ties on the drawings, suggest provide a section through WB1 at the opening.਍ഀ Extend stirrups into the supporting wall for a distance "d" at the lower beam, minimum.਍ഀ S109 D S201 Show detail @ intersection of WB3 & WB4਍ഀ M&N Response:਍ഀ Please refer to revised Sheet S201 for detail. (Note: #9 Hooked bars should extend to਍ഀ far face of wall. To be coordinated on future addendum.)਍ഀ KL&A, 5/5/06: FOR to coordinate, comment closed. See S66.਍ഀ S110 D/C S201-3 Verify wall beams consider ACI provisions for deep beams regarding nonlinear਍ഀ distribution of strain and lateral buckling (ACI 318 10.7.1) - calculations do not appear to਍ഀ consider these provisions.਍ഀ M&N Response:਍ഀ Wall beams meet the required ACI provisions for deep beams as required above. See਍ഀ additional calculations.਍ഀ KL&A, 5/5/06: Please explain which reference is used in the calcs (i.e. Figure 2, Figure਍ഀ 3). See comment S66a.਍ഀ S110a C deep beam calcs, B12 assumes that shear strength is 10*sgrt f'c, however the calculation of਍ഀ Vc +Vs is not provided. Quick calculations show that typical shear reinforcement of #4 @ 9"਍ഀ O.C. vertical and #4 @ 12" O.C. vertical are roughly 6*sgrt f'c. This typically does not appear਍ഀ to cause a problem with shear capacity, however for certain beams (WB11, calcs p. B49) this਍ഀ seems to cause an overstressed condition. Also, the phi factor does not seem to have been਍ഀ applied, f=0.75 for shear. Please review calcs and increase shear reinforcing as required.਍ഀ M&N Response:਍ഀ Shear reinforcing for wall beams was reviewed and verified. Please refer to revised਍ഀ wall beam elevations.਍ഀ KL&A, 5/5/06: There appears to be no change in shear reinforcement on the drawings.਍ഀ Please show numerically what the quick numbers we have calculated above are਍ഀ missing, and that shear capacity of WB11 and other beams is sufficient. No new਍ഀ calculations for shear appear to have been provided.਍ഀ CADocuments and Settings\mroyer\My Documents\Plan Review\Front Door\tov-b06-0018.2. DOC Page 13 of 18਍ഀ S113 D S202 WB7: What is special reinforcing is req'd @ double openings in the wall above 8182.-6?਍ഀ (ties, T&B bars); sim @ center column btwn doorways- these elements need individual਍ഀ designs and details as columns and beams - calcs p. B30-34 do not show these designs.਍ഀ M&N Response:਍ഀ Please refer to revised wall beam elevations.਍ഀ KL&A, 5/5/06: This does not appear to have been addressed in the drawings. The਍ഀ calculations presentation is not clear and we can not locate any new calculations for਍ഀ this. Please check.਍ഀ S115 D S203. WB11 Verify 5'-0" long hooks @ end - verify this satisfies ACI 12.12.4਍ഀ M&N Response:਍ഀ Development lengths are to be determined during the shop drawing process per਍ഀ General Notes on S001 and are not to be scaled off the elevations.਍ഀ KL&A, 5/5/06: Verify ACI 12.12.4 is satisfied with a standard hook at all locations at wall਍ഀ ends, as this is what will be provided if a length is not specified.਍ഀ S126 D S302 4/S302: #5 Dowel is not developed on either end (Ldh or Ld); also hook turned਍ഀ upwards will blow out conc corner. Roughen for shear friction.਍ഀ M&N Response:਍ഀ Dowel has development length. Calculations for shear friction do not require਍ഀ roughening.਍ഀ KL&A, 5/5/06: See S91 (S126 closed).਍ഀ S132 D S303 Section 2: Refers to "re plan", there is nothing shown on plans - please verify.਍ഀ M&N Response:਍ഀ This section should be cut on S109 near Grid L.5-22 and Grid R-24. This revision to S109 will਍ഀ be added in the future addendum.਍ഀ KL&A, 5/5/06: FOR to coordinate, comment closed.਍ഀ S143 DC S001: Appears ground snow load is required for ground level lid design, in lieu of roof snow਍ഀ load used: pg = 100/.7=143 psf. Please verify.਍ഀ M&N Response:਍ഀ Roof framing is designed to comply with the Town of Vail amendments to the 2003਍ഀ 1 BC.਍ഀ KL&A, 515/06: We understand that the Town of Vail has been made aware of this਍ഀ comment, and has decided that the roof snow load is applicable to the garage lid਍ഀ structure, as designed. Comment closed.਍ഀ S145 D,C S110: Transfer beams for building C located between consecutive PT beams are not called਍ഀ out on plans. Please provide details and calculations for all such beams.਍ഀ M&N Response:਍ഀ CADocuments and Settings\mroyer\My Documents\Plan Review\Front Door\tov-b06-0018.2.DOC Page 14 of 18਍ഀ Please refer to revised plans.਍ഀ KL&A, 5/5/06: Comment closed (See comment S102)਍ഀ S147 D,C S104: The calculations for the 12" thick concrete slab (page S44) indicate punching shear਍ഀ reinforcement is required at column 9 (grids 0.7-14.3). Please verify and provide the਍ഀ appropriate shear reinforcement.਍ഀ M&N Response:਍ഀ See revised plan.਍ഀ KL&A, 5/5/06: Type B stud rails are based on 20" thick slab, please provide stud rails਍ഀ for 12" thick slab.਍ഀ S150 DC Please provide a Post-Tensioning Specification section.਍ഀ M&N Response:਍ഀ The concrete specification with our General Notes on S001 provide the required਍ഀ information.਍ഀ KL&A, 5/5/06: We feel that additional direction is required from the EOR, such as਍ഀ testing requirements, contractor qualifications, submittal requirements (i.e. provide਍ഀ bursting steel, etc.), references, material standards. FOR please review and make਍ഀ revisions to the specs or general notes as deemed necessary. Comment closed.਍ഀ S151 C Calculations for the B12 span3 do not match the drawings. Please verify.਍ഀ M&N Response:਍ഀ B12 span3 does match the drawings on S002.਍ഀ KL&A, 5/5/06: Calculation on pages R56 and R57 indicate a larger section for B12 span਍ഀ 3 than the document show.਍ഀ S155 D S109: The beam at the entrance of the tunnel near grids R.5-25.5 is not scheduled. Please਍ഀ specify mild reinforcement, shear reinforcement, and PT tendons.਍ഀ M&N Response:਍ഀ Refer to revised beam schedule on S002, revised plan sheet S109, and attached਍ഀ calculations.਍ഀ KL&A, 5/5/06: Please identify the beam on plan with a keyed note.਍ഀ S165 D S108: Please clarify where plan note 6 occurs by hatching the specific areas and verify all਍ഀ calculations take the extra soil weight into account.਍ഀ M&N Response:਍ഀ The "hatched" areas referenced in Note 6 are on the east and west sides of the 16-0" wide਍ഀ roadway that is on top of the structural slab/beams from the upper level (8184'-0") at Grid L-਍ഀ 10.8 down to the lower Level (8168'-2") at Grid Q.5-12.3. This information will be shown਍ഀ on the future addendum.਍ഀ CADocuments and Settings\mroyer\My Documents\Plan Review\Front Door\tov-b06-001 8.2. DOC Page 15 of 18਍ഀ KL&A, 5/5/06: FOR to coordinate, comment closed.਍ഀ S171 S108 grid intersection 21.3/L, the elevation of the 12" slab north of beams B22 and B21 can not be਍ഀ determined. On plan the PB4 and PB5 beams are shown higher than the 12" slab to the north਍ഀ as indicated by a step symbol; however, section 7 on S303 shows the PT beams lower than਍ഀ the slab. Please provide on plan: elevations of the north slab adjacent to the supporting਍ഀ beams B22 and B21, and elevations of the PT beams and non-PT supporting beams. Also਍ഀ please correlate these elevations to detail 7 on S303. Please provide the reinforcing detail at਍ഀ grid intersection 21.3/L showing interfacing of reinforcing for P1310,1322-5, B21-1, the column਍ഀ below, and the slabs.਍ഀ M&N Response:਍ഀ These elevations are provided on the plans. Please reference sheet S109 and elevation਍ഀ noted on S108 near grid 16.4.਍ഀ KL&A, 5/5/06: Please verify this information is changed on the drawings, we can਍ഀ not find the elevations and information requested. FOR to coordinate, comment਍ഀ closed.਍ഀ S174 S109 S003 provide calculations and conformance to AC1318 section 18.13 Post-tensioned tendon਍ഀ anchorage zones.਍ഀ M&N Response:਍ഀ These calculations can not be completed or provided until the specific characteristics of the਍ഀ anchorage devices are determined during the shop drawing phase. Specific reinforcing਍ഀ requirements shall be determined by the P.T. shop drawings for review by the Engineer of਍ഀ Record.਍ഀ KL&A, 5/5/06: Submittal requirements are not shown on the drawings. See S150.਍ഀ S174 is considered closed, FOR to coordinate.਍ഀ S175 S110 P131 requires approximately 38 tendons to achieve the final effective force of 1015k. Please਍ഀ provide detail of anchorages and tendon profile to get the drapes specified considering਍ഀ congestion of bursting, shear and flexural reinforcing. Please specify if multi strand਍ഀ anchorages are intended. The initial dead load seams to be overbalanced. Please indicate if਍ഀ stage stressing is required.਍ഀ M&N Response:਍ഀ See response to Comment S174. Multi-strand anchorages may be required by post-਍ഀ tensioning subcontractor. Stage stressing is not required. The immediate load conditions are਍ഀ part of the load cases check in the RAM Concept Program.਍ഀ KL&A, 5/5/06: See S174, comment closed.਍ഀ S177 C U24 and PT7 shows #9 top bars needed. Please verify development. For the PT7 case, the਍ഀ boundary conditions suggest pinned condition. Clarify the top bars at this location per the਍ഀ calculations.਍ഀ M&N Response:਍ഀ Please refer to the revised plans.਍ഀ C\Documents and Settings\mroyer\My Documents\Plan Review\Front Door\tov-b06-0018.2. DOC Page 16 of 18਍ഀ KL&A, 5/5/06: Please provide a specific reference to the revised drawings that you are਍ഀ referring to, nothing appears to have been revised. Provide calcs showing required਍ഀ development and that this development is consistent with 8/S303 & 4/S303.਍ഀ S178 C M10. Please provide reinforcing covers used in the calculations.਍ഀ M&N Response:਍ഀ 2" cover was used in design.਍ഀ KL&A, 515/06: It seems the cover required should be shown on the drawings, please਍ഀ verify.਍ഀ S180 C/D M7 and M8 shows reaction moments where connected to the BM22. Provide calculations for਍ഀ BM22 considering torsional effects. Also section 6 on S303 does not appear to address this਍ഀ fixity. See S135.਍ഀ M&N Response:਍ഀ See the attached calculations indicating that the torsion induced into the beam BM22 by the਍ഀ 2.8 kft end moment from Beam B24-1 is less than the torsional moment below which torsion਍ഀ can be neglected. (The end moment for Beam B23-1 is even smaller). Refer to the Beam਍ഀ Reinforcing Schedule on S002 for the "D" reinforcing for B23-Span 1. The schedule will be਍ഀ revised in the next addendum to include the same "D" reinforcing for Beam B24-Span 1 as਍ഀ Beam B23-Span 1.਍ഀ KL&A, 5/5/06: FOR to coordinate, comment closed.਍ഀ S181 C M6 shows column heights of 40 feet. With the increased column lengths the column਍ഀ moments are reduced. Please provide justification for modeling the columns extremely long.਍ഀ Please provide a reference for the column design considering applied moments from the floor਍ഀ designs shown on M1 and M14.਍ഀ M&N Response:਍ഀ The program used assumes 100% fixity at the columns and does not consider cracked਍ഀ sections. This does not hold up to engineering judgment, therefore, the columns have been਍ഀ modeled longer.਍ഀ KL&A, 5/5/06: M1 through M133 midlevel and lid calculations: forces used for column਍ഀ design is not clear. Provide calculations showing how forces (axial & moment) have਍ഀ been derived, design calculations are not clear. Summarize and explain the design਍ഀ approach, method, and location of each slab design.਍ഀ Please refer to the cover sheet for information and instructions for resubmitting plans. The recheck of plans਍ഀ usually occurs within 3-5 working days of plan re-submittal. In order to avoid delays please check all requested਍ഀ information is included with the resubmitted plans.਍ഀ Contact Person:਍ഀ Matthew Royer਍ഀ C:\Documents and Settings\mroyer\My Documents\Plan Review\Front Door\tov-b06-0018.2. DOC Page 17 of 18਍ഀ Building Official/ Project Manager਍ഀ Colorado Inspection Agency਍ഀ 970-328-1790਍ഀ matt.rover(aD-coinspect.com਍ഀ Plans Examiners and Engineers:਍ഀ Barry Kramer- Building Official਍ഀ Todd Dunkin- Electrical Plans Examiner਍ഀ Dennis Lohmeier- Plumbing Plans Examiner਍ഀ Duskin Lowe- Plans Examiner਍ഀ James P. Horne, P.E., S.E. - Structural Review Project Manager਍ഀ CADocuments and Settings\mroyerNy Documents\Plan Review\Front Door\tov-b06-0018.2. DOC Page 18 of 18਍ഀ COLORADO INSPECTION AGENCY PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS਍ഀ 2~d review comments are shown below the original comment in bold italics. Comments that were਍ഀ addressed have been removed from the list.਍ഀ TO: Contractor਍ഀ Hyder Construction਍ഀ Doug Thompson਍ഀ EMAIL: dthompson(@hyderinc.com਍ഀ Architect਍ഀ 4240਍ഀ Randy Hart਍ഀ rha rt(a-)4240a rch. com਍ഀ Engineer਍ഀ Monroe & Newell Eng਍ഀ FAX:਍ഀ NUMBER OF PAGES:਍ഀ FROM:਍ഀ DATE:਍ഀ BUILDING PERMIT਍ഀ OWNERS NAME:਍ഀ SITE ADDRESS:਍ഀ SUBDIVISION:਍ഀ OCCUPANCY GROUP:਍ഀ TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION:਍ഀ NUMBER OF STORIES:਍ഀ 18਍ഀ Matthew Royer਍ഀ 05/08/2006਍ഀ B06-0018਍ഀ Vail Resorts Co.਍ഀ Building A and Site਍ഀ Mill Creek਍ഀ S-2਍ഀ I-A਍ഀ 3਍ഀ 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 a building਍ഀ permit is issued.਍ഀ For processing:਍ഀ Please submit (5) complete sets of revised construction documents containinq 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 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. For commercial or multi-family projects all sheets of the plans਍ഀ must be stamped.਍ഀ = Previously answered 05/23/06 as part of partial "Grading and Excavation Permit" package.]਍ഀ Page I of 9਍ഀ ► 3. Preliminary plan review meetings had discussion regarding the submittal of Memorandum of਍ഀ Understandings (MOU). MOU's defined in these meetings would be "used to define or clarify the use਍ഀ of a code section, agreement to the installation of a system not covered specifically by the code or਍ഀ clarify the use or component of a building. None of the agreed upon MOU's were submitted for਍ഀ review. Please provide the following MOU's for review:਍ഀ a) Use of assumed property lines and fire separation distance.਍ഀ Refer BCER May 23, 2006 Memorandum of Understanding: Item #3, Pg. 3.਍ഀ b) Fire command room਍ഀ Refer BCER May 23, 2006 Memorandum of Understanding: Item #2, Pg. 2.਍ഀ c) Smoke management systems਍ഀ Refer BCER May 23, 2006 Memorandum of Understanding: Item #1, Pg. 2.਍ഀ d) Opening between parking garage and Lodge Tower parking garage਍ഀ This item should be submitted as an Administrative Modification.਍ഀ Refer BCER Administrative Modification #1 dated May 23, 2006.਍ഀ e) Fire separation between the new building and existing buildings਍ഀ This item should be submitted as an Administrative Modification.਍ഀ Refer BCER Administrative Modification #2 dated May 23, 2006.਍ഀ f) Use of 508.2 for creating separate buildings as it relates to each building਍ഀ This may be an Administrative Modification depending on writing and design.਍ഀ Refer BCER May 23, 2006 Memorandum of Understanding: Item #4, Pg. 4.਍ഀ g) The separation between One Vail Place and new Skier Services਍ഀ This item should be submitted as an administrative Modification.਍ഀ Refer BCER Administrative Modification #2 dated May 23, 2006.਍ഀ ► 4. Preliminary plan review submittal meetings had discussion regarding the submittal of Administrative਍ഀ Modifications (AM). AM's as defined in these meetings would be based on International Building਍ഀ Code Section 104.10. Where practical difficulties are involved in carrying out the provision of this਍ഀ code, a modification to the code may be granted by the building official after justification that the਍ഀ modification will not lesson health, accessibility, life and fire safety, or structural requirements. The਍ഀ following AM's have been discussed and are being implemented into the plans. Please provide the਍ഀ following or amend plans accordingly to comply with the code.਍ഀ a) Separation between Chalet buildings਍ഀ Refer BCER Administrative Modification #2 dated May 23, 2006.਍ഀ b) Elimination of elevator smoke doors at residential levels of the Chalet buildings਍ഀ Refer BCER Administrative Modification #2 dated May 23, 2006.਍ഀ c) Opening between parking garage and Lodge Tower parking garage. When writing this਍ഀ modification be sure to use the correct Type IB construction type for Lodge Tower.਍ഀ Please amend G sheets to correctly identify the Lodge Tower as Type 1B construction.਍ഀ Refer BCER Administrative Modification #1 dated May 23, 2006.਍ഀ Construction Type has been modified to `I-B' - refer revised sheet G016.਍ഀ d) The separation between One Vail Place and new Skier Services਍ഀ Refer BCER Administrative Modification #2 dated May 23, 2006.਍ഀ e) Fire separation between the new building and existing buildings਍ഀ Refer BCER Administrative Modification #2 dated May 23, 2006.਍ഀ = Previously answered 05/23/06 as part of partial "Grading and Excavation Permit" package.]਍ഀ Page 2 of 9਍ഀ ► 5. Be sure to amend the Fire & Life Safety Report as necessary when changes are made to the plans਍ഀ that may affect the discussions made by the Report.਍ഀ As discussed in the meeting on 0510212006; the Fire and Life Safety Report, Memorandums of਍ഀ Understanding and Administrative Modifications will be reformatted for clarification and ease਍ഀ of understanding.਍ഀ BCER has reformatted the Life Safety Report, Memorandum of Understanding and਍ഀ Administrative Modifications to help clarify the requirements of the project.਍ഀ ► 6. Provide a precise site plan showing exact locations of assumed property lines. If locations of assumed਍ഀ property lines are close enough to exterior walls to require rating of walls and opening protection,਍ഀ provide details.਍ഀ Please show the location of the actual property line between the new Spa and the Lodge਍ഀ Tower. Sheet G016 shows an assumed property line between these two buildings at 5'6" from਍ഀ the Spa and 21' 11 " from the Lodge Tower. As a result of this assumed property line, the਍ഀ Lodge Tower would need a rated wall and protected openings. Please clarify?਍ഀ Sheet G016 has been revised to show the South Lodge Tower's ACTUAL property line -਍ഀ Building B is approximately 25' away from this property line. According to IBC Table 602,਍ഀ exterior walls of Type IA Construction, with Groups other than H, between 10' and 30', would਍ഀ require 1-hour fire-resistance rating (as indicated on sheet G016). Within that wall, IBC Table਍ഀ 704.8 would permit a maximum area of exterior wall opening (unprotected) of 45%, with `No਍ഀ Limit' on protected openings. Since that wall only has only one door/opening, the maximum਍ഀ area of opening has not been exceeded.਍ഀ Chalet property lines are also a concern. During the 0510212006 meeting we were told to਍ഀ reference G026 for location of property lines. This sheet shows the Chalet buildings crossing਍ഀ over or placed on the property lines. Please clarify.਍ഀ The Project Boundary w/ USFS Land Exchange has been noted on sheets G022 through G027.਍ഀ Lot 1 and Lot 2 of the Mill Creek Subdivision and the USFS Land Exchange parcel are both਍ഀ owned by the `Permit Applicant'. VRDC's, in the future, plans on replatting this area਍ഀ eliminating the `internal' property line(s).਍ഀ ► 7. Fire and Life Safety Report states the use of 1 hour fire walls per IBC Table 705.4. This table does਍ഀ not allow for 1 hour fire walls anywhere. Please clarify.਍ഀ The Fire and Life Safety Report was modified in an attempt to clear this issue. This somewhat਍ഀ still remains. We understand the intent after the last revision. Please clarify based on the਍ഀ example below. For instance:਍ഀ Page 17 of the April 3 Fire and Life Safety Report has a table regarding separations between਍ഀ buildings. I would like to use the 3'd item in the table as an example. Table States-਍ഀ Description: Mid-Level Parking garage/ Spa for Lodge at Vail Lower Level; Separation Reason:਍ഀ Spa Construction Type; Occupancy Group: S-2 Type JA; Fire Rating: 1 hour Occupancy਍ഀ Separation Wall.਍ഀ Based on the plan, the Lodge at Vail is Type JA, the parking garage is Type IA. The reason for਍ഀ separation is not really type of construction because they are both the same type. The reason਍ഀ for the separation is occupancy. The Fire Rating isn't an occupancy separation wall because਍ഀ this doesn't exist in the IBC; the plan is actually shown correctly as a 1 hour barrier.਍ഀ I believed the confusion was coming from the table (Fire and Life Safety Report) saying one਍ഀ thing and the plans showing another. Please clarify.਍ഀ This has been removed from the Vail's Front Door Life Safety Report dated May 23, 2006.਍ഀ = Previously answered 05/23/06 as part of partial "Grading and Excavation Permit" package.]਍ഀ Page 3 of 9਍ഀ ► 9. Accessibility requirements do not appear to be included within any plan for this project. Please਍ഀ amend plans to include the following:਍ഀ a) Accessible parking spaces and loading zones.਍ഀ Refer new sheets G050 thru G052 for `Accessibility Plans', and G056 for `Accessibility਍ഀ Details'.਍ഀ b) Accessible route from the parking and loading zones to the buildings.਍ഀ Refer new sheets G050 thru G054 for `Accessibility Plans', and G056 for `Accessibility਍ഀ Details'.਍ഀ c) Accessible routes to each building on the site which are required to be accessible.਍ഀ Refer to new sheets G050 thru G055 for `Accessibility Plans', and G056 for਍ഀ `Accessibility Details'.਍ഀ d) Signage details for parking, striping, routes, restrooms, etc.਍ഀ See `Signage' response below.਍ഀ e) Restroom details for fixtures, grab bars and accessories.਍ഀ Refer new sheets G056 and G057 for `Accessibility Details'. Refer also G055 for `Lodge਍ഀ at Vail Guestroom Accessibility Plan'.਍ഀ This packet is normally not a deferred submittal. Amend plans and specification for all਍ഀ required signage per IBC Section 1110.਍ഀ An overall `graphically-consistent' Signage Package is planned that would include all front-of-਍ഀ house, back-of-house, and Code required signage. In that regard, the Permit Applicant would਍ഀ request that the complete Signage Package be submitted later as a "Deferred Submittal" as਍ഀ previously indicated (refer "VII. DEFERRED SUBMITTALS", Item 10, Sheet G006). The਍ഀ Signage Package, when submitted, will comply with all IBC requirements as well as Section਍ഀ 1110.਍ഀ Show the location of required Site Signage on sheet C37.0 (signage plan).਍ഀ Required `traffic' signage appears on sheet C37.0. Additional `accessibility' signage will be਍ഀ provided with the Signage Package described above.਍ഀ Parking within the Front Door project consists of `Valet' parking stalls, `Assigned' Lodge਍ഀ South Condominium (LSC) stalls, `Loading Dock' stalls, and `Employee' parking stalls - there਍ഀ are no `open to the public' parking stalls within the Front Door project. Valet stalls occur at the਍ഀ lower level (refer new sheet G050) and lower-mid level (refer new sheet G051). Loading Dock਍ഀ stalls also occur at the lower-mid level. Assigned LSC parking stalls occur at the lower mid-਍ഀ level and are provided by Agreement between VRDC and the LSC, replacing at-grade stalls਍ഀ lost due to construction of Building A - a total of 15 stalls required (refer new sheet G051).਍ഀ Employee parking stalls occur at the upper-mid level (refer new sheet G052).਍ഀ Combining the number of parking stalls within Valet and Employee parking areas (NOT਍ഀ including Loading Dock or LSC stalls - since Dock stalls are not required to be included, and਍ഀ LSC stalls have been included in Klipp's parking calculations under a separate Project), the਍ഀ calculations indicate a need for six accessible stalls (refer new sheet G050 for excerpt of IBC਍ഀ Table 1106.1). With six accessible stalls being required, one of those stalls will be `van਍ഀ accessible' (refer IBC 1106.5). The six accessible stalls (five car and one van) have been਍ഀ divided equally between the three parking `levels' in the Garage - two car stalls at the lower਍ഀ level Ski Club valet, one car and one van stall at the lower-mid level Lodge at Vail valet, and਍ഀ two car stalls at the upper-mid level employee. As well, since the lower level Ski Club valet਍ഀ parking can be publicly accessed, a passenger loading zone has been incorporated per IBC਍ഀ 1106.7.3. [Note: We feel the location of the passenger loading zone is permitted even if a਍ഀ three-point turn is required to exit the area. As well, the location of the westerly HC stall is਍ഀ permitted since the valet stall just `behind' the HC stall could be `emptied' by the Valet਍ഀ Attendant if the HC driver returned to leave - as the Attendant is only a few feet away]. A਍ഀ = Previously answered 05/23/06 as part of partial "Grading and Excavation Permit" package.]਍ഀ Page 4 of 9਍ഀ passenger loading zone should not be required at the Lodge at Vail valet parking area since਍ഀ the public will NEVER drive into that valet parking area - as the Lodge at Vail valet service਍ഀ occurs at the Lodge's front door / porte cochere (the car is driven into the valet parking area਍ഀ by the Attendant, not the `public'). Refer new sheets G050 thru G052.਍ഀ Also, include the parking calculations used to determine the required number of spaces.਍ഀ An excerpt of IBC Table 1106.1 "Accessible Parking Spaces" has been indicated on new sheet਍ഀ G050; hi-lighting the need for 6 accessible spaces as described above - with one of those਍ഀ spaces being van accessible as required.਍ഀ The space and loading zone shown on sheet A106 needs to be dimensioned.਍ഀ The stall and loading zone have now been dimensioned. Refer revised sheet A/A106.਍ഀ Be sure to include the required number of accessible spaces and van accessible spaces.਍ഀ See response above relative to excerpt of IBC Table 1106.1 indicated on new sheet G050.਍ഀ When the plan shows the location of inaccessible entrances and the required number of਍ഀ accessible parking spaces then the accessible routes will be reviewed for code compliance.਍ഀ The routes may need to be identified on a separate sheet or sheets to be clearly represented.਍ഀ New sheets have been provided indicating the location of HC stalls and passenger loading਍ഀ zones - as well as accessible routes and accessible entries. Refer new sheets G050 through਍ഀ G055.਍ഀ 10. Amend plans to include stair signage plan, details and identify the location of the signage. Many of਍ഀ the exit enclosures require the occupants to travel up to get to exit discharge. Clearly identify the਍ഀ direction of travel to the exit discharge.(IBC 1019.1.6)਍ഀ We were unable to locate the signage if it was provided with this submittal. Please provide or਍ഀ respond with the location in which to find this information.਍ഀ "Directional" exit signage will be provided in the overall `graphically-consistent' Signage਍ഀ Package described in Item 9 above.਍ഀ 11. Amend plans to include gates located at the level of exit discharge to eliminate occupants of the਍ഀ building from entering an enclosure and passing by the level of exit discharge. (IBC 1019.1.6)਍ഀ The response states that gates have been added. Provide written response of where these਍ഀ gates were added. What sheets were modified?਍ഀ Gate has been added to Bldg B/Spa Stair BS02 at Level 8177'-8" (refer Bldg B/A102 & 2 &਍ഀ 3/A701).਍ഀ ► 12. Elevator door which do not open into a lobby need to be provided with a smoke control door in਍ഀ accordance with IBC Section 715.3.5.3਍ഀ The Chalet Building elevators penetrate more then 3 stories which would require smoke਍ഀ control. Please amend plans accordingly. This was a topic at the 0510212006 meeting and may਍ഀ be handled by an Administrative Modification.਍ഀ Refer BCER Memorandum of Understanding dated May 23, 2006: Item #1, Pg. 2.਍ഀ = Previously answered 05/23/06 as part of partial "Grading and Excavation Permit" package.]਍ഀ Page 5 of 9਍ഀ 14. The size of main elevator cars used for fire/emergency access needs to be determined by the Town਍ഀ of Vail Building and Fire Departments. Standard 24" x 76" required by code will not accommodate the਍ഀ stretchers used by emergency personnel. Please confirm the required size.਍ഀ This has been a topic of discussion at various 42401Town of Vail meetings. The question is਍ഀ not whether or not you are compliant with the letter of the code, but whether or not you have਍ഀ coordinated with the Town of Vail Fire Department regarding the elevator sizes. This building਍ഀ is unique in design with regard to emergency access. This is one of the smoke management਍ഀ and other conditions within this project that are being provide above and beyond the code.਍ഀ The Fire Department is looking at several items in respect to performance. The comment here਍ഀ is to verify that coordination is occurring with the Fire Department to ensure they have਍ഀ adequate emergency access. The topic has surfaced because the stretchers used by the਍ഀ Town of Vail emergency personnel are larger than the code required size for stretchers.਍ഀ In previous, various discussions with Charlie Davis and Mike McGee, there were no specific਍ഀ directions provided for the `entire' Front Door project, relative to providing elevator cabs਍ഀ capable of handling 24" x 80" stretchers (since the Front Door - unlike The Arrabelle and The਍ഀ Ritz - is spread out over a large horizontal area with no one [or two] elevator[s] accessing਍ഀ each individual Building). There WERE specific discussions about the Residential Buildings਍ഀ needing to provide additional "at-grade" emergency access, which is why walks and steps਍ഀ between Buildings 1 & 3, and 2 & 4 were added - providing access to the very top of `the hill'਍ഀ from the Access Road below. At those Meetings, direction was given to make all 13਍ഀ Residential elevators (Elevator Nos. 8 thru 20) `side-opening' (instead of the previously਍ഀ indicated `center-opening') in order to meet the Code required 24" x 76" stretcher. As well,਍ഀ Commercial Elevator Nos. 1 (Ski Club passenger) and 6 (Spa passenger) were revised to `side-਍ഀ opening' per those directions.਍ഀ In a Meeting held in Vail 13 February 2006, attended by numerous interested parties -਍ഀ including Wayne Martin/NWCCOG, Charlie Davis, Peter Brandeis/Eagle County Health਍ഀ Services, Steve Rondinelli/BCER, Jeff Marsh/Lerch Bates, Randy Hart/4240 and Matt Royer/CIA਍ഀ - it was discussed and decided that the Front Door would not have to meet the 24" x 80"਍ഀ stretcher size, again, due to it's "sprawling" nature.਍ഀ All that being said, there are only 3 elevators throughout the entire project that are not, at a਍ഀ minimum, 24" x 76" stretcher accessible - Elevator Nos. 5 (Ski Club `valet') and 21 & 22 (Skier਍ഀ Services `valet') - because they provide access to only 2 back-of-house floors each. On the਍ഀ other hand, 3 Commercial freight elevators (Elevator Nos. 2 [Ski Club] and 3 & 4 [Skier਍ഀ Services]) are large enough to handle the 24" x 80" stretcher - as is. ALL elevators, except the਍ഀ 3 `valet' elevators will have the "Star of Life" insignia.਍ഀ A better way to understand the `emergency access' options to the individual Buildings is to਍ഀ look at it as described below:਍ഀ Building A:਍ഀ • Parking Garages & Loading Dock (All Lower Levels) - Access through Tunnel.਍ഀ Building B:਍ഀ • Spa Front-of-House (Level 1) - Access through existing at-grade Lodge at Vail Lobby, and਍ഀ new Door B104.਍ഀ • Spa Back-of-House (Level 1) - Access through Spa front-of-house, and Elevator No. 2 from਍ഀ Loading Dock (24" x 76" stretcher).਍ഀ • Spa Front-of-House (Level 2) - Access through Spa front-of-house Elevator No. 6 (24" x਍ഀ 76" stretcher), and Ground Level `roundabout' to the south.਍ഀ • Guestrooms (All Levels) - Access through existing Lodge at Vail existing Guestroom਍ഀ corridors.਍ഀ = Previously answered 05/23/06 as part of partial "Grading and Excavation Permit" package.]਍ഀ Page 6 of 9਍ഀ Building C:਍ഀ • Locker Room (Lower Level) - Access through Ski Club Valet Parking Garage, and Elevator਍ഀ No. 1 (24" x 76" stretcher) from Ground Level `roundabout'.਍ഀ • Ski Storage (Mid Level) - Access by Elevator No. 1 (24" x 76" stretcher) from Lower Level਍ഀ Locker Room, and Ground Level `roundabout'.਍ഀ • Great Room (Ground Level) - Access by Elevator No. 1 (24" x 76" stretcher) from Lower਍ഀ Level Locker Room, and Ground Level `roundabout'.਍ഀ Building D:਍ഀ • Skier Services Back-of-House; including One Vail Place (Lower Level) - Access by Elevator਍ഀ Nos. 4 & 5 (24" x 80" stretcher) from Loading Dock, and Ground Level public Plaza਍ഀ northeast of Building D.਍ഀ • Public Areas and Back-of-House Offices (Ground Level) - Access by Elevator Nos. 4 & 5਍ഀ (24" x 80" stretcher) from Loading Dock, and Ground Level public Plaza northeast of਍ഀ Building D.਍ഀ Building E:਍ഀ • Residences (All Levels) - Access by individual Unit elevators (Nos. 8 through 20 - 24" x਍ഀ 76" stretcher) from Lower Level Residential Parking Garage, and at-grade walks and steps਍ഀ for front door and terrace access.਍ഀ As one can see, there are multiple `emergency access points' from multiple Levels throughout਍ഀ the project - for this reason, it was felt that we were ok with complying with the 2003 IBC਍ഀ 3002.4 requirements - without having to provide for the 80" long stretcher.਍ഀ Architectural Comments:਍ഀ Site Comments:਍ഀ 17. Fence shown on L207 shows the bottom of the fence to far above grade. Max distance between਍ഀ grade and bottom of fence 2 inches. (IBC 3109.4)਍ഀ Please amend detail 2/L208. In one location this detail shows 3-314" at the bottom of the਍ഀ barrier.਍ഀ Pool and Spa Enclosure: Revised dimension between finish grade and bottom of fence on਍ഀ section to read at 2"maximum distance (refer to 2/1-208).਍ഀ 19. Amend plans to show gates compliant with the pool barrier requirements. (IBC 3109.4.1.7)਍ഀ Clearly show gate as self-latching, show location of latch and protection of the latch if located਍ഀ less than 54" above the walking surface.਍ഀ Pool and Spa Fence Enclosure Gate: Added gate latch with latch protection surround as਍ഀ required (refer to 1/1-208).਍ഀ 28. Sheet L302 calls out stair and handrail details on L307. There are no stair and handrail details on਍ഀ L307. Clarify.਍ഀ Handrail shown in detail 3IL307 must be gripable and comply with IBC section 1009.11.3.਍ഀ Amend plan to clearly show this handrail is compliant.਍ഀ Handrail: Added railing section to clarify handrail dimensions (refer to 3/1_307).਍ഀ = Previously answered 05/23/06 as part of partial "Grading and Excavation Permit" package.]਍ഀ Page 7 of 9਍ഀ ► 29. Amend plans to include all component which will be required and specified within the Administrative਍ഀ modification for the opening between the Parking Garage (2 places) and the existing Lodge Tower.਍ഀ The existing Lodge Tower plan has identified the parking garage as Type I-B. This needs to be taken਍ഀ into consideration when exercising IBC section 508.2. Same type of construction was used during the਍ഀ pre-submittal meetings that discussed the separation. Please address the type of construction਍ഀ separation and opening protection accordingly. Please coordinate plans and design with the Lodge਍ഀ Tower designers.਍ഀ This comment was discussed in the 0510212006 meeting with 42140, BCER, Town of Vail and਍ഀ Colorado Inspection Agency. An Administrative Modification will be created to clarify the਍ഀ opening and equivalencies provided to allow this opening on the property line between the਍ഀ two buildings. This Administrative Modification must be consistent with the Modification਍ഀ created by the Lodge Tower. It was discussed that one document be created that is signed਍ഀ and agreed upon by both property owners.਍ഀ Refer BCER Administrative Modification #1 dated May 23, 2006.਍ഀ Mechanical Comments:਍ഀ 32. Where is the gas piping for the fountain coming from? Sheet L308 is referenced and does not exist.਍ഀ Amend plans to show the location of a gas shutoff valve near the fire pit.਍ഀ The gas supply is located on sheet Bldg D/P103. The gas supply shut-off valve within the਍ഀ automatic ignition box is located adjacent to the fire pit (refer to 4/1-308. )਍ഀ Energy Code Review:਍ഀ Envelope Corn Check਍ഀ The Town of Vail recently established the heating degree days and cooling degree days for a਍ഀ base of 65 degrees. The numbers provided are:਍ഀ Heating degree days (base 65 degree F): 9826਍ഀ Cooling degree days (base 65 degree F): 3਍ഀ 1 apologize for the notice of these numbers; however I have been instructed to pass this਍ഀ information on and require modification of the Envelop Compliance Certificate and design.਍ഀ Amend reports to reflect the design criteria established by the Town of Vail.਍ഀ The Town of Vail currently approves the computer program COM Check as an Energy Code਍ഀ Calculation method. COM Check will not allow the user to change the heating or cooling਍ഀ degree-days. They are automatically inserted when the town of Vail is chosen. Therefore, the਍ഀ calculations will remain as submitted originally. Per conversation between Jay Watson (ABS਍ഀ Engineers) and Matt Royer (CIA), it is understood that this is acceptable to the ToV for this਍ഀ project.਍ഀ Site Structural Comments:਍ഀ Note: structural comments are numbered "S1,S2...... and are also given a designation with regards to the topic, as follows:਍ഀ DC = design criteria; F= foundations; D = drawings; C = structural calculations; LS = lateral system.਍ഀ Site Comments:਍ഀ S5.F SF sheets: verify pavement / subgrade above the EPS under roadway (20 psi) has been਍ഀ designed to span between HS-20 tires, or depth is sufficient to distribute loads such that 20਍ഀ psi is a sufficient strength under the roadway.਍ഀ KL&A, 515106: Note, sheet C35.0 shows a 6" roadway slab, please verify adequacy.਍ഀ Pavement section has been revised to read as 8" thickness. See revised sheet C35.0.਍ഀ Calculations for the loading requirements are included in the Expanded Polystyrene਍ഀ Explanation Report by AES (dated 04/03/06).਍ഀ S7 DC Sheet L202: FOR to verify that various landscaping structures such as boulders, ponds,਍ഀ stone walls, pavers, and other superimposed dead loads have been appropriately਍ഀ = Previously answered 05/23/06 as part of partial "Grading and Excavation Permit" package.]਍ഀ Page 8 of 9਍ഀ 't %਍ഀ considered in the structural design; verify any concentrated bearing on EPS filler (i.e.਍ഀ such as due to any retaining walls, 6/1-205, or massive stone structures, 31.208, etc.)਍ഀ KL&A, 515106: See also comment in Volume 1 section. No calculations have been਍ഀ provided at this time. We assume that bearing capacity and stability of landscaping or਍ഀ stone structures designed by others will be reviewed and checked by the FOR during਍ഀ the submittal process. Comment closed.਍ഀ See attached Structural Comments from Monroe & Newell Engineers.਍ഀ Building A Structural Comments:਍ഀ See attached Structural Comments from Monroe & Newell Engineers.਍ഀ Please refer to the cover sheet for information and instructions for resubmitting plans. The recheck of plans਍ഀ usually occurs within 3-5 working days of plan re-submittal. In order to avoid delays please check all requested਍ഀ information is included with the resubmitted plans.਍ഀ Contact Person:਍ഀ Matthew Royer਍ഀ Building Official/ Project Manager਍ഀ Colorado Inspection Agency਍ഀ 970-328-1790਍ഀ matt. royer(cDcoinspect.com਍ഀ Plans Examiners and Engineers:਍ഀ Barry Kramer- Building Official਍ഀ Todd Dunkin- Electrical Plans Examiner਍ഀ Dennis Lohmeier- Plumbing Plans Examiner਍ഀ Duskin Lowe- Plans Examiner਍ഀ James P. Horne, P.E., S.E. - Structural Review Project਍ഀ Manager਍ഀ = Previously answered 05/23/06 as part of partial "Grading and Excavation Permit" package.]਍ഀ Page 9 of 9਍ഀ REVIEWS BY਍ഀ ~P਍ഀ ` COLORADO INSPECTION਍ഀ torado Inspect)਍ഀ AGENCY਍ഀ May 26, 2006਍ഀ Charlie Davis, Building Official਍ഀ Town of Vail Community Development਍ഀ 75 South Frontage Road, Vail, CO 81657਍ഀ RE: Front Door Grading and Excavation Permit਍ഀ Charlie:਍ഀ Colorado Inspection Agency has reviewed the documents submitted as requested from the਍ഀ meeting and comment letter dated 05/18/2006. These documents were reviewed for compliance਍ഀ for the release and approval of Grading, Excavation and Shoring of the Front Door Project Site.਍ഀ The documents submitted have clarified the outstanding issues that were identified by Colorado਍ഀ Inspection Agency and Town of Vail Building, Planning, Public Works and Fire Department.਍ഀ Conditions of this approval to allow grading, excavation and shoring are as follows:਍ഀ 1. This approval is for grading, excavation and shoring of the site. Permits which are਍ഀ granted partial approval for this work are B06-0018, B06-0022.਍ഀ 2. Additional plan review fees will be assessed to these permits and payment is required਍ഀ prior to release of permit. Email regarding the additional fees has been included with this਍ഀ document.਍ഀ 3. Complete Building permit fees for permit B06-0018 and B06-0022 will need to be paid਍ഀ prior to release of grading and excavation permit.਍ഀ 4. Submittal dates for remainder of plan review comments and full building permit approval਍ഀ have been established by Vail Resorts. The letter stating the dates has been included with਍ഀ this document for reference.਍ഀ a. Complete VFD Building A, B, C & D response will be submitted for review no਍ഀ later than June 19, 2006.਍ഀ b. Complete VFD Building E response will be submitted for review no later than਍ഀ July 10, 2006.਍ഀ 5. Reference to the International Residential Code needs to be removed from the Fire and਍ഀ Life Safety Report and Administrative Modification for the Building E- Chalets. Page਍ഀ 12, 13 and 16 all make reference to this code of which is not applicable. This was਍ഀ discussed with Steve Rondinelli on May 26, 2006 and agreement was made that this਍ഀ FLS/Admin Mod. will be modified with the full building permit submittal to reference਍ഀ section 708 of the International Building Code.਍ഀ Colorado Inspection Agency p: 970.328.1790਍ഀ 1286 Chambers Avenue, # 101 f: 970.328.1791਍ഀ Eagle, Colorado 81631਍ഀ Colorado Inspection Agency recommends approval to move forward with Grading, Excavation਍ഀ and Shoring with the submittal dates and conditions listed above. There are several issues still਍ഀ remaining to be resolved prior to release of a full building permit.਍ഀ Please do not hesitate to contact me with any question or clarification.਍ഀ Sincerely,਍ഀ Matthew Royer, Building Official਍ഀ matt.royer@coinspect.com਍ഀ Colorado Inspection Agency਍ഀ 1286 Chambers Avenue, #101਍ഀ Eagle, Colorado 81631਍ഀ p: 970.328.1790਍ഀ f: 970.328.1791਍ഀ -2-਍ഀ w਍ഀ v C) w਍ഀ May 23, 2006਍ഀ N-Ir, Charlie Davis,਍ഀ Chief Bi.filding Official਍ഀ I,)cy rr of Vail C'ot"trirluriky Ivey elopmeni.਍ഀ 75 South Frontage Road਍ഀ V aH. Cpl M 657,.਍ഀ RE: Vail*s From Door Pry ject਍ഀ Plan Check Response- Tinic l,a.ine਍ഀ Dow Chadire.਍ഀ The purpose tai this t.i.)rI-i:sl'rcri.dente is to cat dirze be Mike dwt VZINC.'. thrt>lI,gh our਍ഀ `yichi*e.. t o Record 4240 :~rclrite~ rtire.s v.,ill be submitting਍ഀ of Plan t".`he conni-ric uts. The si-Abject Nan Check c r me-rats rvere received fry>F£r C.I.A..਍ഀ Wyyvcn Friday May 5 & Monday eta 8, 20M਍ഀ It our itricrrti,riz to Irat}y ide ilrrec , et-wt<itrt 4d ' ra °rt gs and espouse' packages for਍ഀ the iiirki sated ENca a.itirroC:irrd ng, Permit directlyter latt Royer otC"TA- via F"f £ x :rye'਍ഀ imd morning Wednesday May 24. 2006 mith a copy of th transmittal to you al that਍ഀ .t.rrc l: „I`Ire r"espun es "iil be to the condensed list of items received at our ineeting of਍ഀ 1 twin 3y My IS, 34706° Per oui t' ee-r ng o lay 18. 2000, it is otu ianderst;tl3tling, that it"਍ഀ the comm-,ent ri sl)crnscs are acceptable and that items requested (via emai 15,1 NA j6਍ഀ 1211M) by O vin Kassirrcl, To V Linginc:er, are era sfied, that a E c avation'Gradin਍ഀ f':t,i d , ill be issued for VI'D Building A E on or beforc IMay 3020W਍ഀ C'i mpicte I'' ii, Check Chn-anents for X= F-D Buitdin s A, B. C & D y i;, t-,c S,.t;trrmed to਍ഀ yo" Office Oil or be lore . c:tlc i 9, 2C)O6. V RDC:`, is hopeful that the full Building Pertrtits਍ഀ it F !3z ll{ :i? + A, 13., C AC D vviH lrti:° irisucd in a Hinny inwiner. so Ily' & C`tr.rstrtiWo $ can਍ഀ mair,ta.irr !h 6t11 :i"s:ititl7 schedule. '.`RDC" yvould greatly ;i)nprc.:iat : the r°"z:k i , Cat the਍ഀ Building Perim for Build "a;,=, It first. to € and clr:_ hle, impacts v.-itih. Buildings A, C 1.)਍ഀ tttl lc ya਍ഀ to਍ഀ I=i.Wy, A is mu itlteirt to stet ndt coinplete Ilan Chtck responses for Boil inL, on or-਍ഀ be t)re my W, 21?f')6. Our 'rear Wds the additional tiRIC W! lUblt;it I3t.rluin E, iS needed਍ഀ to add c ss the concerns relMed to 113C C;'rt: liner I I issues noted and discussed in tr.ir਍ഀ Ifwwta'ng of May K 2006, As noted above VRL)C: is antic;iptin a ti wly kwe of hie਍ഀ V. %50.w਍ഀ .ii .t 1 i we' "T" M. A no T-tti € t up? I", a . Amp k.o I?=1e"' . R a.M਍ഀ 5 s਍ഀ a s਍ഀ 4M਍ഀ i M& x Kmd ..-c;,਍ഀ VAIL RESORT -਍ഀ VROI ' and our AtWhmt,Conlracior Teams W "C hm`t', ut in real daw-'s to -Submit the਍ഀ I ,.HO .S Iva clwk rnespo$ sLs for di Nei}fit" of az . E y$~ &iL~7:: ~ 3 "c 13T ~3t IY ~ IIZ`~~ as 'SL Y l1 as਍ഀ as >'T EFL e%'t3r't; I"x'`~°e+:it. ddx,itik !i iat, ~਍ഀ tic: i:3ai £3tltl€ttt~~ ~ . h"_ i"~T $ ;~'a'a`si f_S7 .dl;.it2~.i: Q A t.=+: ,.ii;.a਍ഀ 4 iftbrt titat you and the ter TOV Officials have txtc idk~d to the Project in % ;o°<rim!਍ഀ Sonic ChatIetIgiIIg, s'stle.S I"eI.ited to @'v`uu,-ig our l3wil i;Ia PC 3t !IoIIid c ,.'t਍ഀ questions or re-q&-%, additional info `Iliation, f~ free ::ontac, m ~3rs a਍ഀ I lard copies are a% ailable upon ri,:qUCM.਍ഀ of &ttW `T਍ഀ Vail Rc,~orts਍ഀ Do u L ~'ix# m l1li C਍ഀ Mau Ro4rKIA਍ഀ Tom 1"Co tarsi Sat.dot"Kil"•`l°t.)V Pfit,.਍ഀ 0਍ഀ 4਍ഀ Matt Rover਍ഀ From:਍ഀ Charlie Davis [CDavis@vailgov.com]਍ഀ Sent:਍ഀ Thursday, May 18, 2006 4:09 PM਍ഀ To:਍ഀ dthompson@hyderinc.com; JACKH@vailresorts.com; rcaudel@vailresorts.com਍ഀ Cc:਍ഀ Matt Royer; Joseph Suther਍ഀ Subject:਍ഀ Assesed Fast Track Fees For Front Door਍ഀ Good Afternoon,਍ഀ As promised here is the breakdown of additional fees that we discussed in this mornings਍ഀ meeting. Due to the fact that a request has been made to release partial permits for਍ഀ excavation and shoring work, we have assessed a fast track fee on the following:਍ഀ B06-0018 Building "A" permit਍ഀ Current plan check fee = $66,894.17਍ഀ Fast Track plan check fee = $102,914.10 Fees paid to date = $66,894.17 Balance due at਍ഀ time of partial permit release = $138,973.03 (excludes rec. amenities fee)਍ഀ B06-0022 Building "E" master permit਍ഀ Current plan check fee = $10,087.02਍ഀ Fast Track plan check fee = $15,518.50਍ഀ Fees paid to date = $10,087.02਍ഀ Balance due at time of partial release = $19,452.98 (excludes rec.਍ഀ amenities fee)਍ഀ The good news is: We only need to assess this fee on the two above listed permits and not਍ഀ the nine permits that was discussed this morning.਍ഀ Thank you all for your cooperation this morning. It was a pleasure to work through these਍ഀ difficult issues without any additional burdens.਍ഀ Please contact me with any questions.਍ഀ Best Regards,਍ഀ Charlie Davis਍ഀ Chief Building Official਍ഀ Town of Vail਍ഀ 970-479-2142਍ഀ cdavis@vailgov.com਍ഀ 1਍ഀ s਍ഀ REVIEWED BY਍ഀ COLORADO INSPECTION਍ഀ AGENCY਍ഀ The items listed below were taken from the original plan review comment letters and second਍ഀ review comment letters. It is our opinion that these items could drastically impact the design਍ഀ and constructability of this project. The comments listed are the issues that have been਍ഀ identified and need to be resolved prior to the release of a Grading and Excavation Permit.਍ഀ See original comment letters for the complete list.਍ഀ The comments listed are separated by Permit number, Building and Volume.਍ഀ As well as the comments listed below, the Building Official must give final approval਍ഀ to proceed with a partial permit. That approval will be based on a recommendation਍ഀ from Colorado Inspection Agency, Town of Vail Planning, Public Works and Fire਍ഀ Departments. Conditions established by all parties must be satisfied prior to਍ഀ recommendations for approval will be granted. The list below is not a complete list਍ഀ by all departments. This list was generated by Colorado Inspection for only Code਍ഀ related issues.਍ഀ Release of a partial permit may be granted with conditions and a timeline for all other਍ഀ plan review comments to be complete.਍ഀ This list below was generated prior to the 05/18/2006 9:30 a.m. meeting to be held at਍ഀ the Town of Vail with Town Officials, Vail Resorts and Applicant. Other concerns/਍ഀ requirements may be generated as a result of this meeting.਍ഀ Permit Number B06-0018- Building A and Site- Volume I and II਍ഀ 3. Preliminary plan review meetings had discussion regarding the submittal of਍ഀ Memorandum of Understandings (MOU). MOU's defined in these meetings would be਍ഀ "used to define or clarify the use of a code section, agreement to the installation of a਍ഀ system not covered specifically by the code or clarify the use or component of a਍ഀ building. None of the agreed upon MOU's were submitted for review. Please provide਍ഀ the following MOU's for review:਍ഀ a) Use of assumed property lines and fire separation distance.਍ഀ b) Fire command room਍ഀ c) Smoke management systems਍ഀ d) Opening between parking garage and Lodge Tower parking garage਍ഀ This item should be submitted as an Administrative Modification.਍ഀ e) Fire separation between the new building and existing buildings਍ഀ This item should be submitted as an Administrative Modification.਍ഀ f) Use of 508.2 for creating separate buildings as it relates to each building਍ഀ This may be an Administrative Modification depending on writing and਍ഀ design.਍ഀ g) The separation between One Vail Place and new Skier Services਍ഀ This item should be submitted as an administrative Modification.਍ഀ -1-਍ഀ Vail's Front Door Project਍ഀ Outstanding Comments for release of partial permit to allow for grading and excavation.਍ഀ 4. Preliminary plan review submittal meetings had discussion regarding the submittal of਍ഀ Administrative Modifications (AM). AM's as defined in these meetings would be based਍ഀ on International Building Code Section 104.10. Where practical difficulties are involved਍ഀ in carrying out the provision of this code, a modification to the code may be granted by਍ഀ the building official after justification that the modification will not lesson health,਍ഀ accessibility, life and fire safety, or structural requirements. The following AM's have਍ഀ been discussed and are being implemented into the plans. Please provide the following਍ഀ or amend plans accordingly to comply with the code.਍ഀ a) Separation between Chalet buildings਍ഀ b) Elimination of elevator smoke doors at residential levels of the Chalet buildings਍ഀ c) Opening between parking garage and Lodge Tower parking garage. When਍ഀ writing this modification be sure to use the correct Type IB construction਍ഀ type for Lodge Tower. Please amend G sheets to correctly identify the਍ഀ Lodge Tower as Type IB construction.਍ഀ d) The separation between One Vail Place and new Skier Services਍ഀ e) Fire separation between the new building and existing buildings਍ഀ 5. Be sure to amend the Fire & Life Safety Report as necessary when changes are made਍ഀ to the plans that may affect the discussions made by the Report.਍ഀ As discussed in the meeting on 0510212006; the Fire and Life Safety Report,਍ഀ Memorandums of Understanding and Administrative Modifications will be਍ഀ reformatted for clarification and ease of understanding.਍ഀ 6. Provide a precise site plan showing exact locations of assumed property lines. If਍ഀ locations of assumed property lines are close enough to exterior walls to require rating of਍ഀ walls and opening protection, provide details.਍ഀ Please show the location of the actual property line between the new Spa and the਍ഀ Lodge Tower. Sheet G016 shows an assumed property line between these two਍ഀ buildings at 5'6" from the Spa and 21'11" from the Lodge Tower. As a result of਍ഀ this assumed property line, the Lodge Tower would need a rated wall and਍ഀ protected openings. Please clarify?਍ഀ Chalet property lines are also a concern. During the 0510212006 meeting we were਍ഀ told to reference G026 for location of property lines. This sheet shows the Chalet਍ഀ buildings crossing over or placed on the property lines. Please clarify.਍ഀ 7. Fire and Life Safety Report states the use of 1 hour fire walls per IBC Table 705.4. This਍ഀ table does not allow for 1 hour fire walls anywhere. Please clarify.਍ഀ The Fire and Life Safety Report was modified in an attempt to clear this issue.਍ഀ This somewhat still remains. We understand the intent after the last revision.਍ഀ Please clarify based on the example below. For instance:਍ഀ Page 17 of the April 3 Fire and Life Safety Report has a table regarding਍ഀ separations between buildings. I would like to use the 3rd item in the table as an਍ഀ example. Table States- Description: Mid-Level Parking garage/ Spa for Lodge at਍ഀ Vail Lower Level; Separation Reason: Spa Construction Type; Occupancy Group:਍ഀ S-2 Type IA; Fire Rating: 1 hour Occupancy Separation Wall.਍ഀ -2-਍ഀ Vail's Front Door Project਍ഀ Outstanding Comments for release of partial permit to allow for grading and excavation.਍ഀ Based on the plan, the Lodge at Vail is Type IA, the parking garage is Type IA.਍ഀ The reason for separation is not really type of construction because they are both਍ഀ the same type. The reason for the separation is occupancy. The Fire Rating isn't਍ഀ an occupancy separation wall because this doesn't exist in the IBC; the plan is਍ഀ actually shown correctly as a 1 hour barrier.਍ഀ I believed the confusion was coming from the table (Fire and Life Safety Report)਍ഀ saying one thing and the plans showing another. Please clarify.਍ഀ 9. Accessibility requirements do not appear to be included within any plan for this project.਍ഀ Please amend plans to include the following:਍ഀ a) Accessible parking spaces and loading zones.਍ഀ b) Accessible route from the parking and loading zones to the buildings.਍ഀ c) Accessible routes to each building on the site which are required to be਍ഀ accessible.਍ഀ d) Signage details for parking, striping, routes, restrooms, etc.਍ഀ e) Restroom details for fixtures, grab bars and accessories.਍ഀ This packet is normally not a deferred submittal. Amend plans and specification਍ഀ for all required signage per IBC Section 1110.਍ഀ Show the location of required Site Signage on sheet C37.0 (signage plan).਍ഀ The response states that parking spaces were provided. 2 were located on the਍ഀ plans. Please respond with sheet numbers and locations of which all accessible਍ഀ parking spaces can be found. Also, include the parking calculations used to਍ഀ determine the required number of spaces. The space and loading zone shown on਍ഀ sheet A106 needs to be dimensioned. Be sure to include the required number of਍ഀ accessible spaces and van accessible spaces.਍ഀ When the plan shows the location of inaccessible entrances and the required਍ഀ number of accessible parking spaces then the accessible routes will be reviewed਍ഀ for code compliance. The routes may need to be identified on a separate sheet or਍ഀ sheets to be clearly represented.਍ഀ 12. Elevator door which do not open into a lobby need to be provided with a smoke control਍ഀ door in accordance with IBC Section 715.3.5.3਍ഀ The Chalet Building elevators penetrate more then 3 stories which would require਍ഀ smoke control. Please amend plans accordingly. This was a topic at the਍ഀ 0510212006 meeting and may be handled by an Administrative Modification.਍ഀ 29. Amend plans to include all component which will be required and specified within the਍ഀ Administrative modification for the opening between the Parking Garage (2 places) and਍ഀ the existing Lodge Tower. The existing Lodge Tower plan has identified the parking਍ഀ garage as Type I-B. This needs to be taken into consideration when exercising IBC਍ഀ section 508.2. Same type of construction was used during the pre-submittal meetings਍ഀ that discussed the separation. Please address the type of construction separation and਍ഀ opening protection accordingly. Please coordinate plans and design with the Lodge਍ഀ Tower designers.਍ഀ This comment was discussed in the 0510212006 meeting with 42140, BCER, Town਍ഀ of Vail and Colorado Inspection Agency. An Administrative Modification will be਍ഀ created to clarify the opening and equivalencies provided to allow this opening on਍ഀ the property line between the two buildings. This Administrative Modification਍ഀ -3-਍ഀ Vail's Front Door Project਍ഀ Outstanding Comments for release of partial permit to allow for grading and excavation.਍ഀ must be consistent with the Modification created by the Lodge Tower. It was਍ഀ discussed that one document be created that is signed and agreed upon by both਍ഀ property owners.਍ഀ Permit Number B06-0019 Building B Volume III਍ഀ 16. Clearly define the separation between existing and new addition. (Fire separation਍ഀ between I-A and III-A construction).਍ഀ This item will be reviewed with the Fire and Life Safety submitted that will occur਍ഀ as part of the 0510212006 meeting.਍ഀ 29. What is the size of the day tank for the back-up generator, quantity and classification of਍ഀ liquid and means for filling tank? This is shown on Building A plans & Building B plans.਍ഀ Currently a diesel generator is shown on the plans. H occupancy?਍ഀ Provide specifications and documentation for the generator which will include the਍ഀ size of the tank.਍ഀ Permit Number B06-0020 - Building C - Volume IV਍ഀ 20. Except as permitted in Section 402.4.6, openings in exit enclosures other than਍ഀ unexposed exterior openings shall be limited to those necessary for exit access to the਍ഀ enclosure from normally occupied spaces and for egress from the enclosure. Door਍ഀ C106 on A102 and door C227 on sheet A103 are not allowed in the exit enclosure.਍ഀ (1019.1.1 IBC)਍ഀ Response says to see MOU. Please identify document, page and paragraph਍ഀ where this information can be found. We were unable to locate this information.਍ഀ Permit Number B06-0021 - Building D - Volume V਍ഀ 18. How does the three hour firewall described in the LSR separating the lower level of One਍ഀ Vail Place from the new Skier Services Building comply with section 705 IBC 2003. The਍ഀ wall must continue to and terminate above the roof.਍ഀ Any designs which are shown on the plans and do not comply with the code must਍ഀ be applied for in the form of an Administrative Modification and not a਍ഀ Memorandum of Understanding as described in the response. If it is not possible਍ഀ to construct this wall as described and required by the Building Code then submit਍ഀ an Administrative Modification clearly identifying the issues, code sections, and਍ഀ alternative construction, safeguards to fire and life safety and justification for the਍ഀ modification. It was agreed in the 0510212006 meeting that if compliance with the਍ഀ IBC then this will be submitted for review as an Administrative Modification.਍ഀ -4-਍ഀ Vail's Front Door Project਍ഀ Outstanding Comments for release of partial permit to allow for grading and excavation.਍ഀ Permit Number B06-0022 through B06-0029 - Building E - Volume VI਍ഀ 21. The LSR states that there will be a 3 hour fire separation from the parking garage to the਍ഀ residential units both horizontally and vertically. The vertical separation is shown as a਍ഀ one hour on the plans and the parking garage does not have a complete separation਍ഀ from the mechanical room on the floor above. Sheet G023 and 024 don't show stair਍ഀ ES02 as a rated assembly nor does it list a wall type. Sheet M010 shows the wall type਍ഀ as an "R" wall assembly which is shown as a 2 hour wood framed party wall on sheet A਍ഀ 600. If the ceiling of the parking garage is being used for the 3 hour separation then the਍ഀ stairs going to the 2nd floor mechanical room from the garage and the large opening for਍ഀ the garage ventilation must be protected. Add opening protection to the garage ceiling਍ഀ below the mechanical room or revise plans showing extent of three hour separation to਍ഀ include ceiling of mechanical room.਍ഀ Detail the required fire separation where R-3 residential units are adjacent to S-2਍ഀ parking garage. Clarify whether the separation is driven by the difference in਍ഀ occupancies or the different types of construction. Also if any portions of these਍ഀ vertical walls support the 3 hour separation as referenced in Section 508.2 then਍ഀ the walls must have the same rating as the floor assembly. Include in response਍ഀ required protection of openings based on wall construction.਍ഀ 23. Addendum # 1 has changed location of rated walls separating the parking garage from਍ഀ adjoining spaces. Addendum has added separation to the storage areas in the garage਍ഀ but not the elevator machine rooms. The elevator machine rooms do however have 90਍ഀ min rated doors shown on the schedule. The now rated storage rooms don't have਍ഀ protected openings. Coordinate door schedule with wall construction for all spaces being਍ഀ separated from the parking garage.਍ഀ Detail fire separation or absence thereof at adjoining spaces (elevator machine਍ഀ rooms, residential storage units, trash room) and S-2 parking garage. First਍ഀ submittal showed no separation, addendum showed fire-rated partitions and਍ഀ second submittal has removed the fire separation again. Reference the code਍ഀ sections਍ഀ 30. Provide smoke door assemblies per section 715.3.5.3 at all elevators doors.਍ഀ Response referenced sheet A700 and A701. There are no notes on these sheets to਍ഀ address this. Revise response to reference correct sheets.਍ഀ 34. Life Safety Report references the construction of the party wall between units as਍ഀ providing additional protection because the wall is being constructed as a two hour਍ഀ assembly. LSR states that the wall will continue to and terminate at the underside of the਍ഀ roof sheathing. This detail is not reflected on the plans in fact it is shown stopping the਍ഀ wall at the underside of the rafters. Please coordinate the plans with the LSR continuing਍ഀ the wall to the roof sheathing. Provide detail for roof ventilation as wall to deck will਍ഀ eliminate ridge vent.਍ഀ ❑ LSR also states that they are utilizing section 705.7 of the 2003 IBC for combustible਍ഀ members entering the rated assembly at the party wall. The referenced section਍ഀ (705.7) is part of section 705 "Fire Walls". This section is a very prescriptive਍ഀ commentary on the construction of fire walls one of which "705.3" states "Fire Walls਍ഀ shall be of any approved noncombustible materials. Section 705.7 is not applicable਍ഀ -5-਍ഀ Vail's Front Door Project਍ഀ Outstanding Comments for release of partial permit to allow for grading and excavation.਍ഀ to the assembly being shown on the plans because of the combustible framing਍ഀ members used in the construction of the wall. Revise plans removing all framing਍ഀ members from entering the party wall or change the construction of the wall to meet਍ഀ section 705.3.਍ഀ The Chalet residences are not exempt from the requirements of accessible units. Per਍ഀ IBC Section 3104.2 exception 2 requires that connected buildings shall be considered਍ഀ as one building for the purpose of calculating the number of type B units is required by਍ഀ IBC Chapter 11. Amend plan to comply with Chapter 11. Provide all details,਍ഀ specifications, parking, accessible routes, etc. which would clearly show compliance਍ഀ with IBC for accessibility.਍ഀ The LSR still states that the 2-hour fire rated wall will extend to and terminate at਍ഀ the underside of the roof deck but that is not reflected on the plans. In fact the਍ഀ fire-wall is interrupted at each floor level by framing members and then stops at਍ഀ the underside of the rafters. Determine what type of wall will be constructed,਍ഀ identify it per code section and detail its construction to meet the code਍ഀ requirements.਍ഀ 34a਍ഀ Reference to section 705.7 in the Ad Min Mod has been removed. Determine what਍ഀ type of wall will be constructed, identify it per code section and detail its਍ഀ construction to meet the code requirements.਍ഀ 34b਍ഀ As a result of the meeting held on 05102106 designer will determine feasibility of਍ഀ having all units comply with the Type B provisions on ANSI 117.1 1998 for਍ഀ accessibility.਍ഀ 58. Note 11 sheet A 155 # 6 of the revision to documents states "revised location of਍ഀ elevator `08"". Sheet A 155 Floor Plan: unit 5C level 3 shows elevator 16, 17 and਍ഀ 18 with no reference to elevator 8. This same comment applies to Note mm sheet਍ഀ A 157 revision to documents Revise statement to address correct elevator or਍ഀ sheet਍ഀ -6-਍ഀ Vail's Front Door Project਍ഀ Outstanding Comments for release of partial permit to allow for grading and excavation.਍ഀ 05/18/2006਍ഀ REVIEWED BY਍ഀ vUL _Ur )J਍ഀ COLORADO INSPECTION਍ഀ AGENCY਍ഀ The items listed below were taken from the original plan review comment letters and second review਍ഀ comment letters. It is our opinion that these items could drastically impact the design and constructability਍ഀ of this project. The comments listed are the issues that have been identified and need to be resolved਍ഀ prior to the release of a Grading and Excavation Permit.਍ഀ See original comment letters for the complete list.਍ഀ The comments listed are separated by Permit number, Building and Volume.਍ഀ As well as the comments listed below, the Building Official must -give final approval to proceed਍ഀ with a partial permit. That approval will be based on a recommendation from Colorado Inspection਍ഀ Agency Town of Vail Planning, Public Works and Fire Departments. Conditions established by਍ഀ all parties must be satisfied prior to recommendations for approval will be granted. The list below਍ഀ is not a complete list by all departments. This list was generated by Colorado Inspection for only਍ഀ Code related issues.਍ഀ Release of a partial permit may be granted with conditions and a timeline for all other plan review਍ഀ comments to be complete.਍ഀ This list below was generated prior to the 05/18/2006 9:30 a.m. meeting to be held at the Town of਍ഀ Vail with Town Officials, Vail Resorts and Applicant. Other concerns/ requirements may be਍ഀ generated as a result of this meeting.਍ഀ Permit Number B06-0018- Buildinq A and Site- Volume I and II਍ഀ 3. Preliminary plan review meetings had discussion regarding the submittal of Memorandum of਍ഀ Understandings (MOU). MOU's defined in these meetings would be "used to define or clarify the use਍ഀ of a code section, agreement to the installation of a system not covered specifically by the code or਍ഀ clarify the use or component of a building. None of the agreed upon MOU's were submitted for਍ഀ review. Please provide the following MOU's for review:਍ഀ a) Use of assumed property lines and fire separation distance.਍ഀ Refer BCER May 23, 2006 Memorandum of Understanding: Item #3, Pg. 3.਍ഀ ,/b) Fire command room਍ഀ Refer BCER May 23, 2006 Memorandum of Understanding: Item #2, Pg. 2.਍ഀ ,,~6) Smoke management systems਍ഀ Refer BCER May 23, 2006 Memorandum of Understanding: Item #1, Pg. 2.਍ഀ ✓ d) Opening between parking garage and Lodge Tower parking garage਍ഀ This item should be submitted as an Administrative Modification.਍ഀ / Refer BCER Administrative Modification#1 dated May 23, 2006.਍ഀ /e) Fire separation between the new building and existing buildings਍ഀ This item should be submitted as an Administrative Modification.਍ഀ Refer BCER Administrative Modification#2 dated May 23, 2006.਍ഀ f) Use of 508.2 for creating separate buildings as it relates to each building਍ഀ This may be an Administrative Modification depending on writing and design.਍ഀ Refer BCER May 23, 2006 Memorandum of Understanding: Item #4, Pg. 4.਍ഀ ,/g) The separation between One Vail Place and new Skier Services਍ഀ This item should be submitted as an administrative Modification.਍ഀ Refer BCER Administrative Modification#2 dated May 23, 2006.਍ഀ -1-਍ഀ Vail's Front Door Project - Outstanding Comments for release of partial permit to allow for grading and excavation.਍ഀ 4. Preliminary plan review submittal meetings had discussion regarding the submittal of Administrative਍ഀ Modifications (AM). AM's as defined in these meetings would be based on International Building਍ഀ Code Section 104.10. Where practical difficulties are involved in carrying out the provision of this਍ഀ code, a modification to the code may be granted by the building official after justification that the਍ഀ modification will not lesson health, accessibility, life and fire safety, or structural requirements. The਍ഀ following AM's have been discussed and are being implemented into the plans. Please provide the਍ഀ following or amend plans accordingly to comply with the code.਍ഀ a) Separation between Chalet buildings਍ഀ _਍ഀ Refer BCER Administrative Modification#2 dated May 23, 20 6.਍ഀ b) Elimination of elevator smoke doors at residential levels of the Cha ?਍ഀ Refer BCER Administrative Modification#2 dated May 23, 2006.਍ഀ vd~ Opening between parking garage and Lodge Tower parking garage. When writing this਍ഀ modification be sure to use the correct Type 1B construction type for Lodge Tower.਍ഀ Please amend G sheets to correctly identify the Lodge Tower as Type 1B construction.਍ഀ Refer BCER Administrative Modification#1 dated May 23, 2006.਍ഀ Construction Type has been modified to `I-B' - refer revised sheet G016.਍ഀ o/d) The separation between One Vail Place and new Skier Services਍ഀ / Refer BCER Administrative Modification#2 dated May 23, 2006.਍ഀ v'b) Fire separation between the new building and existing buildings਍ഀ Refer BCER Administrative Modification#2 dated May 23, 2006.਍ഀ /Be sure to amend the Fire & Life Safety Report as necessary when changes are made to the plans਍ഀ that may affect the discussions made by the Report.਍ഀ As discussed in the meeting on 0510212006; the Fire and Life Safety Report, Memorandums of਍ഀ Understanding and Administrative Modifications will be reformatted for clarification and ease਍ഀ of understanding.਍ഀ BCER has reformatted the Life Safety Report, Memorandum of Understanding and਍ഀ Administrative Modifications to help clarify the requirements of the project.਍ഀ 4. Provide a precise site plan showing exact locations of assumed property lines. If locations of assumed਍ഀ property lines are close enough to exterior walls to require rating of walls and opening protection,਍ഀ provide details.਍ഀ Please show the location of the actual property line between the new Spa and the Lodge਍ഀ Tower. Sheet G016 shows an assumed property line between these two buildings at 5'6" from਍ഀ the Spa and 21' 11" from the Lodge Tower. As a result of this assumed property line, the਍ഀ Lodge Tower would need a rated wall and protected openings. Please clarify?਍ഀ Sheet G016 has been revised to show the South Lodge Tower's ACTUAL property line -਍ഀ Building B is approximately 25' away from this property line. According to IBC Table 602,਍ഀ exterior walls of Type IA Construction, with Groups other than H, between 10' and 30', would਍ഀ require 1-hour fire-resistance rating (as indicated on sheet G016). Within that wall, IBC Table਍ഀ 704.8 would permit a maximum area of exterior wall opening (unprotected) of 45%, with 'No਍ഀ Limit' on protected openings. Since that wall only has only one door/opening, the maximum਍ഀ area of opening has not been exceeded.਍ഀ Chalet property lines are also a concern. During the 0510212006 meeting we were told to਍ഀ reference G026 for location of property lines. This sheet shows the Chalet buildings crossing਍ഀ over or placed on the property lines. Please clarify.਍ഀ The Project Boundary w/ USFS Land Exchange has been noted on sheets G022 through G027.਍ഀ Lot 1 and Lot 2 of the Mill Creek Subdivision and the USFS Land Exchange parcel are both਍ഀ owned by the `Permit Applicant'. VRDC's, in the future, plans on replatting this area਍ഀ eliminating the `internal' property line(s).਍ഀ -2-਍ഀ Vail's Front Door Project - Outstanding Comments for release of partial permit to allow for grading and excavation.਍ഀ ire and Life Safety Report states the use of 1 hour fire walls per IBC Table 705.4. This table does਍ഀ not allow for 1 hour fire walls anywhere. Please clarify.਍ഀ The Fire and Life Safety Report was modified in an attempt to clear this issue. This somewhat਍ഀ still remains. We understand the intent after the last revision. Please clarify based on the਍ഀ example below. For instance:਍ഀ Page 17 of the April 3 Fire and Life Safety Report has a table regarding separations between਍ഀ buildings. I would like to use the 3'd item in the table as an example. Table States-਍ഀ Description: Mid-Level Parking garage/ Spa for Lodge at Vail Lower Level; Separation Reason:਍ഀ Spa Construction Type; Occupancy Group: S-2 Type IA; Fire Ratin_g: 1 hour Occupancy਍ഀ Separation Wall.਍ഀ Based on the plan, the Lodge at Vail is Type IA, the parking garage is Type IA. The reason for਍ഀ separation is not really type of construction because they are both the same type. The reason਍ഀ for the separation is occupancy. The Fire Rating isn't an occupancy separation wall because਍ഀ this doesn't exist in the IBC; the plan is actually shown correctly as a 1 hour barrier.਍ഀ I believed the confusion was coming from the table (Fire and Life Safety Report) saying one਍ഀ thing and the plans showing another. Please clarify.਍ഀ This has been removed from the Vail's Front Door Life Safety Report dated May 23, 2006.਍ഀ 9. Accessibility requirements do not appear to be included within any plan for this project. Please਍ഀ amend plans to include the following:਍ഀ ✓a) Accessible parking spaces and loading zones.਍ഀ Refer new sheets G050 thru G052 for `Accessibility Plans', and G056 for `Accessibility਍ഀ Details'.਍ഀ Jb) Accessible route from the parking and loading zones to the buildings.਍ഀ Refer new sheets G050 thru G054 for `Accessibility Plans', and G056 for `Accessibility਍ഀ Details'.਍ഀ 1c) Accessible routes to each building on the site which are required to be accessible.਍ഀ Refer to new sheets G050 thru G055 for `Accessibility Plans', and G056 for਍ഀ `Accessibility Details'.਍ഀ d Signage details for parking, striping, routes, restrooms, etc.਍ഀ See `Signage' response below.਍ഀ e) Restroom details for fixtures, grab bars and accessories.਍ഀ Refer new sheets G056 and G057 for `Accessibility Details'. Refer also G055 for `Lodge਍ഀ at Vail Guestroom Accessibility Plan'.਍ഀ This packet is normally not a deferred submittal. Amend plans and specification for all਍ഀ required signage per IBC Section 1110.਍ഀ An overall `graphically-consistent' Signage Package is planned that would include all front-of-਍ഀ house, back-of-house, and Code required signage. In that regard, the Permit Applicant would਍ഀ request that the complete Signage Package be submitted later as a "Deferred Submittal" as਍ഀ previously indicated (refer "VII. DEFERRED SUBMITTALS", Item 10, Sheet G006). The਍ഀ Signage Package, when submitted, will comply with all IBC requirements as well as Section਍ഀ 1110.਍ഀ ✓Show the location of required Site Signage on sheet C37.0 (signage plan).਍ഀ Required `traffic' signage appears on sheet C37.0. Additional `accessibility' signage will be਍ഀ provided with the Signage Package described above.਍ഀ Parking within the Front Door project consists of `Valet' parking stalls, `Assigned' Lodge਍ഀ South Condominium (LSC) stalls, `Loading Dock' stalls, and `Employee' parking stalls -there਍ഀ are no `open to the public' parking stalls within the Front Door project. Valet stalls occur at the਍ഀ lower level (refer new sheet G050) and lower-mid level (refer new sheet G051). Loading Dock਍ഀ stalls also occur at the lower-mid level. Assigned LSC parking stalls occur at the lower mid-਍ഀ level and are provided by Agreement between VRDC and the LSC, replacing at-grade stalls lost਍ഀ -3-਍ഀ Vail's Front Door Project - Outstanding Comments for release of partial permit to allow for grading and excavation.਍ഀ due to construction of Building A - a total of 15 stalls required (refer new sheet G051).਍ഀ Employee parking stalls occur at the upper-mid level (refer new sheet G052).਍ഀ Combining the number of parking stalls within Valet and Employee parking areas (NOT਍ഀ including Loading Dock or LSC stalls - since Dock stalls are not required to be included, and਍ഀ LSC stalls have been included in Klipp's parking calculations under a separate Project), the਍ഀ calculations indicate a need for six accessible stalls (refer new sheet G050 for excerpt of IBC਍ഀ Table 1106.1). With six accessible stalls being required, one of those stalls will be `van਍ഀ accessible' (refer IBC 1106.5). The six accessible stalls (five car and one van) have been਍ഀ divided equally between the three parking `levels' in the Garage - two car stalls at the lower਍ഀ level Ski Club valet, one car and one van stall at the lower-mid level Lodge at Vail valet, and਍ഀ two car stalls at the upper-mid level employee. As well, since the lower level Ski Club valet਍ഀ parking can be publicly accessed, a passenger loading zone has been incorporated per IBC਍ഀ 1106.7.3. [Note: We feel the location of the passenger loading zone is permitted even if a਍ഀ three-point turn is required to exit the area. As well, the location of the westerly HC stall is਍ഀ permitted since the valet stall just `behind' the HC stall could be `emptied' by the Valet਍ഀ Attendant if the HC driver returned to leave - as the Attendant is only a few feet away]. A਍ഀ passenger loading zone should not be required at the Lodge at Vail valet parking area since਍ഀ the public will NEVER drive into that valet parking area - as the Lodge at Vail valet service਍ഀ occurs at the Lodge's front door / porte cochere (the car is driven into the valet parking area਍ഀ by the Attendant, not the `public'). Refer new sheets G050 thru G052.਍ഀ Also, include the parking calculations used to determine the required number of spaces.਍ഀ An excerpt of IBC Table 1106.1 "Accessible Parking Spaces" has been indicated on new sheet਍ഀ V G050; hi-lighting the need for 6 accessible spaces as described above - with one of those਍ഀ spaces being van accessible as required.਍ഀ VI'T'he space and loading zone shown on sheet A106 needs to be dimensioned.਍ഀ The stall and loading zone have now been dimensioned. Refer revised sheet A/A106.਍ഀ /~e sure to include the required number of accessible spaces and van accessible spaces.਍ഀ See response above relative to excerpt of IBC Table 1106.1 indicated on new sheet G050.਍ഀ When the plan shows the location of inaccessible entrances and the required number of਍ഀ / accessible parking spaces then the accessible routes will be reviewed for code compliance.਍ഀ V The routes may need to be identified on a separate sheet or sheets to be clearly represented.਍ഀ New sheets have been provided indicating the location of HC stalls and passenger loading਍ഀ zones - as well as accessible routes and accessible entries. Refer new sheets G050 through਍ഀ G055.਍ഀ ,9,Elevator door which do not open into a lobby need to be provided with a smoke control door in਍ഀ accordance with IBC Section 715.3.5.3਍ഀ The Chalet Building elevators penetrate more then 3 stories which would require smoke਍ഀ control. Please amend plans accordingly. This was a topic at the 0510212006 meeting and may਍ഀ be handled by an Administrative Modification.਍ഀ Refer BCER Memorandum of Understanding dated May 23, 2006: Item #1, Pg. 2.਍ഀ VI 9. Amend plans to include all component which will be required and specified within the Administrative਍ഀ modification for the opening between the Parking Garage (2 places) and the existing Lodge Tower.਍ഀ The existing Lodge Tower plan has identified the parking garage as Type 1-13. This needs to be taken਍ഀ into consideration when exercising IBC section 508.2. Same type of construction was used during the਍ഀ pre-submittal meetings that discussed the separation. Please address the type of construction਍ഀ separation and opening protection accordingly. Please coordinate plans and design with the Lodge਍ഀ Tower designers.਍ഀ -4-਍ഀ Vail's Front Door Project - Outstanding Comments for release of partial permit to allow for grading and excavation.਍ഀ This comment was discussed in the 0510212006 meeting with 42140, BCER, Town of Vail and਍ഀ Colorado Inspection Agency. An Administrative Modification will be created to clarify the਍ഀ opening and equivalencies provided to allow this opening on the property line between the਍ഀ two buildings. This Administrative Modification must be consistent with the Modification਍ഀ created by the Lodge Tower. It was discussed that one document be created that is signed਍ഀ and agreed upon by both property owners.਍ഀ Refer BCER Administrative Modification#1 dated May 23, 2006.਍ഀ / Permit Number B06-0019 Building B Volume III਍ഀ 16. Clearly define the separation between existing and new addition. (Fire separation between I-A and III-਍ഀ A construction).਍ഀ This item will be reviewed with the Fire and Life Safety submitted that will occur as part of the਍ഀ 0510212006 meeting.਍ഀ Refer BCER Administrative Modification#2 dated May 23, 2006.਍ഀ What is the size of the day tank for the back-up generator, quantity and classification of liquid and਍ഀ means for filling tank? This is shown on Building A plans & Building B plans. Currently a diesel਍ഀ generator is shown on the plans. H occupancy?਍ഀ Provide specifications and documentation for the generator which will include the size of the਍ഀ tank.਍ഀ The generator is part of the Buildings A/C/D electrical service design, and is not part of਍ഀ Building B. The generator will have a diesel fuel day tank with 8 hours of fuel capacity as਍ഀ noted on the Building A/C/D electrical one line diagram and in Specification Section 16403.਍ഀ Exact tank capacity and dimensions will not be available until equipment submittals are਍ഀ provided by the Contactor. Per literature available for the specified generator, the unit will਍ഀ require 24.1 gal/hour running at full load; which equates to 192.8 gallon for 8 hours of run time.਍ഀ Permit Number B06-0020 - Building C - Volume IV਍ഀ VL0. Except as permitted in Section 402.4.6, openings in exit enclosures other than unexposed exterior਍ഀ openings shall be limited to those necessary for exit access to the enclosure from normally occupied਍ഀ spaces and for egress from the enclosure. Door C106 on Al 02 and door C227 on sheet Al 03 are਍ഀ not allowed in the exit enclosure. (1019.1.1 IBC)਍ഀ Response says to see MOU. Please identify document, page and paragraph where this਍ഀ information can be found. We were unable to locate this information.਍ഀ See item #6 in Memorandum of Understanding document for clarification.਍ഀ / Permit Number B06-0021 - Building D - Volume V਍ഀ 481 How does the three hour firewall described in the LSR separating the lower level of One Vail Place਍ഀ from the new Skier Services Building comply with section 705 IBC 2003. The wall must continue to਍ഀ and terminate above the roof.਍ഀ Any designs which are shown on the plans and do not comply with the code must be applied਍ഀ for in the form of an Administrative Modification and not a Memorandum of Understanding as਍ഀ described in the response. If it is not possible to construct this wall as described and required਍ഀ by the Building Code then submit an Administrative Modification clearly identifying the issues,਍ഀ code sections, and alternative construction, safeguards to fire and life safety and justification਍ഀ for the modification. It was agreed in the 0510212006 meeting that if compliance with the IBC਍ഀ then this will be submitted for review as an Administrative Modification.਍ഀ Refer BCER Administrative Modification#2 dated May 23, 2006.਍ഀ -5-਍ഀ Vail's Front Door Project - Outstanding Comments for release of partial permit to allow for grading and excavation.਍ഀ - 13unaina t - volume਍ഀ 2~! The LSR states that there will be a 3 hour fire separation from the parking garage to the residential਍ഀ units both horizontally and vertically. The vertical separation is shown as a one hour on the plans and਍ഀ the parking garage does not have a complete separation from the mechanical room on the floor਍ഀ above. Sheet G023 and 024 don't show stair ES02 as a rated assembly nor does it list a wall type.਍ഀ Sheet MO 10 shows the wall type as an "R" wall assembly which is shown as a 2 hour wood framed਍ഀ party wall on sheet A 600. If the ceiling of the parking garage is being used for the 3 hour separation਍ഀ then the stairs going to the 2nd floor mechanical room from the garage and the large opening for the਍ഀ garage ventilation must be protected. Add opening protection to the garage ceiling below the਍ഀ mechanical room or revise plans showing extent of three hour separation to include ceiling of਍ഀ mechanical room.਍ഀ Detail the required fire separation where R-3 residential units are adjacent to S-2 parking਍ഀ garage. Clarify whether the separation is driven by the difference in occupancies or the਍ഀ different types of construction. Also if any portions of these vertical walls support the 3 hour਍ഀ separation as referenced in Section 508.2 then the walls must have the same rating as the floor਍ഀ assembly. Include in response required protection of openings based on wall construction.਍ഀ See revised sheets G023, G024, G028, A103, A600 and Building E Door Schedule.਍ഀ • Detail of required fire separation is provided on revised sheet G023. In addition, see਍ഀ revised sheets A103 and A600 for revised wall ratings and wall types relative to fire਍ഀ separation revisions made to sheet G023.਍ഀ • Clarification has been provided for compliance with occupancy separation, separation਍ഀ of construction types, and compliance with 2003 IBC Section 508.2 for rated਍ഀ construction supporting rated assembly above. See added designation for 3-hr fire਍ഀ rated construction supporting 3-hr fire rated assembly above on sheet G023, G024, and਍ഀ G028.਍ഀ • See revised door schedule which reflects 3-hr protection for openings in the 3-hr fire਍ഀ rated wall.਍ഀ • Regarding the previously questioned opening in the garage ceiling to the mechanical਍ഀ room above, see revised sheet G023 and G024.਍ഀ Per 2003 IBC Section 707.2, openings through a floor/ceiling assembly are NOT਍ഀ required to be protected by a shaft enclosure complying with this section, if the਍ഀ opening complies with Exception 7. Exception 7 requires that the floor opening comply਍ഀ with the following:਍ഀ 7.1. Does not connect more than two stories.਍ഀ 7.2. Is not part of the required means of egress system except as permitted in਍ഀ Section 1019.1.਍ഀ 7.3. Is not concealed within the building construction.਍ഀ 7.4. Is not open to a corridor in Group I and R occupancies.਍ഀ 7.5. Is not open to a corridor on nonsprinklered floors in any occupancy.਍ഀ 7.6. Is separated from floor openings serving other floors by construction਍ഀ conforming to required shaft enclosures.਍ഀ The opening between the Residential Garage Parking Level and the Cooling Tower਍ഀ Room, on the Mechanical Level above, complies with Exception 7. Therefore the਍ഀ opening is not required to be protected.਍ഀ 3. Addendum # 1 has changed location of rated walls separating the parking garage from adjoining਍ഀ spaces. Addendum has added separation to the storage areas in the garage but not the elevator਍ഀ machine rooms. The elevator machine rooms do however have 90 min rated doors shown on the਍ഀ schedule. The now rated storage rooms don't have protected openings. Coordinate door schedule਍ഀ with wall construction for all spaces being separated from the parking garage.਍ഀ Detail fire separation or absence thereof at adjoining spaces (elevator machine rooms,਍ഀ residential storage units, trash room) and S-2 parking garage. First submittal showed no਍ഀ separation, addendum showed fire-rated partitions and second submittal has removed the fire਍ഀ separation again. Reference the code sections਍ഀ -6-਍ഀ Vail's Front Door Project - Outstanding Comments for release of partial permit to allow for grading and excavation.਍ഀ See revised sheet G023, G024, A103, and Door Schedule.਍ഀ The Storage Rooms are being classified as Incidental Use Areas per 2003 IBC Section਍ഀ 302.1.1. The S-1 Storage Rooms are incidental to the S-2 Residential Parking Garage. r਍ഀ An automatic fire-extinguishing system is being provided to the S-1 Storage Rooms.਍ഀ Therefore, per Table 302.1.1, the S-1 storage rooms are not required to be separated਍ഀ om the S-2 Residential Parking Garage. `1:਍ഀ The Trash Room is a Waste Collection Room that is being classified as an Incidental਍ഀ Use Areas per 2003 IBC Section 302.1.1. The Trash Room is incidental to the S-2਍ഀ Residential Parking Garage. An automatic fire-extinguishing system is being provided਍ഀ to the Trash Room. Therefore, per Table 302.1.1, the Trash Room is not required to be਍ഀ eparated from the S-2 Residential Parking Garage.਍ഀ Per 2003 IBC Section 3006.4, elevator machine rooms shall be enclosed with਍ഀ construction having a fire-resistance rating not less than the required rating of the਍ഀ hoistway enclosure served by the machinery. Therefore, elevator machine rooms are਍ഀ enclosed a rating not less than 2-hr.਍ഀ The private garages for residences 6A and 6B are Incidental Use Areas per 2003 IBC਍ഀ Section 302.1.1. The private garage space is incidental to its respective residence.਍ഀ Therefore, per Table 302.1.1, with an automatic fire extinguishing system, a one-hour਍ഀ separation is required between the private garage and its respective residence.਍ഀ 0. Provide smoke door assemblies per section 715.3.5.3 at all elevators doors.਍ഀ Response referenced sheet A700 and A701. There are no notes on these sheets to address਍ഀ this. Revise response to reference correct sheets.਍ഀ Refer BCER Memorandum of Understanding May 23, 2006: Item #1, Pg. 2.਍ഀ /4. Life Safety Report references the construction of the party wall between units as providing additional਍ഀ protection because the wall is being constructed as a two hour assembly. LSR states that the wall will਍ഀ continue to and terminate at the underside of the roof sheathing. This detail is not reflected on the਍ഀ plans in fact it is shown stopping the wall at the underside of the rafters. Please coordinate the plans਍ഀ with the LSR continuing the wall to the roof sheathing. Provide detail for roof ventilation as wall to਍ഀ deck will eliminate ridge vent.਍ഀ The LSR still states that the 2-hour fire rated wall will extend to and terminate at the underside਍ഀ of the roof deck but that is not reflected on the plans. In fact the fire-wall is interrupted at each਍ഀ floor level by framing members and then stops at the underside of the rafters. Determine what਍ഀ type of wall will be constructed, identify it per code section and detail its construction to meet਍ഀ the code requirements.਍ഀ Refer BCER Fire & Life Safety Report and Administrative Modification - Building E, Residential਍ഀ Chalets: Pg. 12.਍ഀ LSR also states that they are utilizing section 705.7 of the 2003 IBC for combustible members਍ഀ entering the rated assembly at the party wall. The referenced section (705.7) is part of section਍ഀ 705 "Fire Walls". This section is a very prescriptive commentary on the construction of fire਍ഀ walls one of which "705.3" states "Fire Walls shall be of any approved noncombustible਍ഀ materials. Section 705.7 is not applicable to the assembly being shown on the plans because਍ഀ of the combustible framing members used in the construction of the wall. Revise plans਍ഀ removing all framing members from entering the party wall or change the construction of the਍ഀ wall to meet section 705.3.਍ഀ Reference to section 705.7 in the Ad Min Mod has been removed. Determine what type਍ഀ of wall will be constructed, identify it per code section and detail its construction to਍ഀ meet the code requirements.਍ഀ Refer BCER Fire & Life Safety Report and Administrative Modification - Building E,਍ഀ Residential Chalets: Pg. 12.਍ഀ -7-਍ഀ Vail's Front Door Project - Outstanding Comments for release of partial permit to allow for grading and excavation.਍ഀ b. The Chalet residences are not exempt from the requirements of accessible units. Per IBC਍ഀ Section 3104.2 exception 2 requires that connected buildings shall be considered as one਍ഀ building for the purpose of calculating the number of type B units is required by IBC Chapter਍ഀ 11. Amend plan to comply with Chapter 11. Provide all details, specifications, parking,਍ഀ accessible routes, etc. which would clearly show compliance with IBC for accessibility.਍ഀ As a result of the meeting held on 05102106 designer will determine feasibility of having਍ഀ all units comply with the Type B provisions on ANSI 117.1 1998 for accessibility.਍ഀ Refer BCER May 23, 2006 Memorandum of Understanding: Item #5, Pg. 4.਍ഀ Relative to `Type B' provisions, a Meeting was held Thursday 18 May 2006 with the਍ഀ appropriate Town of Vail and Front Door Design Team members to discuss the IBC਍ഀ Chapter 11 ICC/ANSI All 17.1-1998 issue. It was decided that in order to obtain the਍ഀ `Grading & Excavation Permit' through this specific CIA Commentary (now dated 18਍ഀ May 2006), the Permit Applicant would describe the direction the Design Team would਍ഀ be taking in complying with IBC Chapter 11. That description, as well as the logic used,਍ഀ is described below.਍ഀ While many sections of IBC Chapter 11 were discussed, the consensus focused on਍ഀ provisions of section 1107.6.3 `Group R-3' and 1107.7 `General exceptions'-਍ഀ specifically 1107.7.2, 1107.7.3 and 1107.7.4.਍ഀ Section 1107.7.2 `Multistory units' states that multistory units (dwelling or sleeping)਍ഀ without elevators are not required to have `Type B' units - but that if an elevator is਍ഀ provided, and if that elevator provides access to only one level - then that one level਍ഀ shall "be accessible and contain a toilet facility". At the Chalets, elevator access could਍ഀ only be achieved at the "lower levels" (generally the Junior Master Suite and Multi-਍ഀ Purpose levels) due to the Town of Vail Zoning height restrictions and other site਍ഀ impracticalities - requiring us to provide an intermediate landing between the top two਍ഀ levels (Kitchen/Dining and Living Room level at the top; Senior Master Suite level just਍ഀ below).਍ഀ Section 1107.7.3 `Elevator service to the lowest story with units' exempts access to the਍ഀ upper levels as long as access is provided to the lower levels serviced by an elevator.਍ഀ At the Chalets, as described above, the lower levels requiring access would be the਍ഀ Junior Master Suite and Multi-Purpose levels. In following the requirements of section਍ഀ 1107.7.2, an accessible toilet facility must be provided on those levels. It also must be਍ഀ noted that the IBC Commentary states that "if an elevator is utilized to provide access਍ഀ to only the lowest level containing dwelling or sleeping units, this building would not਍ഀ be considered an `elevator' building".਍ഀ Section 1107.7.4 `Site impracticality' describes under what conditions the required਍ഀ number of Type B units is permitted to be reduced - stating that "Type B units may be਍ഀ reduced to a percentage which is equal to the percentage of the entire site having਍ഀ grades, prior to development, which are less than 10 percent". At the Chalets, the਍ഀ entire pre-developed Chalet site is over 10 percent slope - though `Condition V states਍ഀ that no matter how steep the site, a minimum of 20 percent of the units would still need਍ഀ to be `accessible'. In that regard, of the 13 Chalet units, 2.6 units (13 x 20% [.20] = 2.6,਍ഀ rounding up to 3) would need to be `accessible' - 3 units that would then continue to਍ഀ comply with sections 1107.7.2 and 1107.7.3 as described above.਍ഀ In conclusion, 3 out of the 13 Chalet units will provide `access' as described above -਍ഀ including parking stalls and routes to those 3 units within the Residential parking਍ഀ garage (following ICC/ANSI A117.1-1998 sections 1003.1 through 1003.11 - except਍ഀ 1003.12 'Kitchens'- and section 1004). While we have a good idea as to which 3 units਍ഀ -8-਍ഀ Vail's Front Door Project - Outstanding Comments for release of partial permit to allow for grading and excavation.਍ഀ will provide the necessary `access', we will provide that documentation later in the਍ഀ `Building Permit Responses' portion of CIA's commentary. As discussed in the 18 May਍ഀ 2006 Meeting, we assume that for the `Excavation Permit', the description of our `intent'਍ഀ is adequate for issuing the Permit.਍ഀ ਍ഀ If Note 11 sheet A 155 # 6 of the revision to documents states "revised location of elevator '08'਍ഀ Sheet A 155 Floor Plan: unit 5C level 3 shows elevator 16, 17 and 18 with no reference to਍ഀ elevator 8. This same comment applies to Note mm sheet A 157 revision to documents Revise਍ഀ statement to address correct elevator or sheet਍ഀ See revised sheets A151, A153, A155, and A157.਍ഀ • Note "revised location of elevator 08" is incorrect. The note should have read "revised਍ഀ location of elevator 18". Elevator 18 has been clouded on appropriate sheets. Refer to਍ഀ sheets A151, A153, A155, and A157.਍ഀ -9-਍ഀ Vail's Front Door Project - Outstanding Comments for release of partial permit to allow for grading and excavation.਍ഀ REVIEWS BD Y਍ഀ J U L 1 0 2006਍ഀ ENGINEERING, INC.਍ഀ MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING REQUEST਍ഀ Vail Front Door Project਍ഀ Vail, Colorado਍ഀ Modified May 23, 2006਍ഀ April 3, 2006਍ഀ ON਍ഀ VAIL FRONT DOOR - VAIL, COLORADO਍ഀ 1. SMOKE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (STAIR and ELEVATOR HOISTWAY)਍ഀ 2. FIRE COMMAND ROOM਍ഀ 3. USE OF ASSUMED PROPERTY LINES AND FIRE SEPARATION਍ഀ 4. USE OF 508.2 FOR CREATING SEPARATE BUILIDNGS਍ഀ 5. ACCESSIBILITY REQUIREMENTS IN RESIDENTIAL CHALETS਍ഀ 6. DOOR OPENINGS INTO SKI CLUB EXIT ENCLOSURE਍ഀ This document supercedes all previously submitted fire protection and life safety documents਍ഀ related to the Vail Front Door Project. Previous documents produced by Rolf Jensen and਍ഀ Associates Inc (RJA) will not be in effect. Effective March 11, 2006 BCER Engineering, Inc.਍ഀ (BCER) will be the fire protection and life safety consulting engineers of record for the project.਍ഀ INTRODUCTION਍ഀ This Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) request is the documentation of several meetings਍ഀ and discussions with the Town of Vail Building and Fire Department. The intent of this਍ഀ correspondence is to "document" how the design team will comply with the requirements of the਍ഀ adopted building, fire code and amendments as adopted by the Town of Vail. This document਍ഀ differs from the Request for Administrative Modification process in that we are not requesting਍ഀ any variance from the adopted building and fire codes. This document should be a reference to਍ഀ and complement the Life Safety Report and Construction Documents prepared by the design਍ഀ team. Once signed by all parties (signature page) the described portions of the Fire Protection਍ഀ and Life Safety code requirement are considered to be clarification of the building or fire code਍ഀ FCCJL1ircmcnts for the design and construction of the Vail Front Door Project in Vail, Colorado.਍ഀ -1-਍ഀ 1. SMOKE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (STAIR AND ELEVATOR HOISTWAY)਍ഀ The building is not considered a high-rise structure, however, meetings with the TOV਍ഀ Fire Department identified that fire department access was limited and that performance਍ഀ based approach was taken for this complex. This required a smoke management system to਍ഀ augment the fire department access. The smoke management system will include the਍ഀ pressurization of Stair #CSOI and Elevator #I in Building C. Building C is the Ski Club਍ഀ Building located in the center of the Vail Front Door Complex. This stair and elevator਍ഀ will provide access to all levels of the complex. The stairs and elevator are located near਍ഀ the fire command room and the fire department staging area on the exterior of the਍ഀ building.਍ഀ Stairwell Enclosures - The smoke management system for the designated਍ഀ stairwell enclosure will consist of a pressurization fan for the designated stairwell਍ഀ will be activated automatically upon fire alarm activation (water-flow or਍ഀ detection). The system will be designed such that during operation the doors into਍ഀ the stairwell will not require more than 30-pounds of force to open, regardless of਍ഀ the barometric pressures of the environment. We discussed that the system will਍ഀ not need to be designed to any minimum pressure differential such as 0.05 inches਍ഀ of water column but it would be enough to keep the stairwell positive in relation਍ഀ to adjacent spaces. A smoke management system will to be designed by a fire਍ഀ protection engineer and submitted to the fire department for their review and਍ഀ approval.਍ഀ Elevator Hoist-way - The smoke management system for the designated elevator਍ഀ hoist-ways will consist of a pressurization fan for the elevator shafts activated਍ഀ upon fire alarm activation (water-flow or detection). The smoke management਍ഀ system will not need to be designed to any minimum pressure differential.਍ഀ However, the system will be designed to keep the elevator positive in relation to਍ഀ the adjacent spaces or elevator lobbies. The positive pressure will extend beyond਍ഀ the hoist-way into the elevator lobbies or adjacent corridors. It is intended that the਍ഀ smoke management system will prevent smoke from migrating from floor to਍ഀ floor via the identified elevator hoist-way or stair enclosure.਍ഀ • Emergency Power and Control - The smoke management system will be਍ഀ connected to the building emergency power system since this is a life safety਍ഀ system. The smoke management system will also be manually controlled from਍ഀ the fire command center utilizing an approved smoke control panel.਍ഀ 2. FIRE COMMAND ROOM਍ഀ At numerous meetings with the TOV fire department, the design team presented the fire਍ഀ department access and the location of the fire command room. The TOV fire department਍ഀ agreed the building was not a high-rise but requested that a fire command be provided. It਍ഀ was agreed to by the team that the fire command center would be located near the਍ഀ -2-਍ഀ entrance of Building C or the Alpine Club near the main entrance. Further clarification਍ഀ from the fire department also required that the fire command room would not be shared਍ഀ with any other function and would require direct access to the exterior via the stair਍ഀ enclosure. The currently approved location provides a central response point for the fire਍ഀ department staging area with access to stairs serving the building and an elevator serving਍ഀ all levels of the building complex. The fire command room location has been approved਍ഀ and also communicates to the stair enclosure. Although a normally non-occupied room਍ഀ cannot communicate to a stair enclosure the access from the exterior into the stair਍ഀ enclosure is a desirable condition and acceptable to the fire department. Listed below are਍ഀ the components that will be included in the fire command room:਍ഀ • Annunciators for the fire alarm system.਍ഀ • Fire Fighter Smoke Control Panel਍ഀ • Public address, voice communication system status and controls.਍ഀ • A direct dial telephone.਍ഀ • A table for reviewing building plans and schematic diagrams.਍ഀ • Schematic building plans, including typical floor plans, egress drawings, fire਍ഀ protection systems, smoke control diagrams, fire-fighting equipment and fire਍ഀ department access.਍ഀ • Keys to access all portions of the building.਍ഀ 3. USE OF ASSUMED PROPERTY LINES AND FIRE RESISTIVE SEPARATION਍ഀ The design team has had numerous meetings with the Town of Vail Building and Fire਍ഀ Department regarding the Vail Front Door Complex. From the initial meetings it was਍ഀ identified that the buildings will communicate below grade via the parking garage and਍ഀ that there would be mixing of construction type and fire resistive separation requirements਍ഀ between buildings. The G-Series code sheets identify the proposed and required fire਍ഀ resistive separations. These separations include both 3-hour vertical and horizontal fire਍ഀ resistive separations that are intended to compartment the buildings both vertically and਍ഀ horizontally. Additionally, there are occupancy separation fire resistive walls that separate਍ഀ occupancies. The design team has evaluated the property line setbacks to both legal and਍ഀ assumed property lines and have provided fire resistive separation where required. See਍ഀ the G-Series Code Sheets for details related to assumed property lines and fire resistive਍ഀ separations.਍ഀ -3-਍ഀ 4. USE OF 508.2 FOR CREATING SEPARATE BUILDINGS਍ഀ The design team has utilized Section 508.2 of the International Building Code to separate਍ഀ the building below grade from the buildings above grade. BCER has submitted a request਍ഀ for an administrative modification defining the separation of the S-2 Parking Garage਍ഀ below the Residential Chalet portion of the building. Additionally, that request also਍ഀ includes the separation between the Lodge Tower Parking Garage and the Vail Front਍ഀ Door Parking Garage. See Administrative Modification Request dated April 3, 2006 and਍ഀ modified on May 15, 2006. From the initial meetings with the Town of Vail Building,਍ഀ Fire Department and Colorado Inspection Agency it was identified that the buildings will਍ഀ communicate below grade via the parking garage and that there would be mixing of਍ഀ construction types and fire resistive separation requirements between buildings. Attached਍ഀ are code sheets identifying the proposed and required fire resistive separations. These਍ഀ separations include both vertical and horizontal fire resistive separations that are intended਍ഀ to compartment the buildings both vertically and horizontally. Additionally, there are਍ഀ occupancy separation fire resistive walls that separate occupancies. See the G-Series਍ഀ Code Sheets for details related to assumed property lines and fire resistive separations.਍ഀ 5. ACCESSIBILITY REQUIREMENTS IN RESIDENTIAL CHALETS਍ഀ The Chalets consist of five duplex residential structures and one triplex residential਍ഀ structure (total of 13 dwelling units resembling detached single family residences)਍ഀ residing above a subterranean parking garage for private vehicles. The residential਍ഀ structures are identified from north to south as Building 1 and 2 on the west end, Building਍ഀ 3 and 4 in the center, and Building 5 (triplex) and 6, which actually are situated next to਍ഀ each other with 5 being west of 6. Portions of building 5 are above portions of the਍ഀ Building 6 private parking garage. Building 6 does not have access to the subterranean਍ഀ private residential parking garage. A corner of Building 5 and a portion of Building 6਍ഀ reside above the Tunnel of the new Building A Parking Garage and Loading Dock. In਍ഀ total, the subterranean private residential parking garage and the residential structures are਍ഀ approximately 75,700 ft2 in area. The residential structures are considered R or simply a਍ഀ residential occupancy classification with the subterranean private residential parking਍ഀ garage considered a S-2 occupancy classification.਍ഀ The private residential parking garage and the private garage for Building 6 are accessed਍ഀ from Vail Road via a road residing above the Tunnel of the new Building A Parking਍ഀ Garage and Loading Dock, leading to a roundabout in front of the new Building C Ski਍ഀ Club. Beyond the roundabout, another road provides access to the existing One Vail Place਍ഀ parking garage.਍ഀ All but two residential structures will be four-levels with three stories above grade. One਍ഀ residential unit within Building 5 and one residential unit within Building 6 will have਍ഀ only three levels. The lowest levels are all at different elevations. The residential਍ഀ structures are located on top of, and on the side of the private residential parking garage਍ഀ that serves them. The private residential parking garage has a second level mechanical਍ഀ -4-਍ഀ equipment room serving the residential structures with utilities metered separately.਍ഀ Each of the residential units will be equipped with an elevator. Buildings 2 and 4 are਍ഀ accessed from the private residential parking garage via elevator, while Buildings 1, 3 and਍ഀ 5 are accessed directly without use of an elevator. Building 6 has its own private garage.਍ഀ As each of the residential structures lowest levels begin at different elevations, the height਍ഀ of each elevator shaft varies to accommodate the elevation of the floors each shaft serves.਍ഀ Due to the varying elevations of each residential structure, some Buildings actually have਍ഀ structural void spaces. These void spaces are to be protected by one or multiply means of਍ഀ NPFA 13 approved methods of protecting void spaces. (See G021).਍ഀ The private residential parking garage and the separate residential structures above will be਍ഀ constructed under the provisions of the 2003 editions of the International Codes and the਍ഀ Town of Vail Amendments. The facility will not be treated as one overall building in਍ഀ regards to construction type and allowable areas as separation by firewalls or fire਍ഀ resistive construction is planned to be utilized.਍ഀ The private residential parking garage is occupied with parking of private motorized਍ഀ vehicles and storage for each residential unit, accessible from the residential parking਍ഀ garage. The private residential parking garage is also occupied with incidental use areas਍ഀ such as a trash room, mechanical and electrical rooms, storage rooms, and Fire Command਍ഀ room for the Chalets.਍ഀ The residential units are most like a single-family residential unit. Section 310 of the਍ഀ 2003 IBC defines the various residential occupancies as follows:਍ഀ ➢ R-1 is reserved for residential occupancies where occupants are transient in਍ഀ nature; The Vail Front Door Residential Chalets are not this type of occupancy਍ഀ R-2 is reserved for residential occupancies containing more than two dwelling਍ഀ units where the occupants are permanent in nature; The Vail Front Door਍ഀ Residential Chalets are a series of duplexes separated by a two-hour fire resistive਍ഀ walls with one unit being a triplex residential unit.਍ഀ ➢ R-3 is reserved for residential occupancies where the occupants are permanent in਍ഀ nature and not classified as R-1, R-2, R-4 or 1, and where buildings do not contain਍ഀ more than two dwelling units. The Vail Front Door Residential Chalets are a਍ഀ series of duplexes separated by a two-hour fire resistive wall with one unit being a਍ഀ triplex residential unit.਍ഀ ➢ R-4 is reserved for residential occupancies arranged as residential care/assisted਍ഀ living facilities. The Vail Front Door Residential Chalets are not this type of਍ഀ occupancy.਍ഀ Section 310.2 of the 2003 IBC defines residential or dwelling unit as a single unit਍ഀ providing complete, independent living facilities for one or more persons, including਍ഀ permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation. The residential਍ഀ or dwelling structures "closely resemble" five, stand-alone duplex (two-family) and one਍ഀ triplex residential buildings. Due to the resemblance to stand-alone duplex residential਍ഀ -5-਍ഀ buildings and the definitions of R occupancies as well as a dwelling unit, the design team਍ഀ recommends classification of each of the individual residential or dwelling structures as਍ഀ residential occupancy that most closely resembles a Group R-3 Occupancy.਍ഀ Chapter 11 of the International Building Code regulates Accessibility requirements for all਍ഀ occupancies. Section 1107.6.2 and 1107.6.3 identifies provisions for when Type B਍ഀ accessible units are required. In both R-2 Multi-family residences and R-3 Single-family਍ഀ residences, where there are four or more residential dwelling units or sleeping units਍ഀ intended to be occupied as a residence in a single structure.਍ഀ Since none of the residential structures have more than four residential units, and they are਍ഀ separated from each other and the subterranean private parking garage by fire resistive਍ഀ construction it would be our opinion that the accessibility requirements for Chapter 11਍ഀ may not apply.਍ഀ These interpretations as well as the accessibility requirements were discussed on਍ഀ September 22, 2005 and October 13, 2005 with the Town of Vail Building and Fire਍ഀ Department and Colorado Inspection Agency (Town of Vail P Party Building Code਍ഀ Consultants). The consensus of those meetings was that the residential duplexes and਍ഀ triplex, although appearing like a R2 Occupancy "look, act and feel like detached਍ഀ residential structures". Again supporting that the accessibility requirements of Chapter 11਍ഀ of the IBC would not be enforced.਍ഀ It would also be our interpretation that if the accessibility requirements were not਍ഀ applicable in Section 1107.6 for residential occupancies, then other requirements outlined਍ഀ in the section would not be applicable.਍ഀ As indicated in the October 13, 2005 meeting this interpretation was to be documented਍ഀ through the Memorandum of Understanding Process. This item is considered that਍ഀ documentation.਍ഀ The design team had another meeting with the Town of Vail Building Official and਍ഀ Colorado Inspection Agency on May 18, 2006 to again discuss the accessibility issue and਍ഀ requirements for meeting the intent of the accessibility requirements of the IBC.਍ഀ Discussion evolved between all parties resulting in making 3 units Type B or adaptable.਍ഀ The units would have limited areas or levels complying with adaptability based on access਍ഀ to the residential units; access from the parking garage via an elevator. Some of the units਍ഀ do not have direct access from the residential parking garage to elevators serving the਍ഀ residential units without going up stairs.਍ഀ There was consensus between all parties that providing access from the parking garage to਍ഀ the lowest levels of 3 units, and making those levels Type B adaptable only, was਍ഀ acceptable. That approach was based on utilizing Section 1107.7.4 Site Impracticality to਍ഀ residential units of the IBC as the basis for the limited number of accessible/adaptable਍ഀ units. Lastly, Vail Resorts was going to contact the owners of the potential Type B਍ഀ adaptable units to let them know that their unit was going to have levels that would meet਍ഀ -6-਍ഀ those requirements of the IBC for accessibility/adaptability.਍ഀ There was consensus between all parties at the meeting held May 18, 2006 and those਍ഀ signing this Memorandum of Understanding that all the residential units would not be਍ഀ required to meet the Type B adaptability requirements. This interpretation would meet the਍ഀ intent of accessibility requirements of the IBC.਍ഀ 6. DOOR OPENINGS INTO SKI CLUB EXIT ENCLOSURE਍ഀ Item #20 of the building department review comments for Building C or Ski Club਍ഀ indicated that Doors C106 (sheet A102) and Door C227 (sheet A103) opened into the exit਍ഀ stair enclosure. IBC Section 402.4.6 limits exits into exit stair enclosures to those਍ഀ necessary for exit access to the enclosure from normally occupied spaces or rooms.਍ഀ Although these doors would not normally be permitted into the exit enclosure, the rooms਍ഀ they serve are the Fire Command Room and the Fire Valve Room Serving the majority of਍ഀ the complex. Access to these rooms was provided as agreed to in several meetings with਍ഀ the building and fire department. The fire department felt strongly that access to the Fire਍ഀ Command and Fire Valve Room was essential at this central location and primary਍ഀ response point to the complex. The fire department indicated that they would not congest਍ഀ the exit stair, impeding the path of exiting occupants. The location of the fire valve room਍ഀ and fire command room and the associated fire department operations will not either਍ഀ impede access to or egress from the building complex. Additionally, this exit stair is਍ഀ being provided with a smoke management system as described in item #1 of this਍ഀ Memorandum of Understanding.਍ഀ RECOMMENDATION਍ഀ This MOU in conjunction with the current design documents provides a level of protection and਍ഀ life safety that meets the intent and spirit of the Code and therefore does not create a hazardous਍ഀ condition to the occupants of the building. The results of this document are also consistent with਍ഀ the meetings held with the Town of Vail Building and Fire Department and are intended to਍ഀ document the construction documents and clarify any special requirements that are in the current਍ഀ design.਍ഀ Prepared by:਍ഀ BCER Engineering, Inc.਍ഀ Stephen Rondinelli, AIA਍ഀ Director of Fire Protection and Life Safety਍ഀ -7਍ഀ SIGNATURE PAGE਍ഀ Vail Front Door - Vail਍ഀ Request for Memorandum of Understanding਍ഀ May 23, 2006਍ഀ Prepared by:਍ഀ BCER Engineering, Inc.਍ഀ May 23, 2006਍ഀ Stephen Rondinelli, AIA Date਍ഀ Director of Fire Protection and Life Safety਍ഀ Concurred by:਍ഀ 44LW~਍ഀ May 23, 2006਍ഀ 42/40 - Architect of Record਍ഀ Date਍ഀ Owner Representative਍ഀ Vail Resorts਍ഀ Approved by:਍ഀ Date਍ഀ Charlie Davis Date਍ഀ Town of Vail Chief Building Official਍ഀ Mike McGee Date਍ഀ Vail Fire and Emergency Services Fire Marshal਍ഀ ATTACHMENTS: G - Series Code Drawings਍ഀ -8-਍ഀ