Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutB06-0020 Plan Review Commentsi r. of.olw F, olorado Ins ecdon AGENCY REVIEWED-BY COLORADO INSPECTION AGENCY COLORADO INSPECTION AGENCY PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS TO: Contractor Hyder Construction Doug Thompson EMAIL: dthomson ahyderinc.com Architect 4220 Randy Hart rhart(c).4240arch.com FAX NUMBER OF PAGES: FROM: DATE: BUILDING PERMIT OWNERS NAME: SITE ADDRESS: SUBDIVISION: OCCUPANCY GROUP: TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION: NUMBER OF STORIES: Engineer Monroe & Newell Eng 9 Matthew Royer 03/10/2006 coso B06-0020TOG Vail Resorts Co. Building C Mill Creek S-2, A-3, B, M I-A, V-A 2 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 creatinq a response letter. Indicate which plan sheet, detail, specification, or calculation shows the reauested information. Please send revisions to the attention of the plans examiner with the building permit application number noted. Responses such as "will comply with code" are not adequate. Revised drawings must clearly show code compliance. 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. Re-submittal may be made to the Town of Vail Building Dept. CADocuments and Settings\mroyer\My Documents0an Review\Front Door\tov-W-0020. DOC Page 1 of 9 I . , f BUILDING DEPARTMENT COMMENTS: Common Proiiect 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 system 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. CADocuments and Settings\mroyer\My Documents\Plan Review\Front Door\tov-b06-0020.DOC Page 2 of 9 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. 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: 15. 2 exits are required from Locker Room (C-001) on sheet A-101. There are 2 exits identified on the plan however the 2nd exit does meet the definition of an exit. Provide a 2nd exit from this space under consideration. The corridor shown on the plans must go to grade or an exit enclosure. Currently the corridor exits into the parking garage. Verify travel distance from the space to the 2nd exit. 16. Please amend plan G017 to show the occupancy of the ski storage room (C104) as an S-1 rather than S-2. (311 IBC) 17. The details on sheet A501 indicate 2x6 decking as an interior finish for the ceiling. Table 601 of the IBC requires a 1 hour roof/ceiling assembly with an exception for heavy timber. Please amend plan to provide a 1 hour listed roof ceiling assembly or a complete heavy timber roof assembly. (Table 601 IBC) This would include trusses, beams and purlins. 18. Please include listed exterior wall rated assemblies that comply with the required ratings per chapter 6. Wall assemblies are shown on sheet A600 and A601, but it does not appear that exterior wall assemblies are shown. Please amend plan or clarify. 19. Toilet compartment doors shall be hinged 4 inches maximum from the adjacent wall or partition farthest from the water closet. Please amend the men and women's restrooms on sheet A103. (604.8.3 ICC/ANSI A117.1-1998) 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) 21. Please amend detail 1 on sheet A700 to show the handrail extension in the direction of travel rather than extending into the landing. (1009.4 IBC) 22. Door CS01 C on detail sheet 2/A700 may not block the path of egress travel. (1003.6 IBC) CADocuments and Settings\mroyer\My Documents\Plan ReviewWront Door\tov-b06-0020. DOC Page 3 of 9 23. Elevator shaft openings that occur in the 3 hour separation walls that provide separation to create separate buildings needs to be protected with doors rated for 3 hour. Please refer to sheet A101 for an example of the elevator opening into the garage. 24. Provide a detail and identify the walls that are labeled 3B on sheet A101. 25. Provide documentation to show that elevators #1 and #5 have a 90 fire rating and is protection with an "S" rating. (508.2 IBC) 26. A 1 hour fire resistive shaft must be constructed around the fireplace shown in the lounge if it is capable of burning wood. (TOVBR) 27. Amend plans to show exterior stair construction, rise, run, handrails, extensions, etc. 28. Provide complete spa and pool plans and specifications for all spas and pools. Be sure to include piping, complete structural specifications, barriers, chemical storage, etc. 29. The roof plan on Sheet A104 references detail X/AXXX. Please amend plan to include the correct reference. 30. Amend plans to include the required drinking fountains per IBC Chapter 29. 31. Toilet compartment doors shall be hinged 4 inches maximum from the adjacent wall or partition farthest from the water closet. Please amend the men and women's restrooms on sheet A103. (604.8.3 ICC/ANSI A117.1-1998) Mechanical Comments: 32. Clearly identify fire resistance rating required for all fire dampers. Plumbing Comments: 33. Detail on sheet 1/P001 needs to have a double wall heat exchanger. Electrical Comments: 34. Please amend plans to include note 11 on sheet E040. 35. Caution signs/visible marking required for heat trace per 426.13. Energy Comments: Envelope COM Check: 36. Unable to locate details referencing plan sheet A400 as that sheet is missing. Please provide this sheet. Mechanical COM Check: 37. Some mechanical systems are not listed in the report (unit heaters, baseboard radiator heaters, etc.) Please amend. 38. Provide load calculations per 1997 ASHRAE Fundamentals. CADocuments and Settings\mroyer\My Documents\Plan Review\Front Door\tov-b06-0020. DOC Page 4 of 9 1 .40 39. Provide calculations showing compliance for outside ventilation air as required by IMC Chapter 4 Electrical Energy Check: 40. The report provided states that the building does not comply. Provide documentations to show compliance. 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/ LS Verify the seismic response modification coefficient, Sheet S100 for concrete shear walls. The general notes and calculations state R=4.5 for the ski club building and the assumption that the shear system is building frame system. Assuming the walls were non-bearing walls, ordinary reinforced concrete walls which according to ASCE 7-02 would be R=5. It appears the concrete shear walls are bearing gravity loads from steel and wood roof framing, in which case R = 4 per ASCE 7-02 for ordinary bearing shear walls. Please verify lateral designs, including drag loads, diaphragm shear, shear walls, overturning vertical loads, and other code provisions (as required when seismic loads control any portions of the lateral designs). S2. D Detail 4/S003 is referenced by other details on S003 for concrete wall reinforcing, which in turn references building A. Building A, Detail 6/S005 is cut at this core on sheet S101, however detail 6/S005 is marked as not used. Please identify concrete core reinforcing & clarify detail notes. S3. C The trusses and purlins shown on S105 do not appear to be designed for the unbalanced snow load case (ASCE 7-02 7.6). Please provide calculations showing these load cases. S4. D The roof beams shown on plan appear to be designed as DFL SS in the calculations, but the plan notes only require DFL No. 1, and Select Structural is not indicated at all in the drawings. Verify that Select Structural grade is indicated in the drawings as required. Verify that calculations for wood members match drawings in all instances. S5. D Detail 9/S002 appears to be called out in the wrong spot on S103 at grids H.8 and -13.5 and shows a wood column bearing on the structural slab. Where the detail is marked the column is a steel HSS. It appears this detail should be called out at the interior wood columns, such as at grids J.7 and 13.5 - please verify and modify drawings as required. S6. D Ref. S103: Verify the connection is shown for the steel column and base plate where the column bears on structural slab and curb. Also it is unclear how / where steel column base plates called out -please clarify drawings. S7. D Several of the beam reactions are missing on S103. Please provide reactions and/or details at these locations. The general criteria on S100 does not appear to be sufficient for connection design, and is insufficient for our review. CADocuments and Settings\mroyer\My Documents\Plan Review\Front Door\tov-b06-0020.DOC Page 5 of 9 S8. C Verify purlin connections to steel bent beams shown on details 1, 2, 6 & 7 on S105: The calculation for the typical purlin connections is for a single shear connection with a steel side plate (calcs page T13) ; however, the sketch on the calculation and the details appear to be double shear connections with a steel knife plate. In addition, the calculation appears to not consider unbalanced snow loads on the roof (1.5 times flat roof snow loads) or the NDS reduction for the geometry factor (Co) due to fastener spacing requirements. Despite these apparent differences between drawings and calculations, it appears the connection still may satisfy the required demands; please verify this connection design, and other similar connections in the structure. On the same connection, there is no indication on the drawings or in the calculations how long the knife plate is or the minimum length of weld required. Please either provide the min. weld length or the load it needs to be designed for on the drawings. S9. C S104: Verify roof valley beam B7 with point loads from purlins (calc R32): Valley beam is currently designed as having a distributed load: please verify loads used and analysis represents the completed structure. S10. C S103: Verify floor beam B12 (calc page G44). The beam does not appear to include the entire point load from beam B9 which it supports (approx. 8 kips). S11. C Verify non-composite strength for wet concrete condition for girder BA. It appears that the girder was designed with deck perpendicular to the girder, but on plan the deck appears to be parallel to girder, which typically is not considered to brace the beam during concrete placement. In addition, the decking steps down on one side of the beam with a break in the slab, presenting two additional issues: a) The composite flange width should be taken towards one side of the girder only (tied to top flange of girder) b) Consider effective "break" in diaphragm stiffness / load path due to break in the concrete floor slab. Alternatively, we suggest that the break in slab continuity be eliminated by tying slabs together structurally with a vertical reinforced concrete curb. Provide calcs for lateral loads through the diaphragm. c) Calculations p.G66 indicate that this girder (and girder BB as well) is "No Good Shored, OK Unshored." Drawings do not appear to indicate any shoring of composite steel framing. At the same time, none of the beams have been cambered. Please verify shoring and / or camber requirements and modify drawings as required. S12. C/ D Verify non-composite strength for wet concrete condition and overall girder strength for girder BB (calcs G68). It appears that the girder was designed with deck perpendicular to the girder, but on plan the deck appears to be parallel to girder. The reactions from the beams south of girder, such as beams B13 and B14 (G46-49), do not appear to be considered in the design, neither as a uniform load nor as point loads. It appears these loads from B13 and B14 significantly increase the loading on this girder. Please verify the structural adequacy of the column and concrete beam below (S102) that support this girder. S13. C Verify girder BC (calc G7). The girder does not appear to include the 20k point load shown on plan from the W16X26 beam located at approximately mid-span. S14. DC Note that ground level slab over deck does not appear to have a fire rating. Please verify fire CADocuments and Settings\mroyer\My Documents\Plan Review\Front Door\tov-b06-0020. DOC Page 6 of 9 rating requirements in this area (appears to be 2 hrs from General sheets). S15. D Define reinforcing in concrete over deck to meet ACI temperature and shrinkage requirements. S16. LS Referencing sheet L3, it appears that the approximate fundamental period Ta was calculated using ASCE 7 Eq. (9.5.5.2.2-1) and table 9.5.5.3.2 "Values of approximate period parameters Ct and X" for a moment resisting frame of reinforced concrete. Ref. comment #S1, lateral system is ordinary reinforced concrete bearing walls, there do not appear to be any concrete moment resisting frames shown on plan - please verify Ct and X value used. In addition, it appears that a higher value than necessary was used for the seismic response coefficient Cs. Section 9.5.5.2.1 limits the maximum value for Cs to that produced by equation 9.5.5.2.1-2. It appears the value listed in the calculations for this equation for Cs is off by a decimal point and should, in fact, control for the maximum seismic response coefficient (Cs). Please verify these variables and the overall impact on the lateral designs. S17. LS Referencing calculation sheets L3 & L6, seismic forces do not appear to control the lateral design as indicated in the calculations. The seismic base shear is listed in the calculations on L3 as 17.3k and the wind base shear on L6 as 18.2k. Based on these values, the wind values are 5% higher than the seismic and should control the design. PLS verify. S18. LS Referencing sheets L7 and L8, both cases assume unblocked roof diaphragms with Case I loading. Without the addition of blocking, case I can only apply in one direction without the addition of blocking (see IBC-03 Table 2306.3.1). The allowable value for unblocked diaphragms for all other cases 215 plf. Please either indicate which direction the plywood should be oriented to achieve Case 1 in the desired direction, or specify blocking as required. S19. LS There are several drag struts shown in the calculations on sheet L10, but not all are indicated on plan. Specifically in the N-S direction, the drag struts in the E-W direction for shear elements R1, R2, R6 and R7 are not identified as such, nor is their connection to the concrete shear wall shown. In addition, the roof nailing to the drag struts is not provided. Please provide this information or indicate how these critical lateral connections are communicated in the drawings. S20. LS The concrete wall on N.1 shown on S104 is assumed by the calculations (ref: L8 and L10) to be a shear element in the E-W direction. The section cut through that wall, 8/S003 does not appear to show adequate structure to transfer the shear from the roof to the concrete wall. Verify load path: the ledger shown in the lower roof does not appear to be bolted to the concrete wall nor are there mechanical fasteners shown from the upper roof plywood down to the cripple wall top plate. Revise details as required. S21. DC Note that the concrete and metal deck shown on S104 that forms the roof of the stairs is not fire rated by concrete fill alone. Please verify fire rating requirements in this area. S22. LS Detail 11/S003 shows the roof connection to the drag strut. It is unclear how the lateral load is transferred from the cripple wall studs to the 2x plate that is nailed to the drag strut. Please provide clarification. CADocuments and Settings\mroyer\My Documents\Plan Review\Front Door\tov-b06-0020.DOC Page 7 of 9 S23. LS Calculation sheets L8 and L10 indicate that there is supposed to be a drag strut to transfer the shear into shear element R7 (the concrete shear wall on grid MA); however, there does not appear to be a drag strut located at this element on S104. Please verify. S24. LS Calculation sheets L8 and L10 indicate that the concrete chimney is to be used as a lateral resisting element. Please provide a detail showing the connection of the chimney to the slab, as well as calculations for the concrete shear walls and the supporting structure's (slab and beams') ability to resist the shear and overturning. Verify rebar development and splice length into the structure below and the walls above. If rebar is post-installed with epoxy or other means into supporting structure, define type of epoxy and minimum embedment. S25. LS The elevator core located on grids K.5 and 12.7 is indicated as a lateral element in both the N-S direction and E-W direction, but it is transferred out onto concrete beams #2 and #3 below (ref: calc. MO. 1). The concrete beam calculations do not appear to consider the vertical overturning forces from the elevator core. Please either provide calculations for the concrete beams showing consideration for lateral loads or demonstrate by calculations an alternate load path for overturning resistance in both plan directions. S26. LS Diaphragm continuity does not appear to have been considered at the ridges and valleys. Please provide details and /or plan information (i.e. clips between diaphragm sheathing, bracing, blocking, etc.). S27. D Details 1 and 4 on S002 show a concrete curb doweled to the structural slab below. Provided either minimum development lengths for the dowels or specify the dowels to be drilled and epoxied with a minimum embed length. S28. D Detail 20/S003 showing the garage exhaust shaft states HSS columns, see plan; however, the steel columns do not appear to be specified on plan. Please provide column sizes at this location. S29. D/C Details 10, 12, 13, 14/S002; Calcs M16, etc.: Shear friction has been used to transfer shear reactions from concrete beam ends to supporting walls/ transfer girders. Calculations (M16, etc.) appear to have taken 1.0, however details do not show or call out that the face of concrete initially cast requires the surface to be intentionally roughened to W amplitude and cleaned of laitance prior to casting against (ACI 318 11.7). In addition, Calcs page M16 max factored reaction for shear friction calc (79.2 k) does not appear to match factored reaction on calcs page M25 (137.5 k) - please verify all shear friction designs. S30. D The reactions from the steel beams at the elevator and garage exhaust shaft are not shown on S104. Please provide reactions and/or details at these locations. S31. D Detail 5/A500 (Vol 4) verify tall battered stone veneer weight is accounted for in the supporting structure. Verify masonry veneer attachment is sufficient for maximum leeward wind suction. CADocuments and Settings\mroyer\My Documents\Plan Review\Front Door\tov-b06-0020. DOC Page 8 of 9 S32. DC Verify snow drift at roof due to various extensions of stairwells, exhaust shafts, elevators, and chimney has been accounted for in the roof beams and supporting structure. S33. DC Verify snow drift at the ground level (S103) has been included in the designs of steel and concrete framing, including columns and transfer beams below, for the large snow drift due to the building height itself above the wider lower level structure. S34. LS detail 4/A501: roof sheathing (plywood) has a gap constructed at the ridge. This break effectively splits the roof diaphragm in the middle. Verify roof designs are adequate with this break without additional ties, clips, or straps. S35. LS/D Detail 1/A701 shows a 68" X40" mechanical duct block-out in the concrete core wall. Verify this penetration has been considered for gravity and lateral designs. Verify typical reinforcing around holes in walls specified on S001 is adequate for this large opening. S36. D 1/A215 appears to show a low roof canopy cantilevered out from concrete core wall, between the stone veneer. This roof canopy does not seem to be on the structural drawings. Verify this canopy is required and that snow loads including flat roof, sliding, and drifting are considered in the 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 resubmittal. 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. rover0coi nsoect.com Plans Examiners and Engineers: Barry Kramer- Building Official Larry Pirkl- Plans Examiner 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\mroyer\My Documents\Plan Review\Front Door\tov-b06-0020. DOC Page 9 of 9 COLORADO INSPECTION AGENCY PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS TO: Contractor Hyder Construction Doug Thompson EMAIL: dthompson@hVderinc.com Architect 4240 Randy Hart rhart@4240arch.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: 9 Matthew Royer 03/10/2006 B06-0020 Vail Resorts Co. Building C Mill Creek S-2, A-3, B, M I-A, V-A 2 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 markinq 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. Re-submittal may be made to the Town of Vail Building Dept. C:\DOCUME-I\dhopp\LOCALS-I\Tentp\C - Response to ToV-b06-0020.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 18"', 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. CADOCUME-I\dhopp\LOCALS-1\Temp\C -Response to ToV-b06-0020.DOC Page 2 of 2 '46 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. 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. CADOCUME-1\dhopp\LOCALS-I\Temp\C -Response to ToV-b06-0020.DOC Page 3 of 3 r► , 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. 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 24x74 inches. Architectural Comments: 15. 2 exits are required from Locker Room (C-001) on sheet A-101. There are 2 exits identified on the plan however the 2nd exit does meet the definition of an exit. Provide a 2nd exit from this space under consideration. The corridor shown on the plans must go to grade or an exit enclosure. Currently the corridor exits into the parking garage. Verify travel distance from the space to the 2nd exit. 4240: See sheet G030 dated 04.03.2006. Note that the exit designation has changed from the locker room door (0001) to the exit enclosure (Stair DSO 1). Note, per G015 the hall has rated walls on each side due to occupancy separations (Mechanical & Electrical rooms). Thus the hall is not intended to be a rated corridor. And the door (A101) between the hall and loading dock is to avoid a dead-end corridor. BCER: The exit travel distance and remoteness of the two exits have been reevaluated and comply with the travel distance requirements from the locker room to the exit stair. The second exit from the Locker Room will not pass through an intervening or rated enclosure back into an un-rated area. The CADOCUME- I \dhopp\LOCALS- I \Temp\C -Response to ToV-b06-0020. DOC Page 4 of 4 '46 1-hour and 2-hour walls are occupancy walls and not intended to create a rated corridor. Note Sheet A101 and G-Code Series Drawings for clarification. 16. Please amend plan G017 to show the occupancy of the ski storage room (C104) as an S-1 rather than S-2. (311 IBC) See update on G017 dated 04-03-2006. 17. The details on sheet A501 indicate 2x6 decking as an interior finish for the ceiling. Table 601 of the IBC requires a 1 hour roof/ceiling assembly with an exception for heavy timber. Please amend plan to provide a 1 hour listed roof ceiling assembly or a complete heavy timber roof assembly. (Table 601 IBC) This would include trusses, beams and purlins. Based on Table 601, type `V-A' construction and since the building is fully sprinkled we are applying the superscript `d' to substitute/exempt the 1-hour roof/ceiling assembly. Also note that the sprinkler system is not being used for allowable area increases. 18. Please include listed exterior wall rated assemblies that comply with the required ratings per chapter 6. Wall assemblies are shown on sheet A600 and A601, but it does not appear that exterior wall assemblies are shown. Please amend plan or clarify. See updated G018, A300 and wall type 28 on A601 for the 1-hour exterior wall of the pool restrooms due to Table 602. Also see the Admin. MOD. For the exemption or exception to the east exterior wall of lobby C212. 19. Toilet compartment doors shall be hinged 4 inches maximum from the adjacent wall or partition farthest from the water closet. Please amend the men and women's restrooms on sheet A103. (604.8.3 ICC/ANSI A117.1-1998) See A300 and A103 dated 04-03-2006 for modifications / corrections. 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) See attached MOU dated 04-03-2006. 21. Please amend detail 1 on sheet A700 to show the handrail extension in the direction of travel rather than extending into the landing. (1009.4 IBC) Per exception 1 of 505.10 of the 1998 ANSI, the handrail extension at the inside turn Is not needed. See V A700 dated 04-03-2006. 22. Door CS01 C on detail sheet 2/A700 may not block the path of egress travel. (1003.6 IBC) See 2/A700 dated 04-03-2006 for the adjustment. 23. Elevator shaft openings that occur in the 3 hour separation walls that provide separation to create separate buildings needs to be protected with doors rated for 3 hour. Please refer to sheet A101 for an example of the elevator opening into the garage. Elevator #2 opens into the garage thru a 2-hour wall. Thus the elevator door/opening is 90 minutes. See building B sheet A750 dated 04-03-2006. 24. Provide a detail and identify the walls that are labeled 3B on sheet A101. See wall type `36' on A600 and see A101 for the locations of these walls. C:\DOCUME-I\dhopp\LOCALS-I\Terop\C - Response to ToV-b06-0020.DOC Page 5 of 5 40, 25. Provide documentation to show that elevators #1 and #5 have a 90 fire rating and is protection with an "S" rating. (508.2 IBC) See the added note on A700 and A701 indicating elevator doors to be 90 minute rated. An `S' rating is not required because these elevators serve less than 4 stories, thus do not require smoke control nor venting. 26. A 1 hour fire resistive shaft must be constructed around the fireplace shown in the lounge if it is capable of burning wood. (TOVBR) See A800 dated 04-03-2006. Keep in mind that this is a gas log set fireplace built with masonry. 27. Amend plans to show exterior stair construction, rise, run, handrails, extensions, etc. See Volume 1 - Site and the landscaping drawings. 28. Provide complete spa and pool plans and specifications for all spas and pools. Be sure to include piping, complete structural specifications, barriers, chemical storage, etc. See Volume 1 - Site and the `W' drawings. 29. The roof plan on Sheet A104 references detail X/AXXX. Please amend plan to include the correct reference. See sheet A104 dated 01-20-2006, this reference has been updated. 30. Amend plans to include the required drinking fountains per IBC Chapter 29. Per 410.1 of IPC, drinking fountains are not required where water is served. The bar serves water. 31. Toilet compartment doors shall be hinged 4 inches maximum from the adjacent wall or partition farthest from the water closet. Please amend the men and women's restrooms on sheet A103. (604.8.3 [CC/ANSI A117.1-1998) See response to comment #19. Mechanical Comments: 32. Clearly identify fire resistance rating required for all fire dampers. A note has been added to the drawings identifying the damper rating. Plumbinq Comments: 33. Detail on sheet 1/P001 needs to have a double wall heat exchanger. Detail and Specification will be modified to show double wall heat exchanger. Electrical Comments: 34. Please amend plans to include note 11 on sheet E040. Detail note 11 was not used. One incorrect detail note flag on sheet E040 was changed from 11 to 1, see modified drawing. 35. Caution signs/visible marking required for heat trace per 426.13. Caution sign/visible marking note has been added to heat trace notes on E104. Energy Comments: Envelope COM Check: 36. Unable to locate details referencing plan sheet A400 as that sheet is missing. Please provide this sheet. Sheet A400 no longer exists. Please reference A500 series drawings for exterior wall details. In addition, reference architectural specifications for insulation types. CADOCUME- I \dhopp\LOCALS- I \Temp\C -Response to ToV-b06-0020.DOC Page 6 of 6 Mechanical COM Check: 37. Some mechanical systems are not listed in the report (unit heaters, baseboard radiator heaters, etc.) Please amend. See attached Mechanical Compliance Certificate which shows the missing equipment. 38. Provide load calculations per 1997 ASHRAE Fundamentals. See attached Load Calcs for your reference. 38. Provide calculations showing compliance for outside ventilation air as required by IMC Chapter 4. The top level of this building is being provided with the code required amount of operable windows for natural ventilation, reference architectural drawings. The mid and lower levels outside air requirements have been listed on sheets M101 and M102. Electrical Energy Check: 40. The report provided states that the building does not comply. Provide documentations to show compliance. 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 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. Structural Comments: See attached Structural Comments from Monroe & Newell Engineers. Contact Person: Matthew Royer Building Official/ Project Manager Colorado Inspection Agency 970-328-1790 matt.rover@coinspect.com Plans Examiners and Engineers: Barry Kramer- Building Official Larry Pirkl- Plans Examiner 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 CADOCUME-I\dhopp\LOCALS-I\Temp\C -Response to ToV-b06-0020.DOC Page 7 of 7 4 dkhin Colorado Inspection D 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 )4240arch.com FAX NUMBER OF PAGES: 5 FROM: Matthew Royer DATE: 05/05/2006 BUILDING PERMIT B06-0020 OWNERS NAME: Vail Resorts Co. SITE ADDRESS: Building C SUBDIVISION: Mill Creek OCCUPANCY GROUP: S-2, A-3, B, M TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION: I-A, V-A NUMBER OF STORIES: 2 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 writing to each comment by markinq the attached list or creatina a response letter. Indicate which plan sheet, detail, specification, or calculation shows the requested information. Please send revisions to the attention of the plans examiner with the building permit application number noted. Responses such as "will comply with code" are not adequate. Revised drawings must clearly show code compliance. 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. Re-submittal may be made to the Town of Vail Building Dept. CADocuments and Settings\mroyer\My Documents\Plan Review\Front Door\tov-b06-0020.2. DOC Page I of 5 BUILDING DEPARTMENT COMMENTS: Common Project Comments: (CPC are attached to each permit comment letter) The first fourteen comments have been removed from the beginning of all documents except associated building permit application number B06-0018. Of the 14 some have been addressed and remove from the list. Architectural Comments: 15. 2 exits are required from Locker Room (C-001) on sheet A-101. There are 2 exits identified on the plan however the 2nd exit does meet the definition of an exit. Provide a 2nd exit from this space under consideration. The corridor shown on the plans must go to grade or an exit enclosure. Currently the corridor exits into the parking garage. Verify travel distance from the space to the 2nd exit. This hallway that shown on the plan that leads from the 2"d exit and from the laundry area to the garage is by definition a dead-end. This item was discussed during the 0510212006 meeting. There was discussion and was agreed upon adding a door to eliminate the dead- end. 18. Please include listed exterior wall rated assemblies that comply with the required ratings per chapter 6. Wall assemblies are shown on sheet A600 and A601, but it does not appear that exterior wall assemblies are shown. Please amend plan or clarify. Please identify document, page and paragraph that the exterior wall protection of lobby C212 can be located. Your response referenced the Admin Mod. Please clarify. This was also part of the discussion at the 0510212006 meeting. 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. 21. Please amend detail 1 on sheet A700 to show the handrail extension in the direction of travel rather than extending into the landing. (1009.4 IBC) This exception applies to inside handrails and states that they must be connected and continuous. The detail referenced in the response does not clearly show that the handrail is continuous. It appears that the handrail is not continuous at the bottom landing. Please amend detail to clarify. Plumbing Comments: 2 exterior showers are shown on the plan and appear to be tied into the sanitary sewer. These are not permitted receive storm water. It appears they are exposed to the atmosphere and could receive rain water and snow melt. Please clarify. Energy Comments: 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 CADocuments and Settings\mroyer\My Documents\Plan Review\Front Door\tov-b06-0020.2. DOC Page 2 of 5 I 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. 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. S11. C Verify non-composite strength for wet concrete condition for girder BA. It appears that the girder was designed with deck perpendicular to the girder, but on plan the deck appears to be parallel to girder, which typically is not considered to brace the beam during concrete placement. In addition, the decking steps down on one side of the beam with a break in the slab, presenting two additional issues: a) The composite flange width should be taken towards one side of the girder only (tied to top flange of girder) b) Consider effective "break" in diaphragm stiffness / load path due to break in the concrete floor slab. Alternatively, we suggest that the break in slab continuity be eliminated by tying slabs together structurally with a vertical reinforced concrete curb. Provide calcs for lateral loads through the diaphragm. c) Calculations p.G66 indicate that this girder (and girder BB as well) is "No Good Shored, OK Unshored." Drawings do not appear to indicate any shoring of composite steel framing. At the same time, none of the beams have been cambered. Please verify shoring and / or camber requirements and modify drawings as required. M&N Response: a) Girder BA has been designed as non-composite. See S 103. b) The lateral loads applied to the concrete diaphragm from elevator #5 tie back to the wall beam on gridline L through the dowel reinforcement. See 3/S002 C) Girder BA has been designed as non-composite. See S 103. KL&A, 515106: a) Comment Closed. b) Diaphragm to exterior wall connection noted appears to be considered in the drawings. However, there does not appear to be a composite slab-to-concrete core wall connection detailed. Please show a connection detail at slab diaphragm to the concrete core walls at the West side of the diaphragm. c) Comment Closed. S12. C/ D Verify non-composite strength for wet concrete condition and overall girder strength for girder BB (calcs G68). It appears that the girder was designed with deck perpendicular to the girder, but on plan the deck appears to be parallel to girder. The reactions from the beams south of girder, such as beams B13 and B14 (G46-49), do not appear to be considered in the design, neither as a uniform load nor as point loads. It appears these loads from B13 and B14 significantly increase the loading on this girder. Please verify the structural adequacy of the column and C:\Documents and Settings\mroyer\My Documents\Plan Review\Front Door\tov-b06-0020.2. DOC Page 3 of 5 concrete beam below (S102) that support this girder. M&N Response: Girder BB has been designed as non-composite. KL&A, 515106: The loads from B13 (26k) and B14 (17.4k) do not appear to be considered in the revised design. In addition, the distributed load on the beam is lower than in the original calculation. Please verify the structural adequacy of girder BB, as well as the column and concrete beam below. S15. D Define reinforcing in concrete over deck to meet ACI temperature and shrinkage requirements. M&N Response: 4240 Response: GO 17 dated 01-20-2006 shows the extent of the 1-hour slab at grade. A902 dated 04- 03-2006 defines the area and method of the 1-hour rating. M&N agrees. KL&A, 515106: This response does not address the comment. S29. D/C Details 10, 12, 13, 14/S002; Calcs M16, etc.: Shear friction has been used to transfer shear reactions from concrete beam ends to supporting walls/ transfer girders. Calculations (M16, etc.) appear to have taken g= 1.0, however details do not show or call out that the face of concrete initially cast requires the surface to be intentionally roughened to %4" amplitude and cleaned of laitance prior to casting against (ACI 318 11.7). In addition, Calcs page M16 max factored reaction for shear friction calc (79.2 k) does not appear to match factored reaction on calcs page M25 (137.5 k) - please verify all shear friction designs. M&N Response: Shear friction designs have been verified with g= 0.6. Additionally, calc page M16 references beam `132' (beams #5, #6, & 49 in calc sheets) as designated on the beam schedule (RE: S 102), not the beam key in the calculations; all reactions have be verified and are adequate as designed. KL&A, 515106: It appears 2*sgrt(Fc) has been included for the shear friction resistance strength, ref: ca/cs page M16 as resubmitted. This is incorrect, concrete has zero strength for shear friction, per ACI 11.7.4.1. Also, please verify development of hooked ends and straight ends of the reinforcing bars used for shear friction resistance. Calculations assume full development of reinforcing bars, and it appears this has not been provided. Given the hook development shown, it appears the wall cover may burst out when the dowels go into tension. Consider rotating dowel vertical leg downwards. Specify size and quantity of shear friction dowels. S33. DC Verify snow drift at the ground level (S103) has been included in the designs of steel and concrete framing, including columns and transfer beams below, for the large snow drift due to the building height itself above the wider lower level structure. CADocuments and Settings\mroyer\My Documents\Plan Review\Front Door\tov-b06-0020.2. DOC Page 4 of 5 -oft t M&N Response: Roof framing is designed to comply with the town of Vail amendments to the 2003 IBC. These amendments do not require an increase in loading due to wind or valleys. KL&A, 515106: Whether or not drifting loads are seen as applicable, snow is sure to slide off of the roof structure and pile up outside the structures on the structural levels at grade. Further, a new sheet C41.0 shows snow storage areas on top of the parking structure lid. It seems the 100 psf loading may be exceeded in these two instances. Please show with calculations that these areas of the lid structure are not overloaded due to locally higher snow loading. 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 resubmittal. 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.rover(cDcoinspect.com Plans Examiners and Engineers: Barry Kramer- Building Official Larry Pirkl- Plans Examiner 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\mroyer\My Documents\Plan Review\Front Door\tov-b06-0020.2. DOC Page 5 of 5 V a, 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 Hyder Construction Doug Thompson EMAIL: dthompson(Oyderinc.com Architect 4240 Randy Hart rhart(a)4240arch.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: 5 Matthew Royer 05/05/2006 B06-0020 Vail Resorts Co. Building C Mill Creek S-2, A-3, B, M I-A, V-A 2 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 writing to each comment by marking the attached list or creatina a response letter. Indicate which plan sheet, detail, specification, or calculation shows the requested information. Please send revisions to the attention of the plans examiner with the building permit application number noted. Responses such as "will comply with code" are not adequate. Revised drawings must clearly show code compliance. A RESPONSE LETTER MUST BE INCLUDED WITH THE REVISED PLAN SUBMITTAL. Please be sure to include on the resubmittal the enqineer's or architect's "wet" stamp, sianature 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-familv voiects all sheets of the plans must be stamped. Re-submittal may be made to the Town of Vail Building Dept. = Previously answered 05/23/06 as part of partial "Grading and Excavation Permit" package.] Page 1 of 3 A BUILDING DEPARTMENT COMMENTS: Common Project Comments: (CPC are attached to each permit comment letter) The first fourteen comments have been removed from the beginning of all documents except associated building permit application number B06-0018. Of the 14 some have been addressed and remove from the list. Architectural Comments: 15. 2 exits are required from Locker Room (C-001) on sheet A-101. There are 2 exits identified on the plan however the 2nd exit does meet the definition of an exit. Provide a 2nd exit from this space under consideration. The corridor shown on the plans must go to grade or an exit enclosure. Currently the corridor exits into the parking garage. Verify travel distance from the space to the 2nd exit. This hallway that shown on the plan that leads from the 2"d exit and from the laundry area to the garage is by definition a dead-end. This item was discussed during the 0510212006 meeting. There was discussion and was agreed upon adding a door to eliminate the dead- end. Refer to Bldg A/A101 for revised hallway layout as well as revised Bldg A Door Schedule. Door A101a has been added to enclose the area and avoid the dead-end condition. 18. Please include listed exterior wall rated assemblies that comply with the required ratings per chapter 6. Wall assemblies are shown on sheet A600 and A601, but it does not appear that exterior wall assemblies are shown. Please amend plan or clarify. Please identify document, page and paragraph that the exterior wall protection of lobby C212 can be located. Your response referenced the Admin Mod. Please clarify. This was also part of the discussion at the 0510212006 meeting. Reference to Administrative Modification was incorrect. Refer sheet G018 for distances from opposing buildings to `limit line.' The `limit line' represents a mid-point between the Skier Services and Ski Club buildings. These distances of 30' from the face of each building towards and beyond the 'limit line' end in the dedicated access path/road. This acts as a 'no build zone' between the two buildings, offering compliance with IBC Table 704.8. IBC 704.3 establishes the need to create an "Assumed Imaginary ('Property') Line" between two buildings on the same lot for purposes of determining required wall and opening protection. IBC Table 704.8 establishes the allowed percentage of openings and the protection of those openings ("Unprotected" and "Protected") depending on how far from the "Assumed Property Line" ('APL') the opening is. We have located the 'APL' to where it is at least 30'-1" from the east walls of the Ski Club, and have then calculated the proximity of the'APL' to the west walls of the Skier Services Building ('SSB'). Sheet G018 shows the north end of the'APL' at 15'-1" from the west wall of the 'SSB', requiring - per IBC Table 704.8 - that the west wall have no more than '25% unprotected openings'. Elevation 2/G018 shows the west wall in elevation, with calculations indicating that the openings at the west wall constitute just 8.8% of the total wall area - since 8.8% < 25%, the area of unprotected openings compared to the total wall area is Code compliant. The south end of the 'APL' "jogs" horizontally to the west, 'in-line' with the northwest corner of the 'SSB', so as to have unlimited unprotected openings on that portion of the adjacent 'SSB' west wall. The 'APL' then turns 'south' again, 30'-1" away from east wall of the Ski Club, allowing for unlimited unprotected openings there. In conclusion, the location of the 'APL' allows for unlimited unprotected openings along the east wall of the Ski Club, as well as the south half of the'SSB' - with just the north half of the'SSB' requiring 'limits' on the unprotected openings. Those 'limits' are met per Table 704.8 - therefore, the proximity of the Ski Club and the 'SSB' is overall Code compliant. = Previously answered 05/23/06 as part of partial "Grading and Excavation Permit" package.] Page 2 of 3 ► 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. See item #6 in Memorandum of Understanding document for clarification. 21. Please amend detail 1 on sheet A700 to show the handrail extension in the direction of travel rather than extending into the landing. (1009.4 IBC) This exception applies to inside handrails and states that they must be connected and continuous. The detail referenced in the response does not clearly show that the handrail is continuous. It appears that the handrail is not continuous at the bottom landing. Please amend detail to clarify. Handrail detail and stair section have been modified and now indicate the continuation of the handrail around the landing (see revised details Bldg C-1 & 5/A700). Plumbing Comments: 2 exterior showers are shown on the plan and appear to be tied into the sanitary sewer. These are not permitted receive storm water. It appears they are exposed to the atmosphere and could receive rain water and snow melt. Please clarify. The discharge from the showers is draining to the site drainage system. Energy Comments: 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. 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. 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 resubmittal. 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 Larry Pirkl- Plans Examiner 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 3 of 3 REVIEWED Y COLORADO INSPECTION AGENCY Permit Number Envelope Compliance Certificate Checked By/Date 2003 IECC COMcheck-EZ So$ware Version 3.0 Release 2a Data filename: P:\2001-134-03\ADMIN\Mech_A\Schedules\C - Ski Club\Bldg-C-SkiClub_resubmit.cck Section 1: Project Information Project Name: Vail's Front Door Building C - Ski Club Designer/Contractor: ABS Consultants, Inc. Document Author: R. Potzer Section 2: General Information Building Location (for weather data): Vail, Colorado Climate Zone: 15 Heating Degree Days (base 65 degrees F): 9248 Cooling Degree Days (base 65 degrees F): 44 Project Type: New Construction Window / Wall Ratio: 0.09 Building Type Floor Area Convention, Conference or Meeting Center 13500 Section 3: Requirements Checklist Bldg. Dept. Use Air Leakage, Component Certification, and Vapor Retarder Requirements [ ] 1. All joints and penetrations are caulked, gasketed, weather-stripped, or otherwise sealed. [ ] 2. Windows, doors, and skylights certified as meeting leakage requirements. [ ] 3. Component R-values & U-fictors labeled as certified. [ ] 4. Stair, elevator shaft vents, and other dampers integral to the building envelope are equipped with motorized dampers. [ ] 5. Cargo doors and loading dock doors are weather sealed. [ ] 6. Recessed lighting fixtures are: (i) Type IC rated and sealed or gasketed; or (ii) installed inside an appropriate air-tight assembly with a 0.5 inch clearance from combustible materials and with 3 inches clearance from insulation material. [ ] 7. Building entrance doors have a vestibule and equipped with closing devices. Exceptions: Building entrances with revolving doors. Doors that open directly from a space less than 3000 sq. in area. APR 0 3 2006 r ' Climate-Specific Requirements nent Name/Description Roof 1: All-Wood Joist/Rafter/Truss Exterior Wall 1: Wood Frame, Any Spacing Window 1: Metal Frame with Thermal Break:Double Pane with Low-E Clear, SHGC 0.31 Exterior Wall 2: Solid Concrete or Masonry 8" Furring: Metal Door 1: Solid Floor 1: Concrete Floor (over unconditioned space) Gross Area or Cavity Cont. Proposed Budget Perimeter. R-Value RValue U-Factor U-Factor 8000 38.0 21.0 0.018 0.045 3781 19.0 0.0 0.068 0.064 829 0.450 0.520 5415 19.0 0.0 0.118 0.064 105 0.100 0.108 6000 18.0 0.047 0.040 (a) Budget U-factors are used for software baseline calculations ONLY, and are not code requirements. Envelope PASSES: Design 20% better than code Section 4: Compliance Statement The proposed envelope design represented in this document is consistent with the building plans, specifications and other calculations submitted with this permit application. The proposed envelope system has been designed to meet the 2003 IECC requirements in COMcheck-EZ Version 3.0 Release 2a and to comply with the mandatory requirements in the Requirements Checklist. Princip Envelope D Sign =Name Signature raf Colo, 1. ~O 081 E'plpp Date Permit Number Mechanical Compliance Certificate Checked By/Date 2003 IECC COMcheck-EZ Software Version 3.0 Release 2a Data filename: P:\2001-134-03\ADMIN\Mech A\Schedules\C - Ski Club\Bldg-C-SkiClub_resubmit.cck Section 1: Project Information Project Name: Vail's Front Door Building C - Ski Club Designer/Contractor: ABS Consultants, Inc. Document Author. R. Potzer Section 2: General Information Building Location (fDr weather data): Vail, Colorado Climate Zone: 15 Heating Degree Days (base 65 degrees F): 9248 Cooling Degree Days (base 65 degrees F): 44 Project Type: New Construction Section 3: Mechanical Systems Last Quantity System Tyye & Des cription 2 HVAC System 1: Heating: Hydronic or Steam Coil, Hot Water / Cooling: Hydronic Coil, Capacity >=90 - <135 kBtu/h, Air-C ooled Condenser/ Single Zone 1 HVAC System 2: Heating: Hydronic or Steam Coil, Hot Water / Cooling: Hydronic Coil, Capacity >=240 - <760 kBtu/h, Air-C ooled Condenser / Single Zone 4 HVAC System 3: Heating: Unit Heater, Hot Water 5 HVAC System 5: Heating: Unit Heater, Hot Water 15 HVAC System 7: Heating: Radiant Heater, Hot Water / Single Zone 2 HVAC System 8: Heating: Radiant Heater, Electric / Single Zone 3 HVAC System 9: Heating: Radiant Heater, Electric / Single Zone 6 HVAC System 10: Heating: Unit Heater, Electric Section 4: Requirements Checklist Bldg. Dept. Use Requirements Specific To: HVAC System 1 [ ] 1. Balancing and pressure test connections on all hydronic terminal devices [ ] 2. Integrated air economizer required - Exception: Air/evap condenser serving space with open-case refrigeration [ ] 3. Separate hot and cold water supply and returns Requirements Specific To: HVAC System 2 1. Balancing and pressure test connections on all hydronic terminal devices 2. Integrated air economizer required - Exception: Air/evap condenser serving space with open-case refrigeration 3. Separate hot and cold water supply and returns Requirements Specific To: HVAC System 3 1. Balancing and pressure test connections on all hydronic terminal devices Requirements Specific To: HVAC System 5 1. Balancing and pressure test connections on all hydronic terminal devices Requirements Specific To: HVAC System 7 1. Balancing and pressure test connections on all hydronic terminal devices Requirements Specific To: HVAC System 8 Requirements Specific To: HVAC System 9 Requirements Specific To: HVAC System 10 Generic Requirements: Must be met by all systems to which the requirement is applicable 1. Load calculations per 1997 ASHRAE Fundamentals 2. Plant equipment and system capacity no greater than needed to meet loads - Exception: Standby equipment automatically offwhen primary system is operating - Exception: Multiple units controlled to sequence operation as a function of load 3. Minimum one temperature control device per system 4. Minimum one humidity control device per installed humidification/dehumidification system 5. Thermostatic controls has 5 degree F deadband - Exception: Thermostats requiring manual changeover between heating and cooling 6. Automatic Controls: Setback to 55 degree F (heat) and 85 degree F (cool); 7-day clock, 2-hour occupant override, 10-hour backup - Exception: Continuously operating zones - Exception: 2 kW demand or less, submit calculations 7. Automatic shut-off dampers on exhaust systems and supply systems with airflow >3,000 cfin 8. Outside-air source for ventilation; system capable ofreducing OSA to required minimum 9. R-5 supply and return air duct insulation in unconditioned spaces R-8 supply and return air duct insulation outside the building R-8 insulation between ducts and the building exterior when ducts are part ofa building assembly - Exception: Ducts located within equipment - Exception: Ducts with interior and exterior temperature diference not exceeding 15 degree F. 10. Ducts sealed - longitudinal seams on rigid ducts; transverse seams on all ducts; UL 181A or 181B tapes and mastics - Exception: Continuously welded and locking-type longitudinal joints and seams on ducts operating at static pressures less than 2 inches w.g. pressure classification 11. Mechanical fasteners and sealants used to connect ducts and air distribution equipment 12. Hot water pipe insulation: 1 in. for pipes <=1.5 in. and 2 in. for pipes >1.5 in. Chilled water/refrigerant/brine pipe insulation: 1 in. for pipes <=1.5 in. and 1.5 in. for pipes >1.5 in. Steam pipe insulation: 1.5 in. for pipes <=1.5 in. and 3 in. for pipes >1.5 in. - Exception: Piping within HVAC equipment - Exception: Fluid temperatures between 55 and 105 degree F - Exception: Fluid not heated or cooled - Exception: Runouts <4 1 in length 13. Operation and maintenance manual provided to building owner 14. Balancing devices provided in accordance with IMC 603.15 ] 15. Stair and elevator shalt vents are equipped with motorized dampers ] 16. Three-pipe systems not used Section 5: Compliance Statement The proposed mechanical design represented in this document is consistent with the building plans, specifications and other calculations submitted with this permit application. The proposed mechanical systems have been designed to meet the 2003 IECC requirements in COMcheck-EZ Version 3.0 Release 2a and to comply with the mandatory requirements in the Requirements Checklist. M - X) eV~t_ / U Z e Principal Mechanical Designer-Name Signature Date Mechanical Requirements Description 2003 IECC COMcheck-EZ So$ware Version 3.0 Release 2a Data filename: P:\2001-134-03\ADMMMech A\Schedules\C - Ski Club\Bldg-C-SkiClub resubmit.cck The following list provides more detailed description ofthe requirements in Section 4 of the Mechanical Compliance Certificate. Requirements Specific To: HVAC System 1 1. Hydronic heating and cooling coils must be equipped with a way to pressure test connections and measure and balance water flow and pressure. 2. An integrated air economizer is required for individual cooling systems over 65 kBtu/h in the selected climate. An integrated economizer allows simultaneous operation of outdoor-air and mechanical cooling. - Exception: An economizer is not required for systems having air or evaporatively cooled condensers that serve spaces with open-case refrigeration. 3. Fan system terminal units must have separate hot and cold water supply and return piping. Requirements Specific To: HVAC System 2 1. Hydronic heating and cooling coils must be equipped with a way to pressure test connections and measure and balance water flow and pressure. 2. An integrated air economizer is required for individual cooling systems over 65 kBtu/h in the selected climate. An Sit.- GL ur3 - c- SYSTEM INPUT REPORT System: Fan Coils Top Level Location: Vail, Colorado Prepared by: ABS Consultants Block Load 3.05 April 05, 2006 Page: 1 TABLE 1. HVAC SYSTEM DESCRIPTION System Type Clg and Warm Air Ht THERMOSTAT SETPOINTS System Start 6:00 Cooling (Occ.) 75.0 F Duration 24 hrs Cooling (Unocc.) 75.0 F SIZING SPECIFICATIONS Heating 72.0 F Supply 55.0 F RETURN AIR PLENUM No Ventilation 0.00 CFM/Per FAN Exhaust 0.00 CFM Configuration Draw Thru FACTORS Static Pressure 1.50 in. wg. Coil Bypass 0.050 Safety (Sens) 5 % Safety (Latent) 5 % Heating Safety 10 % I TABLE 2. SYSTEM ZONING INFORMATION System Arrangement: All zones served by a common air handler Total Zones Selected: g Selected Zones: 1) Great Rm/LoungeBar 2) Kitchen C210 3) Lobby C212 etc 4) Mens C215 5) Office C222 6) Recept C221 7) Vest C216 etc 8) Womens C214 DESIGN SOLAR REPORT Block Load 3.05 Location: Vail, Colorado Prepared by: ABS Consultants April 05, 2006 Page: 1 TABLE 1. DESIGN PARAMETERS Latitude 37.3 Degree Elevation 8,200.0 ft Summer Design Dry Bulb Temp 89.0 F Summer Coincident Wet Bulb Temp 59.0 F Daily Temperature Range 30.0 F Winter Design Dry Bulb Temp -25.0 F Atmospheric Clearness Number 1.15 Data Source User Defined TABLE 2. MAXIMUM SOLAR HEAT GAINS BTU/hr/s ft Month NE E SE S SW W NW N HOR January 24.8 186.4 282.1 291.1 282.1 186.4 24.8 24.1 170.4 February 63.2 219.7 284.3 270.3 284.3 219.7 63.2 29.0 221.9 March 112.2 254.4 268.5 226.3 268.5 254.4 112.2 34.3 268.2 April 163.9 258.7 227.8 162.7 227.8 258.7 163.9 39.6 297.7 May 191.9 253.2 193.3 113.9 193.3 253.2 191.9 43.2 310.2 June 200.0 247.6 176.9 95.0 176.9 247.6 200.0 54.2 311.8 July 189.0 248.1 188.4 110.5 188.4 248.1 189.0 44.2 306.3 August 157.8 249.6 219.8 157.1 219.8 249.6 157.8 41.5 292.1 September 106.3 240.1 257.4 219.9 257.4 240.1 106.3 35.6 259.3 October 62.0 212.3 273.5 262.5 273.5 212.3 62.0 29.9 217.9 November 24.9 183.2 277.5 286.7 277.5 183.2 24.9 24.5 169.5 December 21.9 168.0 274.8 292.7 274.8 168.0 21.9 21.9 148.0 DESIGN TEMPERATURE REPORT Block Load 3.05 Location: Vail, Colorado Prepared by: ABS Consultants April 05, 2006 Page: 1 TABLE 1. DESIGN PARAMETERS Latitude Elevation Summer Design Dry Bulb Temp Summer Coincident Wet Bulb Temp Daily Temperature Range Winter Design Dry Bulb Temp Atmospheric Clearness Number Data Source 37.3 Degree 8,200.0 ft 89.0 F 59.0 F 30.0 F -25.0 F 1.15 User Defined January TABLE 2. COOLING DESIGN TEMPERATURE PROFILES BIWB in Hour DB WB 000 10.6 5.4 100 9.1 4.3 200 7.6 3.1 300 6.4 2.1 400 5.5 1.4 500 5.2 1.2 600 5.8 1.7 700 7.3 2.9 800 10.0 5.0 900 13.9 7.8 1000 18.4 11.1 1100 23.5 14.6 1200 28.3 17.8 1300 31.9 20.0 1400 34.3 21.4 1500 35.2 22.0 1600 34.3 21.4 1700 32.2 20.2 1800 28.9 18.1 1900 25.0 15.6 2000 21.1 13.0 2100 17.8 10.7 2200 14.8 8.5 2300 12.4 6.7 40 A DB 30 d 2 1 ■ WB ■ i 1 ts all 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 1 0 0 4 16 18 20 22 24 Hour of the day DETAILED SYSTEM LOAD REPORT System: Fan Coils Top Level Location: Vail, Colorado Prepared by: ABS Consultants Block Load 3.05 April 05, 2006 Page: 1 TABLE 1. CALCULATION INFORMATION Design Load: August 15:00 Db/Wb Temp 89.0/ 59.0 F TABLE 2. LOAD COMPONENT SUMMARY Design Cooling Loads Design Sensible Latent Heating Load Component Details (BTU/hr) (BTU/hr) (BTU/hr) Solar Loads 729 sqft 15,702 Wall Transmission 1,659 sqft 19103 8,046 Roof Transmission 3,250 sqft 1,651 - 6,305 Glass Transmission 729 sqft 29862 31,821 Skylight Transmission 0 sqft 0 0 Partitions 0 sgft 0 0 Lighting 1.97 W/sgft 0 - Other Electric 0.99 W/sqft 11,014 - People 72 People 16,536 89640 Infiltration 5,327 -69598 36,911 Miscellaneous 0 0 - Slab 0 sqft - 0 Pulidown/Warm-Up 0 Safety Factor 515/10 % 29710 102 8,308 Total Zone Loads 56,904 2,145 91,392 Ventilation Load 0 CFM 0 0 0 Supply Fan Load 3,574 CFM 3,974 Plenum Load thru Wall 0 % 0 - - Plenum Load thru Roof 0 % 0 Plenum Load - Lights 0 % 0 Reheat Load 0 I C.91 I A)adq 60,879 2.1 91-391 TABLE 3. WALL AND GLASS BREAKDOWN I Component Total Cooling Cooling Heating Net Area Transmission Solar Load Transmission (sqft) (BTU/hr) (BTU/br) (BTU/hr) Walls: NE 0 0 - 0 E 567 608 - 2,750 SE 0 0 - 0 S 382 308 - 1,853 SW 0 0 - 0 W 315 127 - 1,528 NW 0 0 - 0 N 395 60 - 1,916 Glass: NE 0 0 0 0 E 212 832 4,665 9,254 SE 0 0 0 0 S 368 1,445 8,461 16,063 SW 0 0 0 0 W 63 247 1,868 2,750 NW 0 0 0 0 N 86 338 708 39754 Hor , 0 0 0 0 SYSTEM SIZING SUMMARY System: Fan Coils Top Level Block Load 3.05 Location: Vail, Colorado April 05, 2006 Prepared by: ABS Consultants Page: 1 TABLE 1. SIZING DATA COOLING Total Coil Load 63,022 BTU/hr Load Occurs August 15:00 Sensible Coil Load 60,878 BTU/hr Outdoor Db/Wb 89.0/59.0 F Total Zone Sensible 56,904 BTU/hr Coil Conditions: Supply Temperature 55.0 F Entering Db/Wb 75.0/60.0 F Supply Air (Actual) 3,574 CFM Leaving Db/Wb 53.6/52.9 F Supply Air (Standard) 2,634 CFM Apparatus Dewpoint 52.5 F Ventilation Air 0 CFM Bypass Factor 0.050 Direct Exhaust Air 0 CFM Resulting Zone RH 46.1 % Reheat Required 0 BTU/hr Total Coil Load 5.25 Ton Floor Area 3,250 sqft Sensible Coil Load 5.07 Ton Overall U-Value 0.084 BTU/hr/sgft/F SQFT/Ton 618.83 Vent Air Vent Ai~ 0.00 CFM/sgft &00 CFM/Pt-rqnn Cooling Cnnlinp 19.39 BTU/hr/sqft 1 10 CF TABLE 2. SIZING DATA HEATING - Heating Coil Load 91,392 BTU/hr Heating 28.12 BTU/hr/sqft Ventilation Load 0 BTU/hr Heating 1.10 CFM/sgtt Total Zone Load 91,392 BTU/hr Floor Area 3,250 sgft Ventilation Airflow 0 CFM Overall U-Value 0.084 Supply Airflow 3,574 CFM Vent Air 0.00 CFM/sgft Vent Air 0.00 CFM/Person TABLE 3. INPUT DATA ( WEATHER) Location Vail, Colorado Data Source User Defined Summer Dry-Bulb 89.0 F Latitude 37.3 Degree Coincident Wet-Bulb 59.0 F Elevation 8,200.0 ft Daily Range 30.0 F TABLE 4. INPUT HVAC SYSTEM System Name Fan Coils Top Level THERMOSTAT SETPOLNTS System Type Cooling (Occ.) 75.0 F System Start 6:00 Cooling (Unocc.) 75.0 F Duration 24 hrs Heating 72.0 F SIZING SPECIFICATIONS RETURN AIR PLENUM No Supply Ventilation Exhaust FACTORS Coil Bypass 0.050 Safety (Sens) 5 % Safety (Latent) 5 % Heating Safety 10 % FAN Configuration Draw-Thru Static Pressure 1.50 in. wg. TABLE 5. TOP TEN COOLING COIL LOADS Time Sensible Ton Total Ton Time Sensible Ton Total Ton 1) August 15:00 5.07 5.25 6) July 14:00 4.82 5.00 2) August 14:00 5.01 5.19 7) August 17:00 4.81 4.99 3) August 16:00 4.99 5.16 8) August 13:00 4.80 4.98 4) July 15:00 4.89 5.07 9) July 17:00 4.72 4.90 5)`, July 16:00 4.85 5.02 10) September 15:00 4.77 4.82 SYSTEM SIZING SUMMARY System: Fan Coils Top Level Location: Vail, Colorado Prepared by: ABS Consultants Block Load 3.05 April 05, 2006 Page: 2 TABLE 6. ZONE SIZING DATA Max. Cooling Design Airflow Max. Heating Design Flow Sensible Rate Load Rate Zone Name (BTU/hr) (CFM) Design Time (BTU/hr) (CFM) Recept C221 1,605 101 July 17:00 2,729 - GreatRm/LoungeBar 34,684 2,178 September 15:00 46,232 - Office C222 1,583 99 July 17:00 2,665 - Lobby C212 etc 7,572 476 August 15:00 19,058 - Kitchen C210 7,776 488 July 19:00 384 - Vest C216 etc 2,398 151 July 15:00 8,005 - Womens C214 1,220 77 July 15:00 7,679 - Mens C215 735 46 July 15:00 4,639 - Total: 3,616 Total: .00 i A- OV8 - e__ SYSTEM INPUT REPORT System: Fan Coil Mid and Lower Location: Vail, Colorado Prepared by: ABS Consultants Block Load 3.05 April 05, 2006 Page: 1 I TABLE 1. HVAC SYSTEM DESCRIPTION System Type System Start Duration SIZING SPECIFICATIONS Supply Ventilation Exhaust FACTORS Coil Bypass Safety (Sens) Safety (Latent) Heating Safety Clg and Warm Air Ht 6:00 24 hrs 55.0 F 0.00 CFM/Per 0.00 CFM 0.050 5 % 5 % 10 % THERMOSTAT SETPOINTS Cooling (Occ.) 75.0 F Cooling (Unocc.) 75.0 F Heating 72.0 F RETURN AIR PLENUM No FAN Configuration Draw Thru Static Pressure 1.50 in. wg. TABLE 2. SYSTEM ZONING INFORMATION System Arrangement: All zones served by a common air handler Total Zones Selected: 3 Selected Zones: 1) Low Lvl Lobby etc 2) Low Lvl Locker Rm 3) Mid Lvl Ski Storage DESIGN SOLAR REPORT Block Load 3.05 Location: Vail, Colorado April 05, 2006 Prepared by: ABS Consultants Page: 1 TABLE 1. DESIGN PARAMETERS L~j Latitude 37.3 Degree Elevation 8,200.0 ft Summer Design Dry Bulb Temp 89.0 F Summer Coincident Wet Bulb Temp 59.0 F Daily Temperature Range 30.0 F Winter Design Dry Bulb Temp -25.0 F Atmospheric Clearness Number 1.15 Data Source User Defined TABLE 2. MAXIMUM SOLAR HEAT GAINS BTU/hr/s ft Month NE E SE S SW W NW N HOR January 24.8 186.4 282.1 291.1 282.1 186.4 24.8 24.1 170.4 February 63.2 219.7 284.3 270.3 284.3 219.7 63.2 29.0 221.9 March 112.2 254.4 268.5 226.3 268.5 254.4 112.2 34.3 268.2 April 163.9 258.7 227.8 162.7 227.8 258.7 163.9 39.6 297.7 May 191.9 253.2 193.3 113.9 193.3 253.2 191.9 43.2 310.2 June 200.0 247.6 176.9 95.0 176.9 247.6 200.0 54.2 311.8 July 189.0 248.1 188.4 110.5 188.4 248.1 189.0 44.2 306.3 August 157.8 249.6 219.8 157.1 219.8 249.6 157.8 41.5 292.1 September 106.3 240.1 257.4 219.9 257.4 240.1 106.3 35.6 259.3 October 62.0 212.3 273.5 262.5 273.5 212.3 62.0 29.9 217.9 November 24.9 183.2 277.5 286.7 277.5 183.2 24.9 24.5 169.5 December 21.9 168.0 274.8 292.7 274.8 168.0 21.9 21.9 148.0 DESIGN TEMPERATURE REPORT Block Load 3.05 Location: Vail, Colorado Prepared by: ABS Consultants April 05, 2006 Page: 1 TABLE 1. DESIGN PARAMETERS Latitude Elevation Summer Design Dry Bulb Temp Summer Coincident Wet Bulb Temp Daily Temperature Range Winter Design Dry Bulb Temp Atmospheric Clearness Number Data Source 37.3 Degree 8,200.0 ft 89.0 F 59.0 F 30.0 F -25.0 F 1.15 User Defined January TABLE 2. COOLING DESIGN TEMPERATURE PROFILES DB/WB in Hour DB WB 000 10.6 5.4 100 9.1 4.3 200 7.6 3.1 300 6.4 2.1 400 5.5 1.4 500 5.2 1.2 600 5.8 1.7 700 7.3 2.9 800 10.0 5.0 900 13.9 7.8 1000 18.4 11.1 1100 23.5 14.6 1200 28.3 17.8 1300 31.9 20.0 1400 34.3 21.4 1500 35.2 22.0 1600 34.3 21.4 1700 32.2 20.2 1800 28.9 18.1 1900 25.0 15.6 2000 21.1 13.0 2100 17.8 10.7 2200 14.8 8.5 2300 12.4 6.7 A DB WB i w i d E 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 Hour of the day DETAILED SYSTEM LOAD REPORT System: Fan Coil Mid and Lower Location: Vail, Colorado Prepared by: ABS Consultants Block Load 3.05 April 05, 2006 Page: 1 TABLE 1. CALCULATION INFORMATION Design Load: July 16:00 Db/Wb Temp 88.1/ 58.7 F TABLE 2. LOAD COMPONENT SUMMARY Design Cooling Loads Design Sensible Latent Heating Load Component Details (BTU/hr) (BTU/br) (BTU/hr) Solar Loads 0 sgft 0 - Wall Transmission 2,857 sgft 1,137 16,628 Roof Transmission 0 sqft 0 0 Glass Transmission 0 sqft 0 0 Skylight Transmission 0 sqft 0 0 Partitions 0 sqft 0 0 Lighting 1.06 W/sqft 0 - - Other Electric 0.00 W/sgft 0 - - People 52 People 11,944 6,240 - Infiltration 3,275 -4,649 24,247 Miscellaneous 0 0 - Slab 6,570 sqft - - 18,828 Pulldown/Warm-Up 0 - - Safety Factor 515110 % 818 80 5,970 Total Zone Loads 17,173 1,671 65,673 Ventilation Load 0 CFM 0 0 0 Supply Fan Load 1,079 CFM 1,199 - - Plenum Load thru Wall 0 % 0 - - Plenum Load thru Roof 0 % 0 - - Plenum Load - Lights 0 % 0 - - Reheat Load 0 - Total Cool Loads 18,372 1.671 1 TABLE 3. WALL AND GLASS BREAKDOWN Component Total Cooling Cooling Heating Net Area Transmission Solar Load Transmission (sgft) (BTU/hr) (BTU/hr) (BTU/hr) Walls: NE 0 0 - 0 E 0 0 - 0 SE 0 0 - 0 S 0 0 - 0 SW 0 0 - 0 W 0 0 - 0 NW 0 0 - 0 N 2,857 1,137 - 16,628 Glass: NE 0 0 0 0 E 0 0 0 0 SE 0 0 0 0 S 0 0 0 0 SW 0 0 0 0 W 0 0 0 0 NW 0 0 0 0 N 0 0 0 0 Hor 0 0 0 0 SYSTEM SIZING SUMMARY System: Fan Coil Mid and Lower Block Load 3.05 Location: Vail, Colorado April 05, 2006 Prepared by: ABS Consultants Page: 1 TABLE 1. SIZING DATA COOLING Total Coil Load 20,043 BTU/hr Load Occurs July 16:00 Sensible Coil Load 18,372 BTU/hr Outdoor Db/Wb 88.1158.7 F Total Zone Sensible 17,173 BTU/hr Coil Conditions: Supply Temperature 55.0 F Entering Db/Wb 75.0/60.4 F Supply Air (Actual) 1,079 CFM Leaving Db/Wb 53.6/52.9 F Supply Air (Standard) 795 CFM Apparatus Dewpoint 52.5 F Ventilation Air 0 CFM Bypass Factor 0.050 Direct Exhaust Air 0 CFM Resulting Zone RH 47.2 % Reheat Required 0 BTU/hr Total Coil Load 1.67 Ton Floor Area 6,570 sqft Sensible Coil Load 1.53 Ton Overall U-Value 0.060 BTU/hr/sgft/F SQFT/Pon 3,933.46 Vent Air i 0.00 CFM/sgft 0 00 CFM[P Cooling C fi 3.05 BTU/hr/sgft 0 16 CF Vpnt A r TABLE 2. SIZING DATA - erson EATING on na - Heating Coil Load 65,673 BTU/hr Heating 10.00 BTU/br/sqft Ventilation Load 0 BTU/hr Heating 0.16 CFM/sgft Total Zone Load 65,673 BTU/hr Floor Area 6,570 sqft Ventilation Airflow 0 CFM Overall U-Value 0.060 Supply Airflow 1,079 CFM Vent Air 0.00 CFM/sgft Vent Air 0.00 CFM/Person TABLE 3. INPUT DATA (WEATHER) Location Vail, Colorado Data Source User Defined Summer Dry-Bulb 89.0 F Latitude 37.3 Degree Coincident Wet-Bulb 59.0 F Elevation 8,200.0 It Daily Range 30.0 F TABLE 4. INPUT HVAC SYSTEM) I System Name Fan Coil Mid and Lower THERMOSTAT SETPOINTS System Type Clg and Warm Air Ht Cooling (Occ.) 75.0 F System Start 6:00 Cooling (Unocc.) 75.0 F Duration 24 hrs Heating 72.0 F SIZING SPECIFICATIONS RETURN AIR PLENUM No Supply Ventilation Exhaust FACTORS FAN Configuration Draw-Thru Static Pressure 1.50 in. wg. Coil Bypass 0.050 Safety (Sens) 5 % Safety (Latent) 5 % Heating Safety 10 % TABLE 5. TOP TEN COOLING COIL LOADS Time Sensible Ton Total Ton Time Sensible Ton Total Ton 1) July 16:00 1.53 1.67 6) July 14:00 1.48 1.62 2) July 15:00 1.53 1.67 7) August 17:00 1.48 1.61 3) July 17:00 1.51 1.64 8) July 18:00 1.45 1.59 4) August 16:00 1.50 1.64 9) August 14:00 1.45 1.58 5) August 15:00 1.49 1.63 10) August 18:00 1.42 1.56 SYSTEM SIZING SUMMARY System: Fan Coil Mid and Lower Location: Vail, Colorado Prepared by: ABS Consultants Block Load 3.05 April 05, 2006 Page: 2 TABLE 6. ZONE SIZING DATA Max. Cooling Design Airflow Max. Heating Design Flow Sensible Rate Load Rate Zone Name (BTU/hr) (CFM) Design Time (BTU/hr) (CFM) Low Lvl Lobby etc 2,181 137 July 16:00 15,150 - Mid Lvl Ski Storage 569 36 July 15:00 9,787 - Low Lvl Locker Rm 14,431 906 July 16:00 40,736 - Total: 1,079 Total: .00 f C Y Monroe & Newell Engineers, Inc. April 3, 2006 4240 Architecture 1621 Eighteenth Street, Suite 200 Denver, CO 80202 Attn: Randy Hart Re: Vail's Front Door (M&N # 5500.02) Ski Club - Building C BUILDING PERMIT B06-0020 Dear Mr. Hart: REVIEWED By Vail I enver )illor>, COLORADO INSPECTION i AGENCY The following are our responses to the structural portions of The Town of Vail Building Department comments for the above building, dated March 10, 2006. We have included the original comment with each response. Our responses are noted with "M&N Response". S1. DC/ LS Verify the seismic response modification coefficient, Sheet S 100 for concrete shear walls. The general notes and calculations state R=4.5 for the ski club building and the assumption that the shear system is building frame system. Assuming the walls were non-bearing walls, ordinary reinforced concrete walls which according to ASCE 7-02 would be R=5. It appears the concrete shear walls are bearing gravity loads from steel and wood roof framing, in which case R = 4 per ASCE 7-02 for ordinary bearing shear walls. Please verify lateral designs, including drag loads, diaphragm shear, shear walls, overturning vertical loads, and other code provisions (as required when seismic loads control any portions of the lateral designs). M&N Response: Please refer to the revised structural calculations & general notes for response modification coefficient of 4.0 from ASCE7-02 Table 9.5.22. I`,'Y~/ 2006 Platinum Sponsor The Colorado Chapter of The American Institute ol'Architects Colorado Colorado Colorado www.monroe-newell.com 1701 Wynkoop Street • Suite 200 • Denver, Colorado 80202 (303) 623-4927 • FAX (303) 623-6602 • email: denver@rnonroe-newell.com S2. D Detail 4/S003 is referenced by other details on S003 for concrete wall reinforcing, which in turn references building A. Building A, Detail 6/S005 is cut at this core on sheet S101, however detail 6/S005 is marked as not used. Please identify concrete core reinforcing & clarify detail notes. M&N Response: Please refer to the revised detail 6/S005 on Building "A" and details on S003 Building C. S3. C The trusses and purlins shown on S 105 do not appear to be designed for the unbalanced snow load case (ASCE 7-02 7.6). Please provide calculations showing these load cases. M&N Response: Roof framing is designed to comply with the town of Vail amendments to the 2003 IBC. These amendments do not require an increase in loading due to wind or valleys. S4. D The roof beams shown on plan appear to be designed as DFL SS in the calculations, but the plan notes only require DFL No. 1, and Select Structural is not indicated at all in the drawings. Verify that Select Structural grade is indicated in the drawings as required. Verify that calculations for wood members match drawings in all instances. M&N Response: `SS' on calculations indicates solid sawn, not select structural. All wood roof beam calculations have been verified with DFL No. 1. S5. D Detail 9/S002 appears to be called out in the wrong spot on 5103 at grids H.8 and -13.5 and shows a wood column bearing on the structural slab. Where the detail is marked the column is a steel HSS. It appears this detail should be called out at the interior wood columns, such as at grids J.7 and 13.5 - please verify and modify drawings as required. M&N Response: Detail 9/S002 has been corrected. See revised plan S 103. S6. D Ref. S103: Verify the connection is shown for the steel column and base plate where the column bears on structural slab and curb. Also it is unclear how / where steel column base plates called out -please clarify drawings. M&N Response: Details 18 & 19 have been added to clarify steel column connections. See Sheet S002 S7. D Several of the beam reactions are missing on S 103. Please provide reactions and/or details at these locations. The general criteria on S 100 does not appear to be sufficient for connection design, and is insufficient for our review. M&N Response: Reactions have been added to S 103. S8. C Verify purlin connections to steel bent beams shown on details 1, 2, 6 & 7 on S105: The calculation for the typical purlin connections is for a single shear connection with a steel side plate (calcs page T13) ; however, the sketch on the calculation and the details appear to be double shear connections with a steel knife plate. In addition, the calculation appears to not consider unbalanced snow loads on the roof (1.5 times flat roof snow loads) or the NDS reduction for the geometry factor (Co) due to fastener spacing requirements. Despite these apparent differences between drawings and calculations, it appears the connection still may satisfy the required demands; please verify this connection design, and other similar connections in the structure. On the same connection, there is no indication on the drawings or in the calculations how long the knife plate is or the minimum length of weld required. Please either provide the min. weld length or the load it needs to be designed for on the drawings. M&N Response: The purlin knife plate and similar connection bolt capacity has been verified. Re: clarified structural calculations for double bolt shear. Roof framing is designed to comply with the town of Vail amendments to the 2003 IBC. These amendments do not require an increase in loading due to wind or valleys. Knife plate/weld lengths have been provided on details 1, 2, 6 & 7 on 5105. S9. C 5104: Verify roof valley beam B7 with point loads from purlins (calc R32): Valley beam is currently designed as having a distributed load: please verify loads used and analysis represents the completed structure. M&N Response: Roof valley beam B7 has been verified with point loads from purlins and design is adequate. S 10. C S 103: Verify floor beam B 12 (calc page G44). The beam does not appear to include the entire point load from beam B9 which it supports (approx. 8 kips). M&N Response: Floor beam B12 has been recalculated and is adequate as shown. 511. C Verify non-composite strength for wet concrete condition for girder BA. It appears that the girder was designed with deck perpendicular to the girder, but on plan the deck appears to be parallel to girder, which typically is not considered to brace the beam during concrete placement. In addition, the decking steps down on one side of the beam with a break in the slab, presenting two additional issues: a) The composite flange width should be taken towards one side of the girder only (tied to top flange of girder) b) Consider effective "break" in diaphragm stiffness / load path due to break in the concrete floor slab. Alternatively, we suggest that the break in slab continuity be eliminated by tying slabs together structurally with a vertical reinforced concrete curb. Provide calcs for lateral loads through the diaphragm. C) Calculations p.G66 indicate that this girder (and girder BB as well) is "No Good Shored, OK Unshored." Drawings do not appear to indicate any shoring of composite steel framing. At the same time, none of the beams have been cambered. Please verify shoring and / or camber requirements and modify drawings as required. M&N Response: a) Girder BA Has been designed as non-composite. See S 103. b) The lateral loads applied to the concrete diaphragm from elevator #5 tie back to the wall beam on gridline L through the dowel reinforcement. See 3/S002 C) Girder BA Has been designed as non-composite. See S 103. S12. C/ D Verify non-composite strength for wet concrete condition and overall girder strength for girder BB (calcs G68). It appears that the girder was designed with deck perpendicular to the girder, but on plan the deck appears to be parallel to girder. The reactions from the beams south of girder, such as beams B 13 and B 14 (G46-49), do not appear to be considered in the design, neither as a uniform load nor as point loads. It appears these loads from B 13 and B 14 significantly increase the loading on this girder. Please verify the structural adequacy of the column and concrete beam below (S 102) that support this girder. M&N Response: Girder BB has been designed as non-composite. S13. C Verify girder BC (calc G7). The girder does not appear to include the 20k point load shown on plan from the W 16X26 beam located at approximately mid-span. M&N Response: Girder BC has been designed as non-composite and all loads have been accounted for. S 14. DC Note that ground level slab over deck does not appear to have a fire rating. Please verify fire rating requirements in this area (appears to be 2 hrs from General sheets). M&N Response: 4240 Response: GO 17 dated 01-20-2006 shows the extent of the 1-hour slab at grade. A902 dated 04-03-2006 defines the area and method of the 1-hour rating. M&N agrees S15. D Define reinforcing in concrete over deck to meet ACI temperature and shrinkage requirements. M&N Response: 4240 Response: GO 17 dated 01-20-2006 shows the extent of the 1-hour slab at grade. A902 dated 04- 03-2006 defines the area and method of the 1-hour rating. M&N agrees. S 16. LS Referencing sheet L3, it appears that the approximate fundamental period Ta was calculated using ASCE 7 Eq. (9.5.5.2.2-1) and table 9.5.5.3.2 "Values of approximate period parameters Ct and X" for a moment resisting frame of reinforced concrete. Ref. comment #S 1, lateral system is ordinary reinforced concrete bearing walls, there do not appear to be any concrete moment resisting frames shown on plan - please verify Ct and X value used. In addition, it appears that a higher value than necessary was used for the seismic response coefficient Cs. Section 9.5.5.2.1 limits the maximum value for Cs to that produced by equation 9.5.5.2.1-2. It appears the value listed in the calculations for this equation for Cs is off by a decimal point and should, in fact, control for the maximum seismic response coefficient (Cs). Please verify these variables and the overall impact on the lateral designs. M&N Response: Please refer to revised structural calculations. S17. LS Referencing calculation sheets L3 & L6, seismic forces do not appear to control the lateral design as indicated in the calculations. The seismic base shear is listed in the calculations on L3 as 17.3k and the wind base shear on L6 as 18.2k. Based on these values, the wind values are 5% higher than the seismic and should control the design. PLS verify. M&N Response: Refer to revised general notes for 90 mph 3-sec gust wind speed and revised structural calculations for wind controlled lateral loads. S18. LS Referencing sheets L7 and L8, both cases assume unblocked roof diaphragms with Case I loading. Without the addition of blocking, case I can only apply in one direction without the addition of blocking (see IBC-03 Table 2306.3.1). The allowable value for unblocked diaphragms for all other cases 215 pl£ Please either indicate which direction the plywood should be oriented to achieve Case I in the desired direction, or specify blocking as required. M&N Response: Please see the revised structural calculations for case 3 diaphragm loading in both directions. S19. LS There are several drag struts shown in the calculations on sheet L 10, but not all are indicated on plan. Specifically in the N-S direction, the drag struts in the E-W direction for shear elements RI, R2, R6 and R7 are not identified as such, nor is their connection to the concrete shear wall shown. In addition, the roof nailing to the drag struts is not provided. Please provide this information or indicate how these critical lateral connections are communicated in the drawings. M&N Response: Please refer to revised plans and structural calculations for drag strut. S20. LS The concrete wall on N.I shown on S104 is assumed by the calculations (ref: L8 and L10) to be a shear element in the E-W direction. The section cut through that wall, 8/S003 does not appear to show adequate structure to transfer the shear from the roof to the concrete wall. Verify load path: the ledger shown in the lower roof does not appear to be bolted to the concrete wall nor are there mechanical fasteners shown from the upper roof plywood down to the cripple wall top plate. Revise details as required. M&N Response: Please refer to revised section 8/S003 for lateral load path. S21. DC Note that the concrete and metal deck shown on S 104 that forms the roof of the stairs is not fire rated by concrete fill alone. Please verify fire rating requirements in this area. M&N Response: 4240 Response: See 5/A700 and A903 dated 04-03-2006 for clarification. M&N agrees. 522. LS Detail 11/5003 shows the roof connection to the drag strut. It is unclear how the lateral load is transferred from the cripple wall studs to the 2x plate that is nailed to the drag strut. Please provide clarification. M&N Response: Please refer to revised section 11/5003 for sheathing attachment to 2x plate. 523. LS Calculation sheets L8 and L10 indicate that there is supposed to be a drag strut to transfer the shear into shear element R7 (the concrete shear wall on grid MA); however, there does not appear to be a drag strut located at this element on 5104. Please verify. M&N Response: Refer to S 104 for added drag strut and connection to stair core. 524. LS Calculation sheets L8 and L10 indicate that the concrete chimney is to be used as a lateral resisting element. Please provide a detail showing the connection of the chimney to the slab, as well as calculations for the concrete shear walls and the supporting structure's (slab and beams') ability to resist the shear and overturning. Verify rebar development and splice length into the structure below and the walls above. If rebar is post-installed with epoxy or other means into supporting structure, define type of epoxy and minimum embedment. M&N Response: Please see sheet S 103 for chimney connection requirements to building A and the attached structural calculations for concrete shear wall design. Overturning and shear loads from the chimney have been accounted for in the overall design of building "A" lid. 525. LS The elevator core located on grids K.5 and 12.7 is indicated as a lateral element in both the N-S direction and E-W direction, but it is transferred out onto concrete beams #2 and #3 below (ref: calc. MO. 1). The concrete beam calculations do not appear to consider the vertical overturning forces from the elevator core. Please either provide calculations for the concrete beams showing consideration for lateral loads or demonstrate by calculations an alternate load path for overturning resistance in both plan directions. M&N Response: Overturning loads have been applied to concrete beams #2 & #3 and designs shown are adequate. Please see the revised structural calculations. 526. LS Diaphragm continuity does not appear to have been considered at the ridges and valleys. Please provide details and /or plan information (i.e. clips between diaphragm sheathing, bracing, blocking, etc.). M&N Response: Please refer to M&N response to question S34 for unblocked diaphragm nailing attachment at ridges. Diaphragm continuity at valleys is provided by sheathing edge nailing to valley beams per general note 14/G/4 and 14/G/7 on sheet 5001. S27. D Details I and 4 on S002 show a concrete curb doweled to the structural slab below. Provided either minimum development lengths for the dowels or specify the dowels to be drilled and epoxied with a minimum embed length. M&N Response: Please refer to revised section 1/S002 and 4/S002 for min development length and epoxy option. S28. D Detail 20/S003 showing the garage exhaust shaft states HSS columns, see plan; however, the steel columns do not appear to be specified on plan. Please provide column sizes at this location. M&N Response: Please refer to the revised structural drawings for HSS column sizes. S29. D/C Details 10, 12, 13, 14/S002; Calcs M16, etc.: Shear friction has been used to transfer shear reactions from concrete beam ends to supporting walls / transfer girders. Calculations (M16, etc.) appear to have taken V 1.0, however details do not show or call out that the face of concrete initially cast requires the surface to be intentionally roughened to 1/4" amplitude and cleaned of laitance prior to casting against (ACI 318 11.7). In addition, Calcs page M16 max factored reaction for shear friction calc (79.2 k) does not appear to match factored reaction on calcs page M25 (137.5 k) - please verify all shear friction designs. M&N Response: Shear friction designs have been verified with V 0.6. Additionally, calc page M16 references beam `132' (beams #5, #6, & #9 in calc sheets) as designated on the beam schedule (RE: S 102), not the beam key in the calculations; all reactions have be verified and are adequate as designed. S30.1) The reactions from the steel beams at the elevator and garage exhaust shaft are not shown on S 104. Please provide reactions and/or details at these locations. M&N Response: Reactions have been provided on S 104. S31. D Detail 5/A500 (Vol 4) verify tall battered stone veneer weight is accounted for in the supporting structure. Verify masonry veneer attachment is sufficient for maximum leeward wind suction. M&N Response: The battered stone veneer weight has been verified for support on building A and is structurally sufficient. The masonry veneer attachment per the IBC 2003 is sufficient to support the leeward wind suction force. S32. DC Verify snow drift at roof due to various extensions of stairwells, exhaust shafts, elevators, and chimney has been accounted for in the roof beams and supporting structure. M&N Response: Roof framing is designed to comply with the town of Vail amendments to the 2003 IBC. These amendments do not require an increase in loading due to wind or valleys. 533. DC Verify snow drift at the ground level (S 103) has been included in the designs of steel and concrete framing, including columns and transfer beams below, for the large snow drift due to the building height itself above the wider lower level structure. M&N Response: Roof framing is designed to comply with the town of Vail amendments to the 2003 IBC. These amendments do not require an increase in loading due to wind or valleys. S34. LS Detail 4/A501: roof sheathing (plywood) has a gap constructed at the ridge. This break effectively splits the roof diaphragm in the middle. Verify roof designs are adequate with this break without additional ties, clips, or straps. M&N Response: Re: revised ridge section 3/5003 for added blocking. 535. LS/D Detail 1/A701 shows a 68" X40" mechanical duct block-out in the concrete core wall. Verify this penetration has been considered for gravity and lateral designs. Verify typical reinforcing around holes in walls specified on 5001 is adequate for this large opening. M&N Response: Please refer to the revised wall beam 10 on sheet 5202 on Building "A" 536. D I /A215 appears to show a low roof canopy cantilevered out from concrete core wall, between the stone veneer. This roof canopy does not seem to be on the structural drawings. Verify this canopy is required and that snow loads including flat roof, sliding, and drifting are considered in the design. M&N Response: The low roof canopy is attached to the concrete core wall with a cantilevered HSS steel beam that has a full penetration weld to an embed plate. Refer to sheet 5104. The HSS beam loads have been verified and are adequate as designed. Roof framing is designed to comply with the town of Vail amendments to the 2003 IBC. These amendments do not require an increase in loading due to wind or valleys. If you have any questions or comments, please call. Very truly yours, MONROE NEWELL ENGINEERS, INC. Peter D. Monroe, E. Principal REVIEWED BY Vail, Co Denver, Co Fris o, Co COLORADO INSPECTION AGENCY Monroe & Newell Engineers, Inc. May 15, 2006 4240 Architecture 1621 Eighteenth Street, Suite 200 Denver, CO 80202 Attn: Randy Hart Re: Vail's Front Door (M&N # 5500.02) Ski Club - Building C BUILDING PERMIT B06-0020 Dear Mr. Hart: The following are our responses to the structural portions of The Town of Vail Building Department comments for the above building, dated May 8, 2006. We have included the original comment with each response. Our responses are noted with "M&N Response". S 11. C Verify non-composite strength for wet concrete condition for girder BA. It appears that the girder was designed with deck perpendicular to the girder, but on plan the deck appears to be parallel to girder, which typically is not considered to brace the beam during concrete placement. In addition, the decking steps down on one side of the beam with a break in the slab, presenting two additional issues: a) The composite flange width should be taken towards one side of the girder only (tied to top flange of girder) b) Consider effective "break" in diaphragm stiffness / load path due to break in the concrete floor slab. Alternatively, we suggest that the break in slab continuity be eliminated by tying slabs together structurally with a vertical reinforced concrete curb. Provide calcs for lateral loads through the diaphragm. c) Calculations p.G66 indicate that this girder (and girder BB as well) is "No Good Shored, OK Unshored." Drawings do not appear to indicate any shoring of composite steel framing. At the same time, none of the beams have been cambered. Please verify shoring and / or camber requirements and modify drawings as required. 2006 Platinum Sponsor The Colorado Chapter of The American Institute of Architects rado rado rado www.monroe-newel1.com 1701 Wynkoop Street • Suite 200 • Denver, Colorado 80202 (303) 623-4927 • FAX (303) 623-6602 • email: denver@monroe-newell.com M&N Response: a) Girder BA has been designed as non-composite. See S 103. b) The lateral loads applied to the concrete diaphragm from elevator #5 tie back to the wall beam on gridline L through the dowel reinforcement. See 3/S002 c) Girder BA has been designed as non-composite. See S 103. KL&A, 515106. a) Comment Closed b) Diaphragm to exterior wall connection noted appears to be considered in the drawings. However, there does not appear to be a composite slab-to-concrete core wall connection detailed Please show a connection detail at slab diaphragm to the concrete core walls at the West side of the diaphragm. c) Comment Closed M&N Response: a) No response required. b) Re: attached revised section 24/S003 and revised plan sheet S 103. C) No response required. S12. C/ D Verify non-composite strength for wet concrete condition and overall girder strength for girder BB (calcs G68). It appears that the girder was designed with deck perpendicular to the girder, but on plan the deck appears to be parallel to girder. The reactions from the beams south of girder, such as beams B 13 and B 14 (G46-49), do not appear to be considered in the design, neither as a uniform load nor as point loads. It appears these loads from B13 and B14 significantly increase the loading on this girder. Please verify the structural adequacy of the column and concrete beam below (S 102) that support this girder. M&N Response: Girder BB has been designed as non-composite. KL&A, 515106. The loads from B13 06k) and B14 07.4k) do not appear to be considered in the revised design. In addition, the distributed load on the beam is lower than in the original calculation. Please verify the structural adequacy of girder BB, as well as the column and concrete beam below. M&N Response: Girder BB has been designed with all applicable loads and is adequate as shown. Additionally, a load sheet has been provided with current loading conditions (Re: S33 for sliding snow condition). Re: attached calculations. S15. D Define reinforcing in concrete over deck to meet ACI temperature and shrinkage requirements. M&N Response: 4240 Response: GO 17 dated 01-20-2006 shows the extent of the 1-hour slab at grade. A902 dated 04-03-2006 defines the area and method of the 1-hour rating. M&N agrees. KL&A, 515106. This response does not address the comment. M&N Response: The requested information is now on the drawings S103 per Vulcraft recommendations. S29. D/C Details 10, 12, 13, 14/S002; Calcs M 16, etc.: Shear friction has been used to transfer shear reactions from concrete beam ends to supporting walls / transfer girders. Calculations (M 16, etc.) appear to have taken 1.0, however details do not show or call out that the face of concrete initially cast requires the surface to be intentionally roughened to '/o" amplitude and cleaned of laitance prior to casting against (ACI 318 11.7). In addition, Calcs page M 16 max factored reaction for shear friction calc (79.2 k) does not appear to match factored reaction on calcs page M25 (137.5 k) - please verify all shear friction designs. M&N Response: Shear friction designs have been verified with 0.6. Additionally, calc page M16 references beam `B2' (beams #5, #6, & #9 in calc sheets) as designated on the beam schedule (RE: S 102), not the beam key in the calculations; all reactions have be verified and are adequate as designed. KL&A, S/S/06. It appears 2*sgrt(f'c) has been included for the shear friction resistance strength, ref calcs page M16 as resubmitted This is incorrect, concrete has zero strength for shear friction, per ACI 11.7.4.1. Also, please verify development of hooked ends and straight ends of the reinforcing bars used for shear friction resistance. Calculations assume full development of reinforcing bars, and it appears this has not been provided Given the hook development shown, it appears the wall cover may burst out when the dowels go into tension. Consider rotating dowel vertical leg downwards. Sped size and quantity of shear friction dowels. M&N Response: Calc page M 16 makes no reference to 2*SQRT(fc) for shear friction resistance strength. Shear friction connections were designed in accordance with AC1318-05 section 11.7.4.1 and 11.7.5. Additionally, details on S002 have been revised with correct development lengths, and sizes and quantities have been provided. Re: attached calculations and revised drawing. S33. DC Verify snow drift at the ground level (S103) has been included in the designs of steel and concrete framing, including columns and transfer beams below, for the large snow drift due to the building height itself above the wider lower level structure. M&N Response: Roof framing is designed to comply with the town of Vail amendments to the 2003 IBC. These amendments do not require an increase in loading due to wind or valleys. KMA, 515106. Whether or not drifting loads are seen as applicable, snow is sure to slide off of the roof structure and pile up outside the structures on the structural levels at grade. Further, a new sheet C41.0 shows snow storage areas on top of the parking structure lid It seems the 100 psf loading may be exceeded in these two instances. Please show with calculations that these areas of the lid structure are not overloaded due to locally higher snow loading. M&N Response: The floor structure on the north side of Building C has been verified for locally higher snow loading and snow sliding from the roof. Re attached calculations. The garage lids are reinforced uniformly based on worst case conditions, so they are designed to withstand this variability of location of snow storage and sliding snow loads. End of Comment Responses. If you have any questions or comments, please call. Very truly yours, MO R WELL ENGINEERS, INC. Peter D. Monroe, P.E. Principal 11i1/11t hLD~~sA/ REVIEWED BY Colorado Djail, erColorado Frco, Colorado COLORADO INSPECTION AGENCY Monroe & Newell Engineers, Inc. July 5, 2006 4240 Architecture 1621 Eighteenth Street, Suite 200 Denver, CO 80202 Attn: Randy Hart Re: Vail's Front Door (M&N # 5500.02) Ski Club - Building C BUILDING PERMIT B06-0020 Dear Mr. Hart: The following are our responses to the structural portions of The Town of Vail Building Department comments for the above building, dated June 30, 2006. We have included the original comment with each response. Our responses are noted with "M&N Response". S 11. C Verify non-composite strength for wet concrete condition for girder BA. It appears that the girder was designed with deck perpendicular to the girder, but on plan the deck appears to be parallel to girder, which typically is not considered to brace the beam during concrete placement. In addition, the decking steps down on one side of the beam with a break in the slab, presenting two additional issues: a) The composite flange width should be taken towards one side of the girder only (tied to top flange of girder) b) Consider effective "break" in diaphragm stiffness / load path due to break in the concrete floor slab. Alternatively, we suggest that the break in slab continuity be eliminated by tying slabs together structurally with a vertical reinforced concrete curb. Provide calcs for lateral loads through the diaphragm. c) Calculations p.G66 indicate that this girder (and girder BB as well) is "No Good Shored, OK Unshored." Drawings do not appear to indicate any shoring of composite steel framing. At the same time, none of the beams have been cambered. Please verify shoring and / or camber requirements and modify drawings as required. \0069" iYi~a; 2006 Platinum Sponsor The Colorado Chapter of The American Institute of Architects www. monroe-newell. com 1701 Wynkoop Street . Suite 200 • Denver, Colorado 80202 (303) 623-4927 • FAX (303) 623-6602 • email: denver®monroe-newell.com M&N Response: a) Girder BA has been designed as non-composite. See S103. b) The lateral loads applied to the concrete diaphragm from elevator #5 tie back to the wall beam on gridline L through the dowel reinforcement. See 3/S002 c) Girder BA has been designed as non-composite. See S103. KL&A, 515106: a) Comment Closed. b) Diaphragm to exterior wall connection noted appears to be considered in the drawings. However, there does not appear to be a composite slab-to-concrete core wall connection detailed. Please show a connection detail at slab diaphragm to the concrete core walls at the West side of the diaphragm. c) Comment Closed. M&N Response: a) No response required. b) Re: attached revised section 24/S003 and revised plan sheet S 103. C) No response required. KL&A, 6/30/06: b) At the new detail 25/S003, show welds of deck support angle to embed plates for gravity plus lateral loads, using load combinations per IBC 1605. Provide positive connection at slab concrete to angle, i.e. welded studs to angle, per IBC 1605 loading. M&N Response: b) See revised section 25/S003 for welding requirement. The attachment from the composite deck to the steel angle transfers through the typical diaphragm connection off the metal deck to the angle, as specified in our general notes on sheet 5001 section I 1 C. No welded studs or rebar are required. S29. D/C Details 10, 12, 13, 14/S002; Calcs M16, etc.: Shear friction has been used to transfer shear reactions from concrete beam ends to supporting walls / transfer girders. Calculations (M16, etc.) appear to have taken 1.0, however details do not show or call out that the face of concrete initially cast requires the surface to be intentionally roughened to amplitude and cleaned of laitance prior to casting against (ACI 318 11.7). In addition, Calcs page MI 6 max factored reaction for shear friction calc (79.2 k) does not appear to match factored reaction on calcs page M25 (137.5 k) - please verify all shear friction designs. M&N Response: Shear friction designs have been verified with 0.6. Additionally, calc page M16 references beam `132' (beams #5, #6, & #9 in calc sheets) as designated on the beam schedule (RE: S 102), not the beam key in the calculations; all reactions have be verified and are adequate as designed. KL&A, 515106: It appears 2*sgrt(f'c) has been included for the shear friction resistance strength, ref talcs page M16 as resubmitted. This is incorrect, concrete has zero strength for shear friction, per ACI 11.7.4.1. Also, please verify development of hooked ends and straight ends of the reinforcing bars used for shear friction resistance. Calculations assume full development of reinforcing bars, and it appears this has not been provided. Given the hook development shown, it appears the wall cover may burst out when the dowels go into tension. Consider rotating dowel vertical leg downwards. Specify size and quantity of shear friction dowels. M&N Response: Calc page M16 makes no reference to 2*SQRT(f c) for shear friction resistance strength. Shear friction connections were designed in accordance with ACI318-05 section 11.7.4.1 and 11.7.5. Additionally, details on 5002 have been revised with correct development lengths, and sizes and quantities have been provided. Re: attached calculations and revised drawing. KL&A, 6/30/06: Verify support of large girder B5. It appears modifications to 12/5002 now require only (10) #6 shear dowels for this large girder, which does not appear to be sufficient. Please check. M&N Response: Please refer to the attached structural calculations for the for girder 135 bearing connection capacity. The beam bears on the top of the column below. The shear dowels in section 12/5002 for girder 135 are not required for support of the end of the beam. The dowels provide a positive connection to wall beam 11. 537. KL&A 6/30/06: Ref. 5103, between gridlines 13.5-12.7 near the elevator: in the most recent drawings issued, composite slab thickness has been increased 2" from 4 1/" to 6 1/2" total thickness. Beam designs and beam reactions have not been increased despite the increased dead load. Please verify beam designs and reactions shown on plan are correct and meet code requirements. M&N Response: Please refer to the attached structural calculations for the revised beam designs. The new beam reactions are less then the reactions as originally indicated on the drawings. End of Comment Responses. If you have any questions or comments, please call. Very truly yours, MONROE & NEWELL ENGINEERS, INC. Peter D. Monroe, P.E. Principal Vail, Colorado Denver, Colorado Frisco, Colorado Monroe & Newell Engineers, Inc. STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING CALCULATIONS For. Vail's Front Door Building "C" Building Permit #1306-0020 Vail, Colorado M&N #5500.02 ~0N ` 7)~ _1a Q t111 These drawings and calculations are the property of Monroe & Newell I m6neers, Inc. Any use or reproductions of these calculations without the expressed written permission of Monroe & Newell Ln~(,ineers, Inc. is strictly prohibited. **P.E. stamp on sheet applies to the following calculation pages and indicates that have been reviewed. This includes all sheets attached to this covcr. May 15, 2006 WORK 2006 Platinum Sponsor The Colorado Chapter of The American Institute of Architects www.monroe-newell.com 1701 Wynkoop Street . Suite 200 • Denver, Colorado 80202 (303) 623-4927 • FAX (303) 623-6602 . email: denver®monroe-newell.com 5 33 JOB -~4 ° ' ° V, ✓,~_2 Monroe & Newell Engineers, Inc. SHEET No. 3 A- of CALCULATED BY 14 DATE d f' CHECKED BY N I DATE S1 / 06 f r-P SKr e-&06 Title : Job # Dsgnr: Q5W,0ZZate: 1:27PM, 11 MAY 06 Description : Scope : User: KW-0606238, Ver5.8.0, 1-Dec-2003 Steel Beam Design Page 1 (c)1983.2003 ENERCALC Engineering Software calculations.ecw:Calculations Description BB (REVISED PER S12) REVISION #2 General Information Code Ref: AISC 9th ASD, 1997 UBC, 2003 IBC, 2003 NFPA 5000 Steel Section : W24X131 Fy 50.00ksi Pinned-Pinned Load Duration Factor 1.00 Center Span 27.25 It Bm Wt. Added to Loads Elastic Modulus 29,000.Oksi Left Cant. 4.00 It LL & ST Act Together Right Cant 0.00 ft Lu : Unbraced Length 0.00 It Distributed Loads Note! Short Term Loads Are WIND Loads. #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 DL 2.530 0.670 k/ft LL 1.075 k/ft ST k/ft Start Location -4.000 It End Location 20.170 ft Point Loads Note! Short Term Loads Are WIND Loads. #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 Dead Load 3.600 2.100 9.800 42.500 12.200 19.400 2.100 k Live Load 7.600 4.400 12.600 39.600 13.800 18.300 2.200 k Short Term k Location 5.250 0.750 9.750 -4.000 2.250 19.500 23.250 ft Beam OK Static Load Case Governs Stress Using: W24X131 section, Span = 27.25ft, Fy = 50.Oksi, Left Cant. = 4.00ft, Right Cant. = 0.00ft End Fixity = Pinned-Pinned, Lu = 0.00ft, LDF = 1.000 Actual Allowable Moment 630.578 k-ft 904.750 k-ft Max. Deflection -0 720 in fb : Bending Stress 23.000 ksi 33.000 ksi Length/DL Defl . 746 0 :1 fb / Fb 0.697 : 1 . Length/(DL+LL Defl) 332.0: 1 Shear 131.584 k 296.208 k fv : Shear Stress 8.885 ksi 20.000 ksi fv / Fv 0.444 : 1 Force & Stress Summary <<-- These columns are Dead + Live Load placed as noted » DL LL LL+ST LL LL+ST Maximum Only @ Center @ Center @ Cants @ Cants Max. M + 630.58 k-ft 361.25 630.58 296.57 k-ft Max. M - -196.65 -196.65 -363.65 k-ft Max. M @ Left -196.65 -196.65 -363.65 k-ft Max. M @ Right k-ft Shear @ Left 131.58 k 80.24 131.58 99.17 k Shear @ Right 91.83 k 54.98 91.83 48.85 k Center Defl. -0.720 in -0.394 -0.720 -0.720 -0.282 -0.282 in Left Cant Defl 0.289in 0.129 0.289 0.289 0.026 0.026 in Right Cant Defl 0.000 in 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 in ...Query Defl @ 0.000 It 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 in Reaction @ Left 237.44 136.07 187.41 187.41 186.09 186.09 k Reaction @ Rt 91.83 54.98 91.83 91.83 48.85 48.85 k Fa calc'd per Eq. E2-1, K'Ur < Cc I Beam Passes Table B5.1, Fb per Eq. F1-1, Fb = 0.66 FV V F'-' E2 _<SZ20." Title : Job # Dsgnr: Date: 4:25PM, 11 MAY 06 r Description Scope : User: KW-0606238, Ver 5.8.0, 1-Dec-2003 Steel Beam Design Page 1 L (c)1983.2003 ENERCALC Engineering Software calculations.ecw:Calculations Description BB (REVISED PER S12) REVISION #2 (SNOW PILING) General Information Code Ref: AISC 9th ASD, 1997 UBC, 2003 IBC, 2003 NFPA 5000 Steel Section : W24X131 Pinned-Pinned Load Duration Factor 1 00 Center Span 27.25 It Bm Wt. Added to Loads Elastic Modulus . 29,000.Oksi Left Cant. 4.00 ft LL & ST Act Together Right Cant 0.00 It Lu : Unbraced Length 0.00 ft Distributed Loads Note! Short Term Loads Are WIND Loads. #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7~ DL 2.530 0.670 k/ft LL 1.075 1.505 k/ft ST k/ft Start Location -4.000 ft End Location 20.170 ft Point Loads Note! Short Term Loads Are WIND Loads. #1 Dead Load 3.600 #2 2.100 #3 #4 9.800 42.500 #5 #6 12.200 19.400 #7 2.100k Live Load 7.600 4.400 12.600 39.600 13.800 18.300 2 200 k Short Term . k Location 5.250 0.750 9.750 -4.000 2.250 19.500 23.250 ft Summary Beam OK Static Load Case Governs Stress Using: W24X131 section, Span = 27.25ft, Fy = 50.Oksi, Left Cant. = 4.00ft, Right Cant. = O.OOft End Fixity = Pinned-Pinned, Lu = O.OOft, LDF = 1.000 Actual Allowable Moment fb : Bending Stress 769.406 k-ft 28.063 ksi 904.750 k-ft 33.000 ksi Max. Deflection -0.880 in fb / Fb 0.850: 1 Length/DL DO 746.0 :1 Shear 152.089 k 296.208 k Length/(DL+LL Defl) 265.3 :1 fv : Shear Stress 10.269 ksi 20.000 ksi fv / Fv 0.513 :1 Force & Stress <<-- These columns are Dead + Live Load placed as noted » DL LL LL+ST LL LL+ST Maximum Only @ Center @ Center @ Cants @ Cants Max. M + 769.41 k-ft 361.25 769.41 292.34 k-ft Max. M - -196.65 -196.65 -375.69 k-ft Max. M @ Left -196.65 -196.65 -375.69 k-ft Max. M @ Right k-ft Shear @ Left 152.09 k 80.24 152.09 105.00 k Shear @ Right 112.34 k 54.98 112.34 48.41 k Center Defl. -0.880 in -0.394 -0.880 -0.880 -0.275 -0 275 in Left Cant Defl 0.362 in 0.129 0.362 0.362 0.020 . 0 020 in Right Cant Defl 0.000 in 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 . 0.000 in ...Query Defl @ 0.000 ft 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 in Reaction @ Left 264.40 136.07 207.91 207.91 192.56 192.56 k Reaction @ Rt 112.34 54.98 112.34 112.34 48.41 48.41 k Fa calc'd per Eq. E2-1, K'L/r < Cc I Beam Passes Table B5.1, Fb per Eq. F1-1, Fb = 0.66 Fy V 5u cC e/& X00, a z Title : Dsgnr: Description Scope : Job # Date: 1:27PM, 11 MAY 06 User: KW-0606238, Ver 5.8.0, 1-Dec-2003 Composite Steel Beam Page 1 (c)1983-2003 ENERCALC Engineering Software calculations.ecw:Calculations Description B3 21.5' WORST CASE (REVISED) LDesign Input Code Ref: AISC 9th ASD, 1997 UBC, 2003 IBC, 2003 NFPA 5000 j Section Name W14X34 Fy 50.00 ksi Beam Span 21.500 ft f'c 3,000.00 psi Beam Spacing 5.000 ft Concrete Density 145.00 pcf Slab Thickness 4.500 in Stud Diameter 0.625 in Deck Rib Height 2.000 in Stud Height 3.000 in Rib Spacing 12.000 in Beam Weight Added Internally Rib Width 5.000 in Using Partial Composite Action Rib Orientation Perpendicular Elastic Modulus 29,000.00 ksi Beam Location Slab Both Sides Dead Loads (applied before 75% curing) Full Span Uniform Loads... Point Loads... #1 1.175 k/ft #1 k 2.000ft Live Loads (applied after 75% curing) II Span Uniform Loads... # 1 1.200 k/ft OK Shored & Unshored Using: W14X34, Span = 21.50ft, Slab Thickness = 4.500in, Deck Rib Ht= 2.00in, Rib Spac= 12.001n, Rib Width= 5.00in w/ Slab I Stress Checks for Shored & Unshored Cases... @ Bottom of Beam Actual = 25,476.0 psi Allowable = 33,333.0 psi OK Unshored DL Stress Actual = 17,233.8 psi Allowable = 33,333.0 psi OK Actual Shear Stress Actual = 6,499.6 psi Allowable = 20,000.0 psi OK Unshored Stress Check.... (Mdl/Ss + MII/Strans) Actual = 29,924.4 psi Allowable = 45,000.0 psi OK MII / Strans(top) Actual = 464.6 psi Allowable = 1,350.0 psi OK Alternate Unshored Stress Check : (Mdl + MII) / Ss 34,339.7 38,000.0 psi Shored Concrete Stress Check (Mdl + MII) / (Strans:top * n) 932.7 1,350.0 psi Shear Studs & Shear Transfer Wmj~ Actual # Studs 10 per 1/2 beam span SEE M Stud Capacity 8.00 k V'h : min 47.81 k Total req'd 1/2 Span 6studs Vh ® 100% 191.25k Vh : Used 80.00 k Zone 1 from 0.000 ft to 3.583 It , Use 4 studs Zone 2 from 3.583 ft to 7.167 ft , Use 3 studs Zone 3 from 7.167 ft to 10.750 ft , Use 3 studs Zone 4 from 10.750 ft to 14.333 ft , Use 3 studs Zone 5 from 14.333 ft to 17.917 ft , Use 3 studs Zone 6 from 17.917 ft to 21.500 ft , Use 4 studs Point Loads... #1 k ft ~=ti S~~ cc d~ Title : Dsgnr: Description Scope Rev: 580001 User: KW-0606238, Ver5.8.0, 1-Dec-2003 Composite Steel Beam (c)1983-2003 ENERCALC Engineering Software f" Description 133 21.5' WORST CASE (REVISED) 27 51C~0, O- Z-Job # Date: 1:27PM, 11 MAY 06 2 Deflections I . Transformed 998.74 m4 I : Effective 766.05in4 Shored Unshored Before 75 % Curing 0.262 in (after shores removed) 0.589 in Construction Loads Only 0.000 in 0.000 in After 75% Curing 0.260 in 0.260 in Total Uncured Deflection 0.262 in L / 986.6 0.589 in L / 437.9 Composite Deflection 0.521 in L / 494.9 0.849 in L / 304.0 Reactions Load Combinations... @ Left @ Right Dead + Constuction 13.00 k 13.00 k Composite 12.90 k 12.90 k Max DL + LL 25.90 k 25.90 k Analysis Values Maximum Moments Effective Flange Width... Dead Load Alone 69.86 k-ft Fb : Allow 33.00 psi Based on Beam Span 5.375 ft Dead + Const 69.86 k-ft n : Strength 9.29 Based on Beam Spacing 5.000 ft Live Load Only 69.34 k-ft n : Deflection 9.19 Dead + Live 139.19 k-ft Effective Width 5.000ft Support Shears Shear @ Left 25.90 k Shear @ Right 25.90 k Section Properties Section Name W14X34 Depth 13.980 in Ixx : Steel Section 340.00 in4 Width 6.745 in I transformed 995.98 in4 Flange Thick 0.455 in Strans : top 192.79 in3 Web Thick 0.285 in Strans : bot 74.81 in3 Area 10.000 in2 Strans : eff @ bot 65.56 in3 Weight 33.967 #/ft n*Strans : Ef @ top 1,317.8 in3 ksteel 340.00 in4 X-X Axis from Bot 13.31 in S steel : top 48.64 in3 Vh @ 100% 191.25 k S steel : bottom 48.64 in3 Title : Job # Dsgnr: Date: 1:27PM, 11 MAY 06 Description Scope Rev: 580001 User. KW-0606238, Ver 5.8.0, 1-Dec-2003 Composite Steel Beam Page 1 (c)1983-2003 ENERCALC Engineering Software calculations.ecw:Calculations Description 132 21.5' WORST CASE (REVISED) wesign input Code Ref: AISC 9th ASD, 1997 UBC, 2003 IBC, 2003 NFPA 50001 Section Name W14X26 Fy 50.00 ksi Beam Span 21.500 ft f'c 3,000.00 psi Beam Spacing 5.000 ft Concrete Density 145.00 pcf Slab Thickness 4.500 in Stud Diameter 0.625 in Deck Rib Height 2.000 in Stud Height 3.000 in Rib Spacing 12.000 in Beam Weight Added Internally Rib Width 5.000 in Using Partial Composite Action Rib Orientation Perpendicular Elastic Modulus 29 000.00 ksi Beam Location Slab Both Sides , Dead Loads (applied before 75% curing) Full Span Uniform Loads... Point Loads... #1 0.970 k/ft #1 1.600 k 2.000ft Live Loads (applied after 75% curing) Full Span Uniform Loads... Point Loads... #1 0.990 k/ft #1 4.400 k 2.000 ft OK Shored & Unshored Using: W14X26, Span = 21.50ft, Slab Thickness = 4.500in, Deck Rib Ht= 2.00in, Rib Spac= 12.00in, Rib Width= 5.00in w/ Slab I Stress Checks for Shored & Unshored Cases... @ Bottom of Beam Actual = 29,257.3 psi Allowable = 33,333.0 psi OK Unshored DL Stress Actual = 20,155.8 psi Allowable = 33,333.0 psi OK Actual Shear Stress Actual = 7,553.5 psi Allowable = 20,000.0 psi OK Unshored Stress Check.... (Mdl/Ss + MII/Strans) Actual = 35,091.6 psi Allowable = 45,000.0 psi OK MII / Strans(top) Actual = 454.8 psi Allowable = 1,350.0 psi OK Alternate Unshored Stress Check : (Mdl + MII) / Ss 41,164.1 38,000.0 psi Shored Concrete Stress Check (Mdl + MII) / (Strans:top * n) 890.9 1,350.0 psi Shear Studs & Shear Transfer mix Actual # Studs 10 per 1/2 beam span Stud Capacity 8.00 k V'h : min 47.81 k Total req'd 1/2 Span 6studs Vh @ 100% 191.25k Vh : Used 80.00 k Zone 1 from 0.000 ft to 3.488 ft , Use 3 studs Zone 2 from 3.488 ft to 6.976 ft , Use 4 studs Zone 3 from 6.976 ft to 10.463 ft , Use 3 studs Zone 4 from 10.463 ft to 14.142 ft , Use 3 studs Zone 5 from 14.142 ft to 17.821 ft , Use 3 studs Zone 6 from 17.821 ft to 21.500 ft , Use 4 studs 8 ~f'7.;> icy C( 5-(W, c;-& I Title : Job # Dsgnr: Date: 1:27PM, 11 MAY 06 Description Scope : User: KW-0606238, Ver5.8.0, 1-Dec 2003 Composite Steel Beam Page 2 1111 (c)1983.2003 ENERCALC Engineering Software r calculations.ecw:Calculations Description B2 21.5' WORST CASE (REVISED) ~ Deflections 1 : Transformed 797.89 in4 I : Effective 602.59in4 Shored Unshored Before 75 % Curing 0.283 in (after shores removed) 0.696 in Construction Loads Only 0.000 in 0.000 in After 75% Curing 0.297 in 0.297 in Total Uncured Deflection 0.283 in L / 911.7 0.696 in L/ 370.7 Composite Deflection 0.580 in L / 444.6 0.993 in L / 259.8 ~ Reactions Load Combinations... @ Left @ Right Dead + Constuction 12.16 k 10.86 k Composite 14.63 k 11.05 k Max DL + LL 26.79 k 21.91 k Maximum Moments Effective Flange Width... Dead Load Alone 59.17 k-ft Fb : Allow 33.00 psi Based on Beam Span 5.375 ft Dead + Const 59.17 k-ft n : Strength 9.29 Based on Beam Spacing 5.000 ft Live Load Only 61.69 k-ft n : Deflection 9.19 Dead + Live 120.84 k-ft Effective Width 5.000 ft Support Shears Shear @ Left 26.79 k Shear @ Right 21.91 k Section Properties Section Name W14X26 Depth 13.910 in Ixx : Steel Section 245.00 in4 Width 5.025 in I transformed 795.92 in4 Flange Thick 0.420 in Strans : top 175.23 in3 Web Thick 0.255 in Strans : bot 57.39 in3 Area 7.690 in2 Strans : eff @ bot 49.56 in3 Weight 26.121 #/ft n'Strans : Ef @ top 1,168.3 in3 I-steel 245.00 in4 X-X Axis from Bot 13.87 in S steel : top 35.23 in3 Vh @ 100% 191.25 k S steel : bottom 35.23 in3 Monroe & Newell Engineers, Inc. ra JOB S SOD - ©Z_ l~ .~iF+l C G ge-z SHEET NO. CALCULATED BY CHECKED BY OF DATE i L1 DATE u APPLICATION WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED IF INCOMPLETE OR UNSI 6 _ 3o Project Budding Permit its zc(20000zo TOWN ~Y TOWN OF VAIL BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION Separate Permits are required for electrical, plumbing, mechanical, etc.! 75 S. Frontage Rd. Vail, Colorado 81657 CONTRACTOR INFORMATION Gerral Contractor: Town of Vail Reg. No.: Contact Person and Phone #'s: Email address:tin,r; ~soivG h .x~P~^u1L , ccc>ist Fax C3c~~~ g' 3 COMPLETE V PERMIT (Labor & Materials) BUILDING: $ ELECTRICAL: $ /C, uc~c OTHER: $ PLUMBING: $ 'l.~ - MECHANICAL: $ 'ej Gam? TOTAL: $ `-j `2)S For Parcel # Contact Fanle Cnuntv Assessnrs Cfflr_p at 97n_32R_86d0 or visit www_PanlP-rnuntv_rom Parcel # Job Name: Job Address: Ye .1 t, L Legal Description Lot: Block: Filing: Subdivision: Owners Name: Vw ss oV_ 5 Address: l3 "7 & M Phone:CYto -23X2 Arch itect/Designer: Address: /621 197`5r 'k ,WA e2, C0 4~z 1 " Q &Arjaizaof? IL IC29A)LE BEM OL] Phone:( ^2-33YY l Engineer:/*N" Zl7Feea Address: IX1 WWknep O CO lit (0 z Phone:( 423 X17 Detailed description of work: ,rf . lC T Work Class New Addition ( ) Remodel ( ) Repair ( ) Demo ( ) Other ( ) : ) Work Type: Interior"( ) Exterior ( ) Both ( Does an EHU exist at this location: Yes ( ) No( Type of Bldg.: Single-family( ) Two-family( ) Multi-family( ) Commercial Restaurant( ) Other ( ) No. of Existing Dwelling Units in this building: No. of Accommodation Units in this building: y No/Type of Fire laces Existin : Gas Appliances Gas Los Wood/Pellet Wood Burning No/Type of Fireplaces Proposed: Gas Appliances Gas Los Wood/Pellet Wood Burning NOT ALLOWED Does a Fire Alarm Exist: Yes No ( ) Does a Fire Sprinkler System Exist: Yes (~-r' No ( ) FOR OFFICE USE ONL Type of Construction: I Date . gd: Occupancy Group: ::1 1 Accepted By: F:\cdev\FORMS\PERMITS\Buildina\buildina r)ermit 11-23-2005.DOC bylaw 'j~- VAIL Page 1 of 14 11/23/2005 TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO Statement Statement Number: R060000130 Amount: $10,371.7302/16/200610:57 AM Payment Method: Check Init: JS Notation: 52915/HYDER CONSTRUCTION Permit No: B06-0020 Type: NEW COMM BUILDING PERMIT Parcel No: 2101-082-7800-2 Site Address: 174 GORE CREEK DR VAIL Location: VAILS FRONT DOOR BUILDING 'C' Total Fees: $26,331.23 This Payment: $10,371.73 Total ALL Pmts: $10,371.73 Balance: $15,959.50 ACCOUNT ITEM LIST: Account Code Description Current Pmts PF 00100003112300 PLAN CHECK FEES 10,371.73 Permit Number Envelope Compliance Certificate Checked By/Date 2003 IECC COMcheck-EZ So$ware Version 3.0 Release 2a Data filename: P:\2001-134-03\ADMIN\Mech A\Schedules\C - Ski Club\Bldg-C-SkiClub.cck Section 1: Project Information Project Name: Vail's Front Door Building C - Ski Club Designer/Contractor: ABS Consultants, Inc. Document Author: R. Potzer Section 2: General Information Building Location (for weather data): Vail, Colorado Climate Zone: 15 Heating Degree Days (base 65 degrees F): 9248 Cooling Degree Days (base 65 degrees F): 44 Project Type: New Construction Window / Wall Ratio: 0.09 Building Tyne Floor Area Convention, Conference or Meeting Center 13500 Section 3: Requirements Checklist Bldg. Dept. Use Air Leakage, Component Certification, and Vapor Retarder Requirements [ ] 1 1. All joints and penetrations are caulked, gasketed, weather-stripped, or otherwise sealed. [ ] 2. Windows, doors, and skylights certified as meeting leakage requirements. [ ) 3. Component R-values & U-factors labeled as certified. [ ] 4. Stair, elevator shall vents, and other dampers integral to the building envelope are equipped with motorized dampers. [ ] 5. Cargo doors and loading dock doors are weather sealed. [ ] 6. Recessed lighting fixtures are: (i) Type IC rated and sealed or gasketed; or (ii) installed inside an appropriate air-tight assembly with a 0.5 inch clearance from combustible materials and with 3 inches clearance from insulation material. [ ] 7. Building entrance doors have a vestibule and equipped with closing devices. Exceptions: Building entrances with revolving doors. Doors that open directly from a space less than 3000 sq. f. in area. JAN 10 2006 Climate-Specific Requirements Gross Area or Cavity Cont. Proposed Budget Component Name/Descn~tion Perimeter R-Value R-ValueUFactor -Fact r Roof 1: All-Wood Joist/Raffer/Truss 8000 38.0 21.0 0.018 0.045 Exterior Wall 1: Wood Frame, Any Spacing 3781 19.0 0.0 0.068 0.064 Window 1: Metal Frame with Thermal Break:Double Pane with Low-E Clear, SHGC 0.31 829 0.450 0.520 Exterior Wall 2: Solid Concrete or Masonry 8" Furring: Metal 5415 19.0 0.0 0.118 0.064 Door 1: Solid 105 0.100 0.108 Floor 1: Concrete Floor (over unconditioned space) 6000 18.0 0.047 0.040 (a) Budget U-factors are used for soffware baseline calculations ONLY, and are not code requirermnts. Envelope PASSES: Design 20% better than code Section 4: Compliance Statement The proposed envelope design represented in this document is consistent with the building plans, specifications and other calculations submitted with this permit application. The proposed envelope system has been designed to meet the 2003 IECC requirements in COMcheck-EZ Version 3.0 Release 2a and to comply with the mandatory requirements in the Requirements Checklist. CZr btx~}- ~'-I~Aeratd ~ ~ • ZD • D~ Principal Envelope Designer- ame Signatur Date Permit Number Mechanical Compliance Certificate Checked By/Date 2003 IWC COMcheck-EZ So$ware Version 3.0 Release 2a Data filename: P:\2001-134-03\ADMMMech A\Schedules\C - Ski Club\Bldg-C-SkiClub.cck Section 1: Project Information Project Name: Vail's Front Door Building C - Ski Club Designer/Contractor: ABS Consultants, Inc. Document Author. R. Potzer Section 2: General Information Building Location (for weather data): Vail, Colorado Climate Zone: 15 Heating Degree Days (base 65 degrees F): 9248 Cooling Degree Days (base 65 degrees F): 44 Project Type: New Construction Section 3: Mechanical Systems Last JAN 10 2006 Quantity System Type & Description 1 HVAC System 1: Heating: Hydronic or Steam Coil, Hot Water / Cooling: Hydronic Coil, Capacity <65 kBtu/h, Water-Cooled Condenser / Single Zone 1 HVAC System 2: Heating: Hydronic or Steam Coil, Hot Water / Cooling: Hydronic Coil, Capacity <65 kBtu/h, Water-Cooled Condenser / Single Zone 1 HVAC System 3: Heating: Hydronic or Steam Coil, Hot Water / Single Zone Section 4: Requirements Checklist Bldg. Dept. Use Requirements Specific To: HVAC System 1 [ ] 1. Balancing and pressure test connections on all hydronic terminal devices [ ] 2. Separate hot and cold water supply and retums Requirements Specific To: HVAC System 2 ] 1. Balancing and pressure test connections on all hydronic terminal devices ] 2. Separate hot and cold water supply and returns Requirements Specific To: HVAC System 3 ] 1. Balancing and pressure test connections on all hydronic terminal devices Generic Requirements: Must be met by all systems to which the requirement is applicable ] 1. Load calculations per 1997 ASHRAE Fundamentals ] 2. Plant equipment and system capacity no greater than needed to meet loads - Exception: Standby equipment automatically of when primary system is operating - Exception: Multiple units controlled to sequence operation as a function of load ] 3. Minimum one temperature control device per system ] 4. Minimum one humidity control device per installed humidification/dehumidification system ] 5. Thermostatic controls has 5 degree F deadband - Exception: Thermostats requiring manual changeover between heating and cooling ] 6. Automatic Controls: Setback to 55 degree F (heat) and 85 degree F (cool); 7-day clock, 2-hour occupant override, 10-hour backup - Exception: Continuously operating zones - Exception: 2 kW demand or less, submit calculations ] 7. Automatic shut-offdampers on exhaust systems and supply systems with airflow >3,000 cfin ] 8. Outside-air source f>r ventilation; system capable of reducing OSA to required minimum ] 9. R-5 supply and return air duct insulation in unconditioned spaces R-8 supply and return air duct insulation outside the building R-8 insulation between ducts and the building exterior when ducts are part of a building assembly - Exception: Ducts located within equipment - Exception: Ducts with interior and exterior temperature diilerence not exceeding 15 degree F. ] 10. Ducts sealed - longitudinal seams on rigid ducts; transverse seams on all ducts; UL 181A or 181B tapes and mastics - Exception: Continuously welded and locking-type longitudinal joints and seams on ducts operating at static pressures less than 2 inches w.g. pressure classification ] 11. Mechanical fasteners and sealants used to connect ducts and air distribution equipment ] 12. Hot water pipe insulation: 1 in. for pipes <=1.5 in. and 2 in. for pipes > 1.5 in. Chilled water/refrigerant/brine pipe insulation: 1 in. for pipes <=1.5 in. and 1.5 in. for pipes > 1.5 in. Steam pipe insulation: 1.5 in. for pipes <=1.5 in. and 3 in. for pipes >1.5 in. - Exception: Piping within HVAC equipment - Exception: Fluid temperatures between 55 and 105 degree F - Exception: Fluid not heated or cooled - Exception: Runouts <4 fl in length ] 13. Operation and maintenance manual provided to building owner ] 14. Balancing devices provided in accordance with IMC 603.15 ] 15. Stair and elevator shaft vents are equipped with motorized dampers ] 16. Three-pipe systems not used Section 5: Compliance Statement The proposed mechanical design represented in this document is consistent with the building plans, specifications and other calculations submitted with this permit application. The proposed mechanical systems have been designed to meet the 2003 IECC requirements in COMcheck-EZ Version 3.0 Release 2a and to comply with the mandatory requirements in the Requirements Checklist. Principal Mechanical Designer-Name Signature Date Mechanical Requirements Description 2003 IWC COMcheck-EZ Software Version 3.0 Release 2a Data filename: P:\2001-134-03\ADMMMech_A\Schedules\C - Ski Club\Bldg-C-SkiClub.cck The following list provides more detailed description of the requirements in Section 4 ofthe Mechanical Compliance Certificate. Requirements Specific To: HVAC System 1 1. Hydronic heating and cooling coils must be equipped with a way to pressure test connections and measure and balance water flow and pressure. 2. Fan system terminal units must have separate hot and cold water supply and return piping. Requirements Specific To: HVAC System 2 Hydronic heating and cooling coils must be equipped with a way to pressure test connections and measure and balance water flow and pressure. Fan system terminal units must have separate hot and cold water supply and return piping. Requirements Specific To: HVAC System 3 1. Hydronic heating and cooling coils must be equipped with a way to pressure test connections and measure and balance water flow and pressure. Generic Requirements: Must be met by all systems to which the requirement is applicable 1. Design heating and cooling loads Ibr the building must be determined using procedures equivalent to those in Chapters 27 and 28 of the ASHRAE Handbook of Fundamentals or an approved equivalent calculation procedure. 2. All equipment and systems must be sized to be no greater than needed to meet calculated loads. A single piece of equipment providing both heating and cooling must satisfy this provision for one function with the capacity for the other function as small as possible, within available equipment options. - Exception: The equipment and/or system capacity may be greater than calculated loads for standby purposes. Standby equipment must be automatically controlled to be offwhen the primary equipment and/or system is operating. - Exception: Multiple units of the same equipment type whose combined capacities exceed the calculated load are allowed if they are provided with controls to sequence operation of the units as the load increases or decreases. 3. Each heating or cooling system serving a single zone must have its own temperature control device. 4. Each humidification system must have its own humidity control device. 5. Thermostats controlling both heating and cooling must be capable of maintaining a 5 degree F deadband (a range of temperature where no heating or cooling is provided). - Exception: Deadband capability is not required if the thermostat does not have automatic changeover capability between heating and cooling. 6. The system or zone control must be a programmable thermostat or other automatic control meeting the Ulowing criteria:a) capable of setting back temperature to 55 degree F during heating and setting up to 85 degree F during coolingb) capable of automatically setting back or shutting down systems during unoccupied hours using 7 diferent day schedulesc) have an accessible 2-hour occupant overrided) have a battery back-up capable of maintaining programmed settings for at least 10 hours without power. - Exception: A setback or shutoffcontrol is not required on thermostats that control systems serving areas that operate continuously. - Exception: A setback or shutoffcontrol is not required on systems with total energy demand oft kW (6,826 Btu/h) or less. 7. Outdoor-air supply systems with design airflow rates >3,000 cfin of outdoor air and all exhaust systems must have dampers that are automatically closed while the equipment is not operating. 8. The system must supply outside ventilation air as required by Chapter 4 of the International Mechanical Code. If the ventilation system is designed to supply outdoor-air quantities exceeding minimum required levels, the system must be capable ofreducing outdoor-air flow to the minimum required levels. Air ducts must be insulated to the following levels:a) Supply and return air ducts for conditioned air located in unconditioned spaces (spaces neither heated nor cooled) must be insulated with a minimum of R-5. Unconditioned spaces include attics, crawl spaces, unheated basements, and unheated garages.b) Supply and return air ducts and plenums must be insulated to a minimum of R-8 when located outside the building.c) When ducts are located within exterior components (e.g., floors or roofs), minimum R-8 insulation is required only between the duct and the building exterior. - Exception: Duct insulation is not required on ducts located within equipment. - Exception: Duct insulation is not required when the design temperature difference between the interior and exterior of the duct or plenum does not exceed 15 degree F. 10. All joints, longitudinal and transverse seams, and connections in ductwork must be securely sealed using weldments; mechanical fasteners with seals, gaskets, or mastics; mesh and mastic sealing systems; or tapes. Tapes and mastics must be listed and labeled in accordance with UL 181A or UL 181B. - Exception: Continuously welded and locking-type longitudinal joints and seams on ducts operating at static pressures less than 2 inches w.g. pressure classification. 11. Mechanical fasteners and seals, mastics, or gaskets must be used when connecting ducts to fans and other air distribution equipment, including multiple-zone terminal units. 12. All pipes serving space-conditioning systems must be insulated as follows: Hot water piping for heating systems: 1 in. for pipes <=1 1/2-in. nominal diameter 2 in. for pipes >I 1/2-in. nominal diameter. Chilled water, refrigerant, and brine piping systems: 1 in. insulation for pipes <=1 1/2-in. nominal diameter 1 1/2 in. insulation for pipes >1 1/2-in. nominal diameter. Steam piping: 1 1/2 in. insulation for pipes <=1 1/2-in. nominal diameter 3 in. insulation for pipes >1 1/2-in. nominal diameter. - Exception: Pipe insulation is not required for factory-installed piping within HVAC equipment. - Exception: Pipe insulation is not required for piping that conveys fluids having a design operating temperature range between 55 degrees F and 105 degrees F. - Exception: Pipe insulation is not required for piping that conveys fluids that have not been heated or cooled through the use of fossil fuels or electric power. - Exception: Pipe insulation is not required for runout piping not exceeding 4 it in length and 1 in. in diameter between the control valve and HVAC coil. 13. Operation and maintenance documentation must be provided to the owner that includes at least the illowing inibrmation:a) equipment capacity (input and output) and required maintenance actionsb) equipment operation and maintenance manualsc) HVAC system control maintenance and calibration information, including wiring diagrams, schematics, and control sequence descriptions; desired or field-determined set points must be permanently recorded on control drawings, at control devices, or, for digital control systems, in programming commented) complete narrative of how each system is intended to operate. 14. Each supply air outlet or diffuser and each zone terminal device (such as VAV or mixing box) must have its own balancing device. Acceptable balancing devices include adjustable dampers located within the ductwork, terminal devices, and supply air diffusers. 15. Stair and elevator shaft vents must be equipped with motorized dampers capable of being automatically closed during normal building operation and interlocked to open as required by fire and smoke detection systems. All gravity outdoor air supply and exhaust hoods, vents, and ventilators must be equipped with motorized dampers that will automatically shut when the spaces served are not in use. Exceptions: - Gravity (non-motorized) dampers are acceptable in buildings less than three stories in height above grade. - Ventilation systems serving unconditioned spaces. 16. Hydronic systems that use a common return system for both hot water and chilled water must not be used.