HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlan Review CommentsCOLORADO INSPECTION AGENCY PLAN REVIEW COMMENTSഀ
TO: Contractorഀ
Hyder Constructionഀ
Doug Thompsonഀ
EMAIL: dthompson@hyderinc.comഀ
FAXഀ
NUMBER OF PAGES:ഀ
FROM:ഀ
DATE:ഀ
BUILDING PERMITഀ
OWNERS NAME:ഀ
SITE ADDRESS:ഀ
SUBDIVISION:ഀ
OCCUPANCY GROUP:ഀ
TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION:ഀ
NUMBER OF STORIES:ഀ
Architectഀ
4240ഀ
Randy Hartഀ
rhart@4240arch.comഀ
Engineerഀ
Monroe & Newell Engഀ
15ഀ
Matthew Royerഀ
03/10/2006ഀ
B06-0022 thru B06-0029ഀ
Vail Resorts Co.ഀ
Building Eഀ
Mill Creekഀ
S-2, R-3ഀ
I-A, V-Bഀ
4ഀ
REVIEWED BYഀ
J U ? ; l) 2006ഀ
COLORADO INSPECTIONഀ
AGENCYഀ
The design documents submitted for this project have been reviewed for compliance with the locallyഀ
adopted codes and amendments. The following comments must be addressed before a buildingഀ
permit is issued.ഀ
For processing:ഀ
Please submit (2) complete sets of revised construction documents containing the requestedഀ
information or plan revisions with all revisions clouded or otherwise identified.ഀ
requested information. Please send revisions to the attention of the plans examiner with theഀ
building permit application number noted.ഀ
Responses such as "will comply with code" are not adequate. Revised drawings mustഀ
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 signatureഀ
registration number and date on the cover page of any structural calculations all structural detailsഀ
and structural sheets of the plans. For commercial or multi-family projects all sheets of the plansഀ
must be stamped.ഀ
CADOCUM E- I \dhopp\LOCALS- I \Temp\E - Response to ToV-b06-0022 thru b06-0029.DOC Page I of 2ഀ
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 theഀ
Building Permit.ഀ
The agreement was signed on January 18th, 2006 and is now in a 45 day review period.ഀ
2. When plans are resubmitted for review; complete sets of plans for each building which includes theഀ
addendum sheets. Separate addendum packets will not be accepted and approved for initialഀ
permitting.ഀ
Plans have been modified and are to be resubmitted for the Town of Vail Building and Fireഀ
Department review, approval and issuance of a permit.ഀ
3. Preliminary plan review meetings had discussion regarding the submittal of Memorandum ofഀ
Understandings (MOU). MOU's defined in these meetings would be "used to define or clarify the useഀ
of a code section, agreement to the installation of a system not covered specifically by the code orഀ
clarify the use or component of a building. None of the agreed upon MOU's were submitted forഀ
review. Please provide the following MOU's for review:ഀ
a) Use of assumed property lines and fire separation distance.ഀ
b) Fire command roomഀ
c) Smoke management systemsഀ
d) Opening between parking garage and Lodge Tower parking garageഀ
e) Fire separation between the new building and existing buildingsഀ
f) Use of 508.2 for creating separate buildings as it relates to each buildingഀ
g) The separation between One Vail Place and new Skier Servicesഀ
A Memorandum of Understanding dated April 3, 2006 addressing these issues has been completedഀ
and will be submitted to the Building, Fire Department and Colorado Code Inspection for review andഀ
approval.ഀ
4. Preliminary plan review submittal meetings had discussion regarding the submittal of Administrativeഀ
Modifications (AM). AM's as defined in these meetings would be based on International Buildingഀ
Code Section 104.10. Where practical difficulties are involved in carrying out the provision of thisഀ
code, a modification to the code may be granted by the building official after justification that theഀ
modification will not lesson health, accessibility, life and fire safety, or structural requirements. Theഀ
following AM's have been discussed and are being implemented into the plans. Please provide theഀ
following or amend plans accordingly to comply with the code.ഀ
a) Separation between Chalet buildingsഀ
b) Elimination of elevator smoke doors at residential levels of the Chalet buildingsഀ
A Request for Administrative Modification dated April 3, 2006 addressing these issues has beenഀ
completed and will be submitted to the Building, Fire Department and Colorado Code Inspection forഀ
review and approval.ഀ
5. Be sure to amend the Fire & Life Safety Report as necessary when changes are made to the plansഀ
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, 2006ഀ
has been completed and coordinated with the G - Series Code Drawings. This report andഀ
attachments will be submitted to the Building, Fire Department and Colorado Code Inspection forഀ
review and approval.ഀ
6. Provide a precise site plan showing exact locations of assumed property lines. If locations of assumedഀ
property lines are close enough to exterior walls to require rating of walls and opening protection,ഀ
provide details.ഀ
C:ADOCUME-I\dhopp\LOCALS-I\Temp\E - Response to ToV-b06-0022 thru b06-0029.DOC Page 2 of 2ഀ
4240 has updated the G - Series Code Drawings indicating the locations of property lines andഀ
assumed property lines.ഀ
7. Fire and Life Safety Report states the use of 1-hour fire walls per IBC Table 705.4. This table doesഀ
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 departmentഀ
identifying buildings, construction types and openings. The buildings and proximity to the propertyഀ
lines will not meet the prescriptive requirements of the building code. The design team has identifiedഀ
on the G - Series Code Drawings that the project will use a variety of 3-hour horizontal and verticalഀ
fire resistive separations as well as 2-hour and 1-hour occupancy separation walls. This approach ofഀ
compartmentation with the use of automatic sprinkler protection and detection though-out will notഀ
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 purposeഀ
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 wallsഀ
identified as fire walls between the different building and spaces. Our interpretation of this section isഀ
that once the 3 hour separation is used to make a separate building then everything that is notഀ
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 departmentഀ
identifying buildings, construction types and openings. The buildings and proximity to the propertyഀ
lines will not meet the prescriptive requirements of the building code. The design team has identifiedഀ
on the G - Series Code Drawings that the project will use a variety of 3-hour horizontal and verticalഀ
fire resistive separations as well as 2-hour and 1-hour occupancy separation walls. This approach ofഀ
compartmentation with the use of automatic sprinkler protection and detection though-out will notഀ
compromise the life safety of the occupants.ഀ
9. Accessibility requirements do not appear to be included within any plan for this rojed- PTease -ഀ
amend plans to include the following: iഀ
a) Accessible parking spaces and loading zones.ഀ
b) Accessible route from the parking and loading zones to the buildings. iഀ
c) Accessible routes to each building on the site which are required to be aces '~'"^9.ORADO INSPECTIONഀ
d) Signage details for parking, striping, routes, restrooms, etc. AGENCYഀ
e) Restroom details for fixtures, grab bars and accessories.ഀ
The drawings have been modified to show accessible parking spaces and loading zones, accessibleഀ
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 deferredഀ
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 ofഀ
the exit enclosures require the occupants to travel up to get to exit discharge. Clearly identify theഀ
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. Itഀ
would be the intent of the design team to identify with the fire department additional egress signage orഀ
directional signage to ensure occupants will be directed to a an egress stair/passage way and to aഀ
public way.ഀ
11. Amend plans to include gates located at the level of exit discharge to eliminate occupants of theഀ
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 orഀ
from continuing below or above a level of exit discharge.ഀ
CADOCUME-I\dhopp\LOCALS--I\Temp\E -Response to ToV-b06-0022 thru b06-0029.DOC Page 3 of 3ഀ
12. Elevator door which do not open into a lobby need to be provided with a smoke control door inഀ
accordance with IBC Section 715.3.5.3ഀ
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 onഀ
the plan.ഀ
Bldg. B: Per A610 for window types with tempered glazing and reference building elevations forഀ
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 panesഀ
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 panesഀ
greater than 9 s.f.ഀ
Bldg. E: Per A610 for window types with tempered glazing and reference building elevations forഀ
location of such window types.ഀ
14. The size of main elevator cars used for fire/emergency access needs to be determined by the Townഀ
of Vail Building and Fire Departments. Standard 24" x 76" required by code will not accommodate theഀ
stretchers used by emergency personnel. Please confirm the required size.ഀ
The elevator cabs are currently designed to comply with the standard stretcher requirement asഀ
adopted by the code. In the case of the Chalets the elevator serves 4 levels or 3 stories. Based onഀ
that interpretation the stretcher accessible would not be required. The design team is providing aഀ
stretcher accessible elevator to each unit beyond what would be required by code. The currentഀ
elevators will be 24x74 inches.ഀ
Architectural Comments:ഀ
15. Floor plan on sheets A111 & A113 show units 1 A and 1 B with elevators 10 and 11. Elevators 10 andഀ
11 serve Units 3A and 3B. Revise plans.ഀ
Re. A111 and A113, plans have been revised to show elevators 8 and 9.ഀ
16. Floor plan on sheet A122 lists Bldg 2 and Bldg 4's elevators in the same shaft. Revise plans to reflectഀ
elevators in the correct units.ഀ
Re. A122, plans have been revised to show correct elevators in correct units.ഀ
17. Code Summary sheets G023, 024, 025, 026, 027 show two units 3A. Revise plan.ഀ
Re. G023, 024, 025, 026, and 027, notes have been revised to react `313'.ഀ
18. Assumed property lines shown on "G" general sheets are close enough to the units to possiblyഀ
require fire rating of walls. Provide a precise site plan showing exact locations of assumed propertyഀ
lines.ഀ
Re. review comment #22.ഀ
19. Sheet G 023 shows the travel distance from the residential units passing through the garage andഀ
using the garage travel distance of 400 feet as the criteria. The limit for travel distance is based onഀ
CADOCUME- I \dhopp\LOCALS- I \Temp\E -Response to ToV-b06-0022 thru b06-0029.DOC Page 4 of 4ഀ
REVIEW EU B iഀ
the occupancy not the occupancy you pass through to get to an exi Th maNhuni tUAMst nceഀ
residential occupancies with an approved sprinkler system is 250 f t. R vise plans to reflect heഀ
correct design distance per the occupancy served. COLORADO INSPECTIONഀ
Re. G023, plans have been revised to read `250 ft'. AGENCYഀ
20. The mechanical level above the parking garage has been classified as a mezzanine. This spaceഀ
exceeds 1/3 of the square footage of the parking garage. Reclassify the space as a second story andഀ
revise code analysis and plans to reflect change.ഀ
Mechanical Level is now classified as a second story. Re. sheets G024, G028, and Fire and Lifeഀ
Safety Report. The drawings has been modified to classify the mezzanine as story with a 2-hourഀ
separation between the mechanical level and adjoining spaces. This area is actually separated fromഀ
adjoining earth with an 8-inch concrete wall. The mechanical floor also has two exits to the levelഀ
below.ഀ
21. The LSR states that there will be a 3 hour fire separation from the parking garage to the residentialഀ
units both horizontally and vertically. The vertical separation is shown as a one hour on the plans andഀ
the parking garage does not have a complete separation from the mechanical room on the floorഀ
above. Sheet G023 and 024 don't show stair ES02 as a rated assembly nor does it list a wall type.ഀ
Sheet M010 shows the wall type as an "R" wall assembly which is shown as a 2 hour wood framedഀ
party wall on sheet A 600. If the ceiling of the parking garage is being used for the 3 hour separationഀ
then the stairs going to the 2nd floor mechanical room from the garage and the large opening for theഀ
garage ventilation must be protected. Add opening protection to the garage ceiling below theഀ
mechanical room or revise plans showing extent of three hour separation to include ceiling ofഀ
mechanical room.ഀ
A Request for Administrative Modification dated April 3, 2006 addressing these issues has beenഀ
completed and will be submitted to the Building, Fire Department and Colorado Code Inspection forഀ
review and approval.ഀ
22. Fire rating of exterior walls of the dwelling units has been removed on the addendum with a note toഀ
coordinate with the life safety report. LSR states on the conclusion # 5 that "The exterior walls of theഀ
two-dwelling areas constructed as one-hour rated from the inside only and that unprotected openingsഀ
on these walls be unlimited in area. " This in accordance with Section 704.5 of the 2003 IBC andഀ
footnote f of table 704.8 of the 2003 IBC." Will these walls be constructed as one-hour rated protectedഀ
from the inside? Coordinate plans with LSR.ഀ
Based on Administrative Modification, the exterior walls of the two-dwelling areas are constructed asഀ
one-hour rated from the inside only and unprotected openings on these walls shall be unlimited inഀ
area. Refer to the Type "J" series walls keyed on the floor plans and detailed on wall type sheetഀ
A600, and to the exterior wall note on G026.ഀ
23. Addendum # 1 has changed location of rated walls separating the parking garage from adjoiningഀ
spaces. Addendum has added separation to the storage areas in the garage but not the elevatorഀ
machine rooms. The elevator machine rooms do however have 90 min rated doors shown on theഀ
schedule. The now rated storage rooms don't have protected openings. Coordinate door scheduleഀ
with wall construction for all spaces being separated from the parking garage.ഀ
Re. sheet G023, A103, door schedule. Wall ratings of elevator machine rooms and storage roomsഀ
have been revised and door ratings have been revised accordingly. A Request for Administrativeഀ
Modification dated April 3, 2006 addressing these issues has been completed and will be submittedഀ
to the Building, Fire Department and Colorado Code Inspection for review and approval. These wallsഀ
in accordance with the administrative modification and previous meetings will be rated one hour fromഀ
the inside out only.ഀ
24. 2 hour party wall shows an STC rating of 66 and references WB 382 for the assembly. LSRഀ
references WP 3820 which has an STC of 55 to 59. Clarify.ഀ
The reference on the drawing has been corrected to read WP 3820 with an STC of 66.ഀ
CADOCUME-I\dhopp\LOCALS-1\Temp\E -Response to ToV-b06-0022 thru b06-0029.DOC Page 5 of 5ഀ
25. Window types on sheet A 61Q label egress windows as E2. These windows are located in the diningഀ
room. Bedrooms have windows labeled as E. All spaces used for bedrooms shall have one windowഀ
approved for egress purposes. Amend plans to locate an egress window in all bedrooms.ഀ
Required egress windows have been noted on the window schedule.ഀ
26. Show compliance with section 707.11 where boiler vents enter rated shaft.ഀ
Re. A105. The shaft which contains the boiler vents terminates in a room having a use related to theഀ
purpose of the shaft. In addition, the room has fire resistance rating and opening protectives at leastഀ
equal to the protection required by the shaft. Therefore, the location where the boiler vents enter theഀ
rated shaft is in compliance with Section 707.11, note 2.ഀ
27. Rated shaft called out on sheet A105 and MO 10. No wall detail has been called for this assembly.ഀ
Provide detail of listed 2 hour assembly for the boiler vent shaft.ഀ
Re. P/A600 for 2 hr listed assembly.ഀ
28. Sheet A700 stair detail 3 shows DN direction opposite of detail 1, 2 and floor plan sheetഀ
A103,105,107.ഀ
Re. 3/A700, `DN direction' has been corrected.ഀ
29. Sheet A 103 & 107 reference cross section at grid between J.6 and HA as detail 2 on sheet A306.ഀ
There is no sheet 306 provided. Revise detail to correct sheet or provide sheet A306.ഀ
Re. sheets A103 and A107, section tag has been deleted.ഀ
30. Provide smoke door assemblies per section 715.3.5.3 at all elevators doors.ഀ
See the added note on A700 and A701 indicating elevator doors to be 90 minute rated. An `S' ratingഀ
is not required because these elevators serve less than 4 stories, thus do not require smoke controlഀ
nor venting. A Request for Administrative Modification dated April 3, 2006 addressing these issuesഀ
has been completed and will be submitted to the Building, Fire Department and Colorado Codeഀ
Inspection for review and approval.ഀ
31. Update plans to show ventilation and access to void space between dwelling units and garage. (IBCഀ
1203.3)ഀ
These spaces do not meet the definition of crawl space as no earth exists below floor joists. Noഀ
ventilation is necessary. Section drawings have been revised for these areas to indicate a layer ofഀ
5/8" type `X' GW B applied to the underside of the wood floor joists, creating a non-combustibleഀ
envelope, as directed by TOV Fire Marshall, in order to avoid the need for fire sprinkler protection.ഀ
Therefore no need for access to the void spaces is required. Furthermore it is our understanding thatഀ
TOV Building Department prefers no access is provided in order to avoid potential occupant use ofഀ
these spaces.ഀ
32. Provide ventilation to crawlspace areas in units. (IBC 1203.3)ഀ
There no longer exist any crawl space conditions defined as where "space between bottom of floorഀ
joists and the earth" exists. No ventilation is necessary.ഀ
33. Provide details for protection of under stair areas in units if there is useable beneath the stair. (IBCഀ
1019.1.1)ഀ
IBC 1019.1.2 is not applicable. Per IBC 1019.1 Exception 3, a protected stairway exit enclosure isഀ
not required. Per IBC 1019.1.5 Exception 1, the space under stairways is not required to beഀ
protected.ഀ
34. Life Safety Report references the construction of the party wall between units as providing additionalഀ
protection because the wall is being constructed as a two hour assembly. LSR states that the wall willഀ
continue to and terminate at the underside of the roof sheathing. This detail is not reflected on theഀ
C:\DOCUM&-I\dhopp\LOCALS-I\Temp\E - Response to ToV-b06-0022 thru b06-0029.DOC Page 6 of 6ഀ
plans in fact it is shown stopping the wall at the underside of the rafters. Please coordinate the plansഀ
with the LSR continuing the wall to the roof sheathing. Provide detail for roof ventilation as wall toഀ
deck will eliminate ridge vent.ഀ
A Request for Administrative Modification dated April 3, 2006 addressing these issues has beenഀ
completed and will be submitted to the Building, Fire Department and Colorado Code Inspection forഀ
review and approval. Additional enlarged details have been added to the section drawings describingഀ
the rated walls where they intersect with the roof.ഀ
REVIEWED BYഀ
COLORADO INSPECTIONഀ
AGENCYഀ
CAD000ME-I\dhopp\LOCALS-1\Temp\E -Response to ToV-b06-0022 thru b06-0029.DOC Page 7 of 7ഀ
34a. LSR also states that they are utilizing section 705.7 of the 2003 IBC for combustible membersഀ
entering the rated assembly at the party wall. The referenced section (705.7) is part of section 705ഀ
"Fire Walls". This section is a very prescriptive commentary on the construction of fire walls one ofഀ
which "705.3" states "Fire Walls shall be of any approved noncombustible materials. Section 705.7 isഀ
not applicable to the assembly being shown on the plans because of the combustible framingഀ
members used in the construction of the wall. Revise plans removing all framing members fromഀ
entering the party wall or change the construction of the wall to meet section 705.3.ഀ
A Request for Administrative Modification dated April 3, 2006 addressing these issues has beenഀ
completed and will be submitted to the Building, Fire Department and Colorado Code Inspection forഀ
review and approval.ഀ
34b. The Chalet residences are not exempt from the requirements of accessible units. Per IBC Sectionഀ
3104.2 exception 2 requires that connected buildings shall be considered as one building for theഀ
purpose of calculating the number of type B units is required by IBC Chapter 11. Amend plan toഀ
comply with Chapter 11. Provide all details, specifications, parking, accessible routes, etc. whichഀ
would clearly show compliance with IBC for accessibility.ഀ
A Request for Administrative Modification dated April 3, 2006 addressing these issues has beenഀ
completed and will be submitted to the Building, Fire Department and Colorado Code Inspection forഀ
review and approval. It has never been the intent that the residential Chalets would comply withഀ
Chapter 11. The Chalets are considered to be a separate building from the parking garage below.ഀ
This was discussed and presented to the TOV Building Department at meeting on September 22,ഀ
2006..The Meeting Minutes from that meeting are attached. At that meeting the question was raisedഀ
with the TOV at the first Meeting that CIA attended. In those Minutes, you will see specifically seeഀ
where the question was asked if Chapter 11 Accessibility requirements would be applicable for theഀ
Chalets. The consensus from the Group was that Chapter 11 of the IBC would not be applied to theഀ
Chalets.ഀ
Mechanical Comments:ഀ
35. Provide manufacturers specs on fireplaces used in the residences. If fireplaces are open front andഀ
capable of burning wood all shafts for the vents must be constructed as 1 hour rated assemblies.ഀ
Decorative shroud must be listed for installation with the appliance.ഀ
Specification section 10305 has been added describing, Manufactured Fireplaces and Flues. Re.ഀ
A471 and A600 for 1 hr shaft assemblies. 4240 is currently working with the fireplace manufacturerഀ
to satisfy this requirement for the shrouds. If a resolution cannot be reached through the specifiedഀ
fireplace manufacturer, another compliant product will be substituted. On the Gore Creekഀ
Residences we were able to satisfy the requirement by using a similar fireplace unit from anotherഀ
manufacturer, and are willing to repeat this alternative if it becomes necessary. We request that TOVഀ
accept a deferred submittal on this item.ഀ
36. Sheet M102 shows a 14 x 14 duct off of FCU-E-1 between grid 30 & 31 penetrating the garageഀ
ceiling with no fire damper. If ceiling of garage is used to provide separation per section 508.2 2003ഀ
IBC a fire damper shall be added.ഀ
Damper has been added. Refer to sheet M010.ഀ
37. Air supply ducts to vestibules do not have fire/smoke dampers where the fire rated assembly isഀ
penetrated. Add dampers per section 716 2003 IBC.ഀ
Dampers have been added. Refer to sheet M102.ഀ
38. Schedule for FCU's only list four units. Dwelling units listed are unit 1A and 5b. All thirteen units haveഀ
FCU's. Revise schedule to reflect all equipment used.ഀ
Note # 10 has been added for clarification.ഀ
39. Sheet M121 detail 3 shows 4 elevators in two shafts. Amend plans to reflect correct elevators inഀ
shafts for the correct units.ഀ
C:ADOCUME-I\dhopp\LOCALS-1\Temp\E -Response to ToV-b06-0022 thru b06-0029.DOC Page 8 of 8ഀ
iഀ
Building 4 reference has been deleted.ഀ
40. FCU's serving dwelling units are not being provided with outside air. How will floors without naturalഀ
ventilation be provided with the required air from the outside.ഀ
All lower levels are being considered "Adjoining spaces", per 2003 IMC 402.3. The open stair thatഀ
communicates between all levels provides an unobstructed opening greater than 8 percent of theഀ
floor area to meet this requirement. In addition, openable areas for each unit have been confirmed toഀ
meet the minimum 4 percent requirement in section 402.2.ഀ
Electrical comments:ഀ
41. Clearance required to all electrical panels-electrical closets in residences not to be used asഀ
coat/clothes closets per 110.26. Sheet E161 electrical panels not to be installed in room 6A08 perഀ
240.24(E).ഀ
Electrical panels for unit 6A have been relocted to room 6A17. Please see sheet E161.ഀ
42. Sheet E002 feeder schedule minimum equipment ground required for feeder 4 is 4/0 per 250.122.ഀ
Feeder schedule on sheet E002 has been revised to increase feeder #4 grounding conductor to 4/0.ഀ
43. Sheet E002-generator and feed to panel EDP sized for 25% of normal power feed. Why not fullഀ
ampacity of EDP?ഀ
Per Mike McGee - TOV, only one elevator shall be run at a time under generator power. Generatorഀ
and feeder in question were sized based on a single elevator and panels M1 and M2.ഀ
44. Main gear and generator rooms E103 and E202 require panic hardware on both doors from roomsഀ
per 110.26(C)(2).ഀ
A note has been added to sheet E102 and E103 to require panic hardware. Revised door scheduleഀ
to require panic hardware.ഀ
45. TVSS to have short circuit rating equal to or greater than available fault current-provide rating andഀ
calculations for tvss. 285.6ഀ
Calculations for available fault current at TVSS and specification of short circuit rating have beenഀ
added, see sheet E002.ഀ
46. Caution signs/visible marking required for heat trace per 426.13. Please provide a note on the plansഀ
for this signage.ഀ
This note has been added to the general notes on sheet E002.ഀ
Energy Code Review:ഀ
Envelope Com Checkഀ
47. The IECC requires all conditioned spaces to be included in the building envelope. The parkingഀ
garage and storage areas are being heated. We are unable to determine the areas used in the COMഀ
check for conditioned spaces. Provide calculations for all areas used in the envelope COM check.ഀ
See attached Envelope Compliance Certificate.ഀ
48. The separate occupancies within the building "area categories" should be used on the Com check.ഀ
These areas shall be identified by activity type and there corresponding square footage.ഀ
See attached Envelope Compliance Certificate.ഀ
49. The information shown in section 3 for construction assemblies is incomplete. Roof, door and anyഀ
skylight assemblies are not shown. In addition please document insulation..use_d tr, nh ain rontinttnttഀ
"R" values for the exterior wall, basement wall, and slab on grade. Wear un _ Yt r ~_usഀ
areas on perimeter measurements without a precise description of the b ildinഀ
See attached Envelope Compliance Certificate.ഀ
! ! ► 1 2006ഀ
C:\DOCUME-t\dhopp\LOCALS-l\Temp\E -Response to ToV-b06-0022 thru b06-0029.DOC Pagt'9 FRTIONഀ
50. Stair and elevator shaft vents, and other dampers integral to the building envelope shall be equippedഀ
with motorized dampers. Clarify plans to meet this requirement.ഀ
Dampers have been added. Refer to sheets M111 through M163.ഀ
51. Are there concrete foundation walls exposed to the exterior and has this been factored into the comഀ
check. Plans indicate a ten foot wall ten feet below grade.ഀ
See attached Envelope Compliance Certificate.ഀ
Mechanical Corn Checkഀ
52. The IECC requires all conditioned spaces to be included in the building envelope. The parkingഀ
garage and storage areas are being heated. We are unable to determine the areas used in the COMഀ
check for conditioned spaces. Provide calculations for all areas used in the envelope COM check.ഀ
See attached Envelope Compliance Certificate.ഀ
53. The mechanical system list is incomplete for all areas which have conditioned space. Please provideഀ
more information.ഀ
See attached Envelope Compliance Certificate.ഀ
54. Provide load calcs per 1997 ASHRAE fundamentals or equivalent.ഀ
See attached Load Calcs for your reference.ഀ
55. See item six of mechanical comments (outside air). Include in mechanical COM check.ഀ
Not required. See response to item six of mechanical comments 40).ഀ
Electrical Energy Checkഀ
56. There is insufficient information to show compliance with IECC section 805.5.ഀ
Comcheck calculations shall be issued with revised documents.ഀ
Structural Comments:ഀ
See attached Structural Comments from Monroe & Newell Engineers.ഀ
Contact Person:ഀ
Matthew Royerഀ
Building Official/ Project Managerഀ
Colorado Inspection Agencyഀ
970-328-1790ഀ
matt.rover@coinspect.comഀ
Plans Examiners and Engineers:ഀ
Barry Kramer- Building Officialഀ
Todd Dunkin- Electrical Plans Examinerഀ
Dennis Lohmeier- Plumbing Plans Examinerഀ
Duskin Lowe- Plans Examinerഀ
James P. Horne, P.E., S.E. - Structural Review Project Managerഀ
C:AD000ME-I\dhopp\LOCALS-I\TempAE- Response to ToV-b06-0022 thru b06-0029.DOC Page 10 of 10ഀ
REVIEWED Bഀ
MEC lag ! COLORADO lPJ PECTIONഀ
AGENCY AGENCY TO:ഀ
EMAIL:ഀ
FAXഀ
Constructionഀ
Thompsonഀ
NUMBER OF PAGES:ഀ
FROM:ഀ
DATE:ഀ
BUILDING PERMITഀ
OWNERS NAME:ഀ
SITE ADDRESS:ഀ
SUBDIVISION:ഀ
OCCUPANCY GROUP:ഀ
TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION:ഀ
NUMBER OF STORIES:ഀ
Architectഀ
4220ഀ
Randy Hartഀ
rhart@4240arch.comഀ
Engineerഀ
Monroe & Newell Engഀ
15ഀ
Matthew Royerഀ
03/10/2006ഀ
B06-0022 thru B06-0029ഀ
Vail Resorts Co.ഀ
Building W i5ഀ
Mill Creekഀ
S-2, R-3ഀ
I-A, V-Bഀ
4ഀ
The design documents submitted for this project have been reviewed for compliance with the locallyഀ
adopted codes and amendments. The following comments must be addressed before a buildingഀ
permit is issued.ഀ
For processing:ഀ
Please submit (2) complete sets of revised construction documents containing the requestedഀ
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 aഀ
response letter. Indicate which plan sheet, detail, specification, or calculation shows theഀ
requested information. Please send revisions to the attention of the plans examiner with theഀ
building permit application number noted.ഀ
Responses such as "will comply with code" are not adequate. Revised drawings mustഀ
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 detailsഀ
and structural sheets of the plans. For commercial or multi-family projects all sheets of the plansഀ
must be stamped.ഀ
CA\Documents and Settings\mroyerWy Documents\Plan Review\Front Door\tov-b06-0022 thru b06-0029.DOC Page 1 of 15ഀ
BUILDING DEPARTMENT COMMENTS:ഀ
REVIEWED BYഀ
JUIഀ
1. Land Swap with US Forest Service must be complete prior to final approval and issuance of theഀ
Building Permit.ഀ
2. When plans are resubmitted for review; complete sets of plans for each building which includes theഀ
addendum sheets. Separate addendum packets will not be accepted and approved for initialഀ
permitting.ഀ
3. Preliminary plan review meetings had discussion regarding the submittal of Memorandum ofഀ
Understandings (MOU). MOU's defined in these meetings would be "used to define or clarify the useഀ
of a code section, agreement to the installation of a system not covered specifically by the code orഀ
clarify the use or component of a building. None of the agreed upon MOU's were submitted forഀ
review. Please provide the following MOU's for review:ഀ
a) Use of assumed property lines and fire separation distance.ഀ
b) Fire command roomഀ
c) Smoke management systemഀ
d) Opening between parking garage and Lodge Tower parking garageഀ
e) Fire separation between the new building and existing buildingsഀ
f) Use of 508.2 for creating separate buildings as it relates to each buildingഀ
g) The separation between One Vail Place and new Skier Servicesഀ
4. Preliminary plan review submittal meetings had discussion regarding the submittal of Administrativeഀ
Modifications (AM). AM's as defined in these meetings would be based on International Buildingഀ
Code Section 104.10. Where practical difficulties are involved in carrying out the provision of thisഀ
code, a modification to the code may be granted by the building official after justification that theഀ
modification will not lesson health, accessibility, life and fire safety, or structural requirements. Theഀ
following AM's have been discussed and are being implemented into the plans. Please provide theഀ
following or amend plans accordingly to comply with the code.ഀ
a) Separation between Chalet buildingsഀ
b) Elimination of elevator smoke doors at residential levels of the Chalet buildingsഀ
5. Be sure to amend the Fire & Life Safety Report as necessary when changes are made to the plansഀ
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 assumedഀ
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 doesഀ
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 purposeഀ
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 wallsഀ
identified as fire walls between the different building and spaces. Our interpretation of this section isഀ
that once the 3 hour separation is used to make a separate building then everything that is notഀ
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. Pleaseഀ
amend plans to include the following:ഀ
a) Accessible parking spaces and loading zones.ഀ
CADocuments and Settings\mroyer\My Documents0an ReviewWront Door\tov-b06-0022 thru b06-0029.DOC Page 2 of 15ഀ
REVIEWED BYഀ
b) Accessible route from the parking and loading zones to the bഀ
c) Accessible routes to each building on the site which are requഀ
d) Signage details for parking, striping, routes, restrooms, etc.ഀ
e) Restroom details for fixtures, grab bars and accessories.ഀ
ligs"ഀ
to bye accessible.ഀ
COLORADOഀ
AGENCYഀ
10. Amend plans to include stair signage plan, details and identify the location of the signage. Many ofഀ
the exit enclosures require the occupants to travel up to get to exit discharge. Clearly identify theഀ
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 theഀ
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 inഀ
accordance with IBC Section 715.3.5.3ഀ
13. Clearly identify the location of safety glazing per IBC Chapter 24 either in the window schedule or onഀ
the plan.ഀ
14. The size of main elevator cars used for fire/emergency access needs to be determined by the Townഀ
of Vail Building and Fire Departments. Standard 24" x 76" required by code will not accommodate theഀ
stretchers used by emergency personnel. Please confirm the required size.ഀ
Architectural Comments:ഀ
15. Floor plan on sheets A111 & A113 show units 1 A and 1 B with elevators 10 and 11. Elevators 10 andഀ
11 serve Units 3A and 3B. Revise plans.ഀ
16. Floor plan on sheet A122 lists Bldg 2 and Bldg 4's elevators in the same shaft. Revise plans to reflectഀ
elevators in the correct units.ഀ
17. Code Summary sheets G023, 024, 025, 026, 027 show two units 3A. Revise planഀ
18. Assumed property lines shown on "G" general sheets are close enough to the units to possiblyഀ
require fire rating of walls. Provide a precise site plan showing exact locations of assumed propertyഀ
lines.ഀ
19. Sheet G 023 shows the travel distance from the residential units passing through the garage andഀ
using the garage travel distance of 400 feet as the criteria. The limit for travel distance is based onഀ
the occupancy not the occupancy you pass through to get to an exit. The maximum travel distance forഀ
residential occupancies with an approved sprinkler system is 250 feet. Revise plans to reflect theഀ
correct design distance per the occupancy served.ഀ
20. The mechanical level above the parking garage has been classified as a mezzanine. This spaceഀ
exceeds 1/3 of the square footage of the parking garage. Reclassify the space as a second story andഀ
revise code analysis and plans to reflect change.ഀ
21. The LSR states that there will be a 3 hour fire separation from the parking garage to the residentialഀ
units both horizontally and vertically. The vertical separation is shown as a one hour on the plans andഀ
the parking garage does not have a complete separation from the mechanical room on the floorഀ
above. Sheet G023 and 024 don't show stair ES02 as a rated assembly nor does it list a wall type.ഀ
Sheet M010 shows the wall type as an "R" wall assembly which is shown as a 2 hour wood framedഀ
party wall on sheet A 600. If the ceiling of the parking garage is being used for the 3 hour separationഀ
then the stairs going to the 2nd floor mechanical room from the garage and the large opening for theഀ
garage ventilation must be protected. Add opening protection to the garage ceiling below theഀ
CADocuments and Settings\mroyer\My Documents\Plan Review\Front Door\tov-b06-0022 thru b06-0029.DOC Page 3 of 15ഀ
Mഀ
fഀ
mechanical room or revise plans showing extent of three hour separation to include ceiling ofഀ
mechanical room.ഀ
22. Fire rating of exterior walls of the dwelling units has been removed on the addendum with a note toഀ
coordinate with the life safety report. LSR states on the conclusion # 5 that "The exterior walls of theഀ
two-dwelling areas constructed as one-hour rated from the inside only and that unprotected openingsഀ
on these walls be unlimited in area. "This in accordance with Section 704.5 of the 2003 IBC andഀ
footnote f of table 704.8 of the 2003 IBC." Will these walls be constructed as one-hour rated protectedഀ
from the inside? Coordinate plans with LSRഀ
23. Addendum # 1 has changed location of rated walls separating the parking garage from adjoiningഀ
spaces. Addendum has added separation to the storage areas in the garage but not the elevatorഀ
machine rooms. The elevator machine rooms do however have 90 min rated doors shown on theഀ
schedule. The now rated storage rooms don't have protected openings. Coordinate door scheduleഀ
with wall construction for all spaces being separated from the parking garage.ഀ
24. 2 hour party wall shows an STC rating of 66 and references WB 382 for the assembly. LSRഀ
references WP 3820 which has an STC of 55 to 59. Clarify.ഀ
25. Window types on sheet A 610 label egress windows as E2. These windows are located in the diningഀ
room. Bedrooms have windows labeled as E. All spaces used for bedrooms shall have one windowഀ
approved for egress purposes. Amend plans to locate an egress window in all bedrooms.ഀ
26. Show compliance with section 707.11 where boiler vents enter rated shaftഀ
27. Rated shaft called out on sheet A105 and M010. No wall detail has been called for this assembly.ഀ
Provide detail of listed 2 hour assembly for the boiler vent shaft.ഀ
28. Sheet A700 stair detail 3 shows DN direction opposite of detail 1, 2 and floor plan sheetഀ
A103,105,107.ഀ
29. Sheet A 103 & 107 reference cross section at grid between J.6 and HA as detail 2 on sheet A306.ഀ
There is no sheet 306 provided. Revise detail to correct sheet or provide sheet A306.ഀ
30. Provide smoke door assemblies per section 715.3.5.3 at all elevators doors.ഀ
31. Update plans to show ventilation and access to void space between dwelling unitsഀ
1203.3)ഀ
32. Provide ventilation to crawlspace areas in units. (IBC 1203.3)ഀ
33. Provide details for protection of under stair areas in units if there is useable beneatഀ
1019.1.2)ഀ
AGENCY Iഀ
34. Life Safety Report references the construction of the party wall between units as providing additionalഀ
protection because the wall is being constructed as a two hour assembly. LSR states that the wall willഀ
continue to and terminate at the underside of the roof sheathing. This detail is not reflected on theഀ
plans in fact it is shown stopping the wall at the underside of the rafters. Please coordinate the plansഀ
with the LSR continuing the wall to the roof sheathing. Provide detail for roof ventilation as wall toഀ
deck will eliminate ridge vent.ഀ
❑ LSR also states that they are utilizing section 705.7 of the 2003 IBC for combustible membersഀ
entering the rated assembly at the party wall. The referenced section (705.7) is part of section 705ഀ
"Fire Walls". This section is a very prescriptive commentary on the construction of fire walls one ofഀ
which "705.3" states "Fire Walls shall be of any approved noncombustible materials. Sectionഀ
CADocuments and Settings\mroyer\My Documents\Plan Review\Front Door\tov-b06-0022 thru b06-0029.DOC Page 4 of 15ഀ
vഀ
705.7 is not applicable to the assembly being shown on the plans because of the combustibleഀ
framing members used in the construction of the wall. Revise plans removing all framing membersഀ
from entering the party wall or change the construction of the wall to meet section 705.3.ഀ
The Chalet residences are not exempt from the requirements of accessible units. Per IBC Sectionഀ
3104.2 exception 2 requires that connected buildings shall be considered as one building for theഀ
purpose of calculating the number of type B units is required by IBC Chapter 11. Amend plan toഀ
comply with Chapter 11. Provide all details, specifications, parking, accessible routes, etc. whichഀ
would clearly show compliance with IBC for accessibility.ഀ
Mechanical Comments:ഀ
35. Provide manufacturers specs on fireplaces used in the residences. If fireplaces are open front andഀ
capable of burning wood all shafts for the vents must be constructed as 1 hour rated assemblies.ഀ
Decorative shroud must be listed for installation with the appliance.ഀ
36. Sheet M102 shows a 14 x 14 duct off of FCU-E-1 between grid 30 & 31 penetrating the garageഀ
ceiling with no fire damper. If ceiling of garage is used to provide separation per section 508.2 2003ഀ
IBC a fire damper shall be added.ഀ
37. Air supply ducts to vestibules do not have fire/smoke dampers where the fire rated assembly isഀ
penetrated. Add dampers per section 716 2003 IBC.ഀ
38. Schedule for FCU's only list four units. Dwelling units listed are unit 1 A and 5b. All thirteen units haveഀ
FCU's. Revise schedule to reflect all equipment used.ഀ
39. Sheet M121 detail 3 shows 4 elevators in two shafts. Amend plans to reflect correct elevators inഀ
shafts for the correct units.ഀ
40. FCU's serving dwelling units are not being provided with outside air. How will floors without naturalഀ
ventilation be provided with the required air from the outside.ഀ
Electrical comments:ഀ
41. Clearance required to all electrical panels-electrical closets in residences not to be used asഀ
coat/clothes closets per 110.26. Sheet E161 electrical panels not to be installed in room 6A08 perഀ
240.24(E).ഀ
42. Sheet E002 feeder schedule minimum equipment ground required for feeder 4 is 4/0 per 250.122.ഀ
43. Sheet E002-generator and feed to panel EDP sized for 25% of normal power feed. Why not fullഀ
ampacity of EDP?ഀ
44. Main gear and generator rooms E103 and E202 require panic hardware on both doors from roomsഀ
per 110.26(C)(2).ഀ
45. TVSS to have short circuit rating equal to or greater than available fault current-provide rating andഀ
calculations for tvss. 285.6ഀ
46. Caution signs/visible marking required for heat trace per 426.13. Pleasഀ
for this signage.ഀ
Energy Code Review:ഀ
CADocuments and Settings\mroyerNy Documents\Plan Review\Front Door\tov-b06-0022 thru b06-0029.DOCഀ
L_ 'v Lഀ
Page 5 of 15ഀ
.vഀ
Envelope Corn Checkഀ
47. The IECC requires all conditioned spaces to be included in the building envelope. The parkingഀ
garage and storage areas are being heated. We are unable to determine the areas used in the COMഀ
check for conditioned spaces. Provide calculations for all areas used in the envelope COM check.ഀ
48. The separate occupancies within the building "area categories" should be used on the Com check.ഀ
These areas shall be identified by activity type and there corresponding square footage.ഀ
49. The information shown in section 3 for construction assemblies is incomplete. Roof, door and anyഀ
skylight assemblies are not shown. In addition please document insulation used to obtain continuousഀ
"R" values for the exterior wall, basement wall, and slab on grade. We are unable to verify grossഀ
areas on perimeter measurements without a precise description of the building envelope.ഀ
50. Stair and elevator shaft vents, and other dampers integral to the building envelope shall be equippedഀ
with motorized dampers. Clarify plans to meet this requirement.ഀ
51. Are there concrete foundation walls exposed to the exterior and has this been factored into the comഀ
check. Plans indicate a ten foot wall ten feet below grade.ഀ
Mechanical Corn Checkഀ
52. The IECC requires all conditioned spaces to be included in the building envelope. The parkingഀ
garage and storage areas are being heated. We are unable to determine the areas used in the COMഀ
check for conditioned spaces. Provide calculations for all areas used in the envelope COM check.ഀ
53. The mechanical system list is incomplete for all areas which have conditioned space. Please provideഀ
more information.ഀ
54. Provide load calcs per 1997 ASHRAE fundamentals or equivalent. V ~ i=ഀ
. ~N C D BYഀ
55. See item six of mechanical comments (outside air). Include in mechanical COM check.ഀ
Electrical Energy Checkഀ
56. There is insufficient information to show compliance with IECC section 805.5.ഀ
COLORADO INSPECTIONഀ
AGENCYഀ
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 beഀ
comments from this Volume's details in other Volume's comments, and vice versa. Note also that this review and eventualഀ
approval does not permit the violations of any section of the building code, or any other ordinance or State law.ഀ
Many of the comments below apply to all buildings even if not explicitly stated. Please verify applicability of comments toഀ
each building.ഀ
S1. D S101 W-S105 and A101-A107, structural grid does not appear to match the grid systemഀ
provided by the architect, please verify (typical all full vs. partial plans).ഀ
S2. D S103E -unit 5 refers to S152 for framing, however there is no such sheet. Should thisഀ
reference S153 for framing? Please verify.ഀ
CADocuments and Settings\mroyer\My Documents\Plan Review\Front Door\tov-b06-0022 thru b06-0029.DOC Page 6 of 15ഀ
r.ഀ
S3. D S116 - possible mis-marked section cuts. Section 16/S013 cut at grids 7 and H, 4/S015 cutഀ
at grids F & 4.5 and 13/S013 cut at grids F and 2.5 all show roof framing over concrete slab andഀ
walls. These details appear not to apply at the locations cut as there are neither concrete slab norഀ
walls shown on plan at these locations, please verify. For details 4/S013 and 13/S013 this commentഀ
is typical for all buildings.ഀ
S4. D/C S115 - a 3-part 11-7/8" LVL spans between grids C & D approximately at grid 4.4 whichഀ
supports a column from above as well as floor joists. No design of this beam is included in theഀ
calculation package, but the header that supports this beam on grid D has a shorter span and isഀ
designed as W10 steel beam (ref: calc package 1, 4th Floor Framing 1316). Please verify theഀ
adequacy of this LVL beam.ഀ
In addition, section 10/S012 is cut at the header as shows steel WF beams framing into it on eitherഀ
side, but there is only an LVL beam framing into it from one side. This detail should show theഀ
connection of the LVL beam to the WF; alternatively consider the LVL beam should be revised onഀ
plan to be a steel WF.ഀ
S5. C Ref. Building #1, 2nd Floor framing beams 619 (and possibly B11) do not appear to includeഀ
the load from the column located approximately at the intersection of B11 and 1319 (supports 4th floorഀ
framing 1316). This is a point load of approximately 19.9 kips that is not accounted for. Please verify.ഀ
S6. C Please note Ref. Building #1 (vol.1), in general the calculations for the beams are notഀ
provided. A general summary of the loads and reactions are provided, but not the actual calculationഀ
(i.e. 2nd floor beams B11 and B19). Since it is the shear, moment or deflection that controls theഀ
design, we would expect to see this information in the beam summary or the design output of theഀ
program used. Please verify member sizes for strength and serviceability, this information can not beഀ
reviewed at this time. This comment applies to all buildings.ഀ
S7. C Ref. Building #1, roof framing - there does not appear to be a design calculation included forഀ
the rafters spanning between grids F and G.5 or rafters J7 spanning between grids D & F. Pleaseഀ
verify the rafter for strength and serviceability including snow drift and unbalanced snow loads.ഀ
S8. C Ref. Building #1, 4th floor framing (calc page 1) - drifting snow loads do not seem to beഀ
considered at the decks, i.e. joist J9. In addition, joist J9 appears to have stone on it but the deadഀ
load considered is 50psf rather than the 55psf specified by the calculation design criteria.ഀ
S9. D Ref. Building #1, details 1/S013 and 9/S012 - there appears to be an alternate unintendedഀ
load path from the roof to the floor framing. The joists bear on the GL beam shown in 1/S013 andഀ
this wall bears on cantilever joists shown in 9/S012. When the GL beam deflects from the load, theഀ
joists will bear on the wall which will ultimately load the floor joists shown in 9/S012. Please verifyഀ
load path. (Typical all buildings).ഀ
S10. D Ref. S013. Please verify or provide attachment of the eave framing to the ridge beam orഀ
exterior wall has been designed for the required wind uplift forces in sections A,ഀ
r 1~ Bഀ
S11. D Ref 11/S013. Please provide load path intent and attachment for over-iramod dormer framingഀ
in section 11/S013 for both snow load and wind uplift.ഀ
CADocuments and SettingsVnroyer\My Documents\Plan ReviewTront Door\tov-b06-0022 thru b06-0029.DOC t Page 7 of 15ഀ
TIONഀ
REVIEWED BYഀ
4ഀ
S12. D Ref 6/S013. Please clarify the intent of section 6/S013. Is the top Oord~ of the I-joist continuousഀ
over the LVL beam? If not, strapping on top is required.ഀ
iഀ
S13. D Ref 17/S013 It is unclear how the Z-plate interacts with the supported beam? Is the GLBഀ
notched or slotted at the Z-plate so that it can bear on the Z-plate? Also, please clarify the weldsഀ
required.ഀ
S14. D Ref. S159, detail 20/S013 is called out on plan between grids G & H and 1 & 4, but there is noഀ
such detail on S013. Please clarify.ഀ
S15. D S013 Detail 18, please clarify weld required and width of inverted saddle.ഀ
S16. D/LS S013 Detail 5, Simpson A35 clips are specified at the top of the wood columns only. If theഀ
columns are being used as wind girts, the lateral connection at the base of the column should beഀ
specified. Please verify intent and load path.ഀ
S17. D/C S012 Details 12 and 13, in the calculations for B33 and B34 it is assumed the beams workഀ
together, however this detail does not show connection between the beams to them act together.ഀ
Detail 13 does not appear to show a bearing plate under the LVL beam that is located outboard of theഀ
column face, if a bearing plate is not provided does beam B34 have sufficient shear capacity toഀ
support the loads from both beams. Please verify load path and provide more information. Inഀ
addition, there is no positive connection of the saddle shown to the 6-part LVL or the length of saddleഀ
required. Please verify if lags are required and required end distance to edge of 6-part LVL..ഀ
S18. D S011 Detail 4, verify bolt spacing at 2X12 ledgers. It appears that the wood ledger does notഀ
have sufficient capacity to carry loads from longer span with bolt size and spacing provided.ഀ
S19. LS Ref. all plan sheets, specifically the Shear Wall Schedule. Nailing in Type D & E shear wallsഀ
appear to be the same, but E has 16% more capacity. Please explain / verify.ഀ
S20. LS/C Ref. Calc sheet L9, The summation of the distributed loads shown on the building do notഀ
equal the sum of the reactions. This suggests that a careful check of the lateral load path isഀ
necessary. Please explain this apparent discrepancy, and verify other lateral loads equal theഀ
assumed reactions.ഀ
S21. LS Ref all wood framed levels. Perforated wood shear walls appear to be used at the upper levelsഀ
of the building. However, detailing of collectors and connections of diaphragm to collectors andഀ
collectors to shear wall segments seem to be neglected. Please provide the required constructionഀ
details to satisfy the assumed load path.ഀ
S22. LS Ref Detail 9/S012. It seems additional detailing is required to transfer shear collected in theഀ
wall above over to the wall below. Please provide the load path and/or detailing required.ഀ
CADocuments and Settings\mroyer\My Documents\Plan Review\Front Door\tov-b06-0022 thru b06-0029.DOC Page 8 of 15ഀ
S23. LS/C Ref Hold down calculations for Buildings 1, 2, specifically sheets L14, L1 9,L23, and L28.ഀ
Hold-down calculations show a constant shear wall height of 8'-0". However, rake walls at top storyഀ
will average much higher than 8'-0". The all the walls on the 2nd and third levels are closer to 9'-0"ഀ
tall. Some hold-downs and strapping seem inadequate, please verify.ഀ
S24. LS Ref. 4th Level plan sheets, 9 & 12/S012, Please provide detail of attaching strapping whereഀ
shear walls do not align vertically.ഀ
S25. LS Ref. S113, near Grids D2. Please provide attachment of MST60 strap to steel beam. Verifyഀ
the steel beam has been designed for the boundary element reactions in both directions.ഀ
S26. LS Ref. S113 Unit B Shear wall spanning from Grid F to D. The shear wall above seems to beഀ
terminated at this level. Verify the wood diaphragm is adequate to transfer this shear to the exteriorഀ
concrete wall. Also, provide the detailing of the attachment of the shear wall to the diaphragm andഀ
the diaphragm to the concrete wall allowing for the transfer of this shear.ഀ
S27. LS Ref Detail 16/S013. The short wood wall seems to require sheathing to transfer shear fromഀ
diaphragm to concrete elevator core. Please add sheathing if this is the intent.ഀ
S28. LS Ref. S013. Please provide detailing on the attachment of the diaphragm at the ridge beamഀ
allowing the diaphragm to be modeled as a continuous diaphragm in detail 5, at the valley beam inഀ
detail 4, and the step shown in detail 12.ഀ
S29. LS/F Ref S11 & 2/ S003:. The elevator core's overturning moment is resolved with the use ofഀ
epoxied dowels into the bedrock. Also, epoxy dowels are used to drag forces from concrete wallsഀ
into the supporting soil. Please provide in writing geotechnical engr's acceptance of this lateral loadഀ
path. Provide documentation that this connection detail is an IBCO tested and approved method,ഀ
also it seems that a specific epoxy should be identified for this unique application. It is our opinionഀ
that of Ag*fy for a #8 bar embedded into gravel & sandstone seems questionable. In addition, sheetഀ
S101 W says dowels are 3'-0 long vs. 2'-0" in the detail. Also, consider differential settlementഀ
issues. (Volume 2 comments)ഀ
S30. DC/LS/F Ref S160. Please verify that the dead load (wet concrete stage & post-cure) of theഀ
elevator and the major bearing lines of building 6 and the overturning forces of the elevator core wereഀ
taken into account when designing the concrete tunnel lid. The calculations are unclear and appearഀ
not to include these large dead point loads.ഀ
S31. F/DC Ref. all foundation plans. Please provide locations of all shoring walls and state whetherഀ
they are temporary or permanent structures such that a proper understanding of the lateral soil forcesഀ
may be achieved.ഀ
S32. F/DC Ref Mezz & Garage Plans. Please verify that the wet weight of concrete walls and slabsഀ
above and all construction live loads have been taken into account d-rang- M iഀ
mezzanine and garage slabs. Calculations are unclear. -v BYഀ
_ഀ
CADocuments and Settings\tnroyer\My Documents\Plan Review\Front Door\tov-b06-0022 thru b06-0029.DOC Page 9 of 15ഀ
~u ~ruoi" IlUidഀ
I arGnicvഀ
rഀ
S33. F Ref. Details 4&6/S002. Calculations show trapezoidal loads on full height of walls. However, partഀ
of the wall will actually have a trapezoidal load in the other direction and the sloped slab will cause aഀ
point load on the continuous vertical wall. The reinforcement detailing at the intersection of theഀ
sloped horizontal slab and the vertical wall shown in the sections seems to create a hinge in theഀ
vertical wall as the required reinforcement form the calculations does not pass through thisഀ
intersection. Suggest also consider the relative stiffness between the roof slab over the walkway vs.ഀ
the large concrete beam over 30 ft. span. Please address.ഀ
S34. D/LS/C Ref Calculation pages L25,L29. It seems that the 4th level reaction on elevator shear wallഀ
calculations should be 4354# (from L25) rather than 3840# as shown on L29. Please verify.ഀ
S35. LS/C Ref S112. The reaction of the horizontal concrete beam along Grid 9 spanning from Grid J toഀ
G seems to be neglected in the elevator core calculations. Please verify.ഀ
S36. F Ref S105, 1/A301 Bldg 2. The overhung corner of Building 2 on the mezzanine lid level, bestഀ
shown in section 1/A301, seems to cause significant moment into the exterior garage wall. Noഀ
calculations or detailing could be located for this condition. Please verify the wall is designed forഀ
bending.ഀ
S37. F Ref S1 03E, 1/A302 Bldg 5. The overhung corner of Building 5 is supported by a foundation wallഀ
that is bearing on soil retained by a lower shoring wall. Has the lower shoring wall been designed forഀ
the surcharge loading the wall imposes? It appears that the shoring walls are a design-build item onഀ
the project, not designed be the EOR, however the shoring engineer will need to know what theഀ
surcharge requirements are at all areas. Also, typically shoring walls will tend to move somewhat,ഀ
especially soil nailed walls. Has differential settlement between the two different foundation systemsഀ
been addressed at this two-tier condition?ഀ
S38. F Ref 5&6/A304. Concrete retaining walls are bearing directly on structural foam. Verify theഀ
bearing pressure at the toe of the footing is less than the foam's allowable pressure. Ooordiriate withഀ
Volume 1 and 2 comments.ഀ
S39 D S001 Section 2&3 (sim.):ഀ
a) Grids A&B do not seem correct, pis verify.ഀ
b) This deep concrete beam is CB 18 according to plan S103W, suggest coordinate scheduleഀ
% detail reinf., clarify.ഀ
c) See 1/S001 for wall reinf & footing information. Details do not seem similar.ഀ
S40 D S001 Section 8- Plan Section: ACI requires single leg (hairpin) ties when space between Vt.ഀ
Beam exceeds 6". Pis check.ഀ
S41 D S001 Section 4:ഀ
a) Cont angle supporting stone, should it be galvanized? Pis verify (typical all angle exposed toഀ
earth)ഀ
CADocuments and Settings\mroyer\My Documents\Plan Review\Front Door\tov-b06-0022 thru b06-0029.DOC Page 10 of 15ഀ
rഀ
b) Verify hook length & embedment at #5 dowel - this is not a std. hook & does not appearഀ
developed. (sim at 1/S001.)ഀ
S42 F S002 Section 1: Verify where this section cut is called out on S1 03W - isn't this a driveway?ഀ
S43 F S002 Section 3: All elevator pits seem to require sumps; verify drainage requirements.ഀ
S44 F S002 Section 6:ഀ
a) This section indicates a large concrete beam with 27 #7 Hz bars. This beam does notഀ
appear on any plan, please checkഀ
b) Clarify the purpose of this beam - see comment S33.ഀ
c) Clarify how 6/S002 interacts with C131.ഀ
d) Section indicates bars T&B; plan shows bars at bot. only - please verify & suggestഀ
coordinate plan and details.ഀ
S45 D S002 Section 7: This section is cut at Line B on sheet S110 which is a foundation plan, howeverഀ
this section does not indicate a footing as shown on S110.ഀ
S46 LS 8/S002: Provide lateral connection at top of CMU wall for 5 psf internal pressure.ഀ
S47 F S002 Section 10:ഀ
a) Cuts on S110, s111, S101 W - plans S111 & S101 W seems to show a stair which is not evidentഀ
in the section, pls review.ഀ
b) The beam shown in the detail does not seem to be on the plans, pls define:--- -ഀ
',A:ViEWED BYഀ
S48 - not usedഀ
S49 - not used COLORADO INSPECTIONഀ
AGENCYഀ
S50 F S002 Section 12: The upper planter walls are not evident on any structural plan. Pls check.ഀ
Verify line load is considered for slab design.ഀ
S51 S002 Section 12, 13, 14: Verify numbering with plan call outs.ഀ
S52 DC S002 section 14: Consider ground snow load for grade level slab design; apply snow drift dueഀ
to bldg. geometry (see vol. 2 comments, similar)ഀ
S53 not usedഀ
CA\Documents and SettingAraroyer\My Documents\Plan Review\Front Door\tov-b06-0022 thru b06-0029.DOC Page 11 of 15ഀ
Vഀ
S54 D S003 Section 9 & 10 & 4-10/S011: Verify temporary shoring below slab during casting ofഀ
concrete walls is not req'd.ഀ
REVIEVk,ഀ
S55 - not usedഀ
S56 LS S011 4.S011: Verify typical ledger is adequate for gravity plus lateraljloads-fwind, seismic, &ഀ
unbalanced soil)ഀ
S57 D S001 Section 9:ഀ
a) Vertical reinforcing in outside face is not identified.ഀ
b) Verify #10 corner bars meet minimum cover requirements; what is the function of this #10?ഀ
S58 F/LS S012 17/S012: Verify plan cuts are correct; verify dowels/pedestal is designed for shears &ഀ
moments from wind loads as applicable.ഀ
S59 D S0013 Section 14& 15: Have these thin structural slabs been checked for bending & punchingഀ
shear?ഀ
S60 D S0013 Section 19: Plan note 5 says see 13/S013 for cap slab reinforcing. 13/013 for cap slabഀ
reinforcing. 13/S013 identifies a 6" slab. There does not appear to be a structural plan of these,ഀ
please check.ഀ
S61 LS 4&5/S013: Verify diaphragm continuity; provide valley or ridge pl or clips as required.ഀ
S62 D 15/S013: Detail notes "pack below bearing plate with non-shrink grout." The IBC requires 1"ഀ
stand off from concrete. Also, Simpson does not indicate higher loads are permissible byഀ
grouting underneath. Please comment.ഀ
S63 D/LS S101 W: 1'-6x V-0 column near grid 25 with (6) #9 Vt. Bars needs a tie pattern detail (typicalഀ
where not identified.)ഀ
S64 F S101 W: Footing shown on plan seems to be off center for the 8" conc wall, but in the wrongഀ
direction. PLs check (13/S002, 12/S002)ഀ
S65 F S101 W: Concrete piers near gridline 27 are not identified, size, rebar, ties, etc.ഀ
S66 D S101 W Section 8/S002 cut at column 27-L.1 is not correct. Suggest fix all detail numberingഀ
errors btwn plans & details.ഀ
CADocuments and Settings\nvoyer\My Documents\Plan Review\Front Door\tov-b06-0022 thru b06-0029.DOC Page 12 of 15ഀ
s ,ഀ
S67 F S101 W: Refer to L.1 Line 32-31 Plan says V-6 deep footing with #5 at V-0 ea way. Are theseഀ
rebar top or bottom or both? Also what is the top ftg elev. Ftg at west end seems to be at 8208'-ഀ
10 while the footing at east end is at 8192'-5, which reflects at 16'-0+/- difference. Pis verify.ഀ
S68 F S101 W: Ftg at 31 L.1 is this a type B footing? Pis define.ഀ
S69 - not usedഀ
S70 D S101 W: Refer to 10/S002 cut 10'-0 north of N.8 & west of line 32ഀ
seem to reflect plan conditions - please clarify.ഀ
REVIEWED B\i%.ഀ
Fഀ
on 61 10/S002 does notഀ
S71 D S101 W: Refer to hatched area at N.8-29.5 Hatch is not identified, please clarify.ഀ
S72 F S101 W: Refer to section 19/S012. Plan does not reflect concrete slabs shown in 9/S012.ഀ
S73 F S101 W: Tower crane footing reinforcing does not meet minimum temp & shrinkage ratio ofഀ
0.0018. Verify crane over turning has been included in the design of this footing, with theഀ
appropriate factors of safety, consider wind loading.ഀ
S74 F S101 W: Refer to plan at line 28 north of line Q1. Plan says " re 13/S011 for landscape retainingഀ
wall info", although there are no such retaining walls shown, pis verify.ഀ
S75 D S101 W: Refer to conc cols either side of a 22'-2 opening btwn 26 & 25 on skewed wall, Planഀ
says (6) #6 vertical w/#3 ties at 10". It seems the size and tie pattern of these columns needs toഀ
be defined.ഀ
S76 F S101 E: A note between 22 7 23 says "Footings adjacent to the tunnel must bear on bedrockഀ
assumed to be between 8180 & 8190'-field verify" Clarify bearing requirements for footingsഀ
North of the tunnel and over the tunnel as this material will be fully excavated for parking garageഀ
and tunnel construction.ഀ
S77 D S5103W: Address any similar issues from vol. 2 comments regarding concrete beam & slabഀ
designs, i.e. verify compression width of a conc beams & girders account for the many variousഀ
slab steps, typical all levels. Similar other concrete design comments.ഀ
S78 - not usedഀ
S79 D S5103W - Section 7/S003: Cut between H2 & J.5, east of line 29 does not seem to reflectഀ
actual plan conditions, please review this & all other section cuts. Also, #6 @ 6" top bars overഀ
beam CB20 will not work if there is a significant slab step as shown in 7/S003.ഀ
CADocuments and Settings\mroyer\My Documents\Plan ReviewWront Door\tov-b06-0022 thru b06-0029.DOC Page 13 of 15ഀ
S80 D S5103W: Beam CB8 at line 31 btwn LA and J.5 seems to frame to the un-shaded columnഀ
discussed in item above. Is his correct? It would appear that beam CB13 will have a prohibitiveഀ
shear due to this situation. PLs review. Verify torsion in beam CB13 & in the column above andഀ
below due to different shear reactions from the beams on opposite sides near the support.ഀ
S81 F/D S103E: Refer to 8" structural slab btwn 22 & 21.4 south of M1: please indicate reinforcing.ഀ
S82 D S105: Refer to bms on line LA between 31 & 29 these beams need a mark & a design. Also,ഀ
detail 11/S002 does not seem to indicate such beams. Please clarify the drawings. Verifyഀ
torsion is considered at these edge beams.ഀ
S83 D S105: What is thickness of structural slab? Please define.ഀ
S84 D S105: Refer to col adjacent to elevator at J.5 at 31. It appears that there are (2) indications ofഀ
this column. Pis review and resolve. Similar to comment S80, verify shear and torsion in thisഀ
beam and column. Note it appears that the bearing wall above is off - line of the girderഀ
Pease verify this has been considered in slab and girder design, there does not appear to beഀ
additional slab reinforcement to account for the eccentricity in loading between wall above andഀ
supporting slab and girder.ഀ
S85 D S105: Refer to stair shown north of H.2 at 29. 1 presume this stair is below the lid. Suggest youഀ
check headroom below beam CB11. Clarify slab opening.ഀ
S86 F/LS S105: Appears portions of walls above overhang the concrete walls and slab south of line H.2.ഀ
Detail 11/S003 does not address this situation; provide a detail and check the load path.ഀ
Consider vertical overturning from shear walls above, ref. S124. Typical all occurrences.ഀ
S87 D S110: Pis clarify grids with sheet S101 W.ഀ
S88 - not usedഀ
-REVIEWED BYഀ
iഀ
COLORADO INSPECTIONഀ
nrGnirvഀ
S89 D S111 - Plans S111 &S112 at Line 9: Refer to rebar callouts at line-9--btwn D& E'where it states -ഀ
#5 at 9" centered in slab. Slab is 6" thk. Thickness given rebar placement is only 3". Verifyഀ
deflections and thickness per ACI Table 9.5A. Note the detail cut at this location (4/S002) showsഀ
a double mat of reinforcing, each way. Define the rebar slab to wall dowels, verify shear frictionഀ
has been properly calculated and defined in the drawings (µ=1.0 vs. g=0.60).ഀ
S90 D S111: Refer comment S6: refer to (3) W10x112 spanning about 27' Verify the deflection inഀ
these shallow beams; also verify that bending in the supporting column due to eccentric load @ഀ
contractor designed shear tab has been considered. Check bearing at wood or concrete wallഀ
below.ഀ
CADocuments and Settings\mroyer\My Documents\Plan Review\Front Door\tov-b06-0022 thru b06-0029.DOC Page 14 of 15ഀ
S91 F S120: Section 17/S012 cut at line H near line 2 indicates a 12x12" concrete column bearing onഀ
some kind of structural slab, however Sheet S120 is a foundation plan. Please showഀ
foundations.ഀ
Please refer to the cover sheet for information and instructions for resubmitting plans. The recheck of plansഀ
usually occurs within 3-5 working days of plan resubmittal. In order to avoid delays please check all requestedഀ
information is included with the resubmitted plans.ഀ
Contact Person:ഀ
Matthew Royerഀ
Building Official/ Project Managerഀ
Colorado Inspection Agencyഀ
970-328-1790ഀ
matt.rover@coinsr)ect.comഀ
Plans Examiners and Engineers:ഀ
Barry Kramer- Building Officialഀ
Todd Dunkin- Electrical Plans Examinerഀ
Dennis Lohmeier- Plumbing Plans Examinerഀ
Duskin Lowe- Plans Examinerഀ
James P. Horne, P.E., S.E. - Structural Review Project Managerഀ
REVIEI~ED BYഀ
i Jഀ
COLORADO INSPECTIONഀ
AGENCYഀ
CADocuments and SettingArnroyer\My Documents\Plan Review\Front Door\tov-b06-0022 thru b06-0029.DOC Page 15 of 15ഀ
COLORADO INSPECTION AGENCY PLAN REVIEW COMMENTSഀ
2nd review comments are shown below the original comment in bold italics. Comments that wereഀ
addressed have been removed from the list.ഀ
TO: Contractorഀ
Hyder Constructionഀ
Doug Thompsonഀ
EMAIL: dthomson(a.hyderinc.comഀ
FAXഀ
NUMBER OF PAGES:ഀ
FROM:ഀ
DATE:ഀ
BUILDING PERMITഀ
OWNERS NAME:ഀ
SITE ADDRESS:ഀ
SUBDIVISION:ഀ
OCCUPANCY GROUP:ഀ
TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION:ഀ
NUMBER OF STORIES:ഀ
Architectഀ
4220ഀ
Randy Hartഀ
rhart(a74240arch. comഀ
Engineerഀ
Monroe & Newell Engഀ
10ഀ
Matthew Royerഀ
05/05/2006ഀ
B06-0022 thru B06-0029ഀ
Vail Resorts Co.ഀ
Building Eഀ
Mill Creekഀ
S-2, R-3ഀ
I-A, V-Bഀ
4ഀ
REVIEWED BYഀ
U L 1 0 2005ഀ
COLORADO INSPECTIONഀ
AGENCYഀ
The design documents submitted for this project have been reviewed for compliance with the locallyഀ
adopted codes and amendments. The following comments must be addressed before a buildingഀ
permit is issued.ഀ
For processing:ഀ
Please submit (5) complete sets of revised construction documents containing the requestedഀ
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 aഀ
response letter. Indicate which plan sheet, detail, specification, or calculation shows theഀ
requested information. Please send revisions to the attention of the plans examiner with theഀ
building permit application number noted.ഀ
Responses such as "will comply with code" are not adequate. Revised drawings mustഀ
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 signatureഀ
registration number and date on the cover page of any structural calculations, all structural detailsഀ
and structural sheets of the plans. For commercial or multi-family protects all sheets of the plansഀ
must be stamped.ഀ
CADocuments and Settings\mroyer\My Documents\Plan Review\Front Door\tov-b06-0022 thru b06-0029.2.DOC Page 1 of 10ഀ
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 exceptഀ
associated building permit application number B06-0018. Of the 14 some have beenഀ
addressed and remove from the list.ഀ
Architectural Comments:ഀ
20. The mechanical level above the parking garage has been classified as a mezzanine. This spaceഀ
exceeds 1/3 of the square footage of the parking garage. Reclassify the space as a second story andഀ
revise code analysis and plans to reflect change.ഀ
Response to item 20 states that the mechanical room has been classified as a story with a 2-ഀ
hour separation between the mechanical and adjoining spaces. How will this be accomplishedഀ
with the large opening in the mechanical room floor not being protected and used for theഀ
exhaust air from the parking garage and the removal of mechanical equipment? Detailഀ
separation of mechanical room from adjoining spaces with the protection of openings.ഀ
21. The LSR states that there will be a 3 hour fire separation from the parking garage to the residentialഀ
units both horizontally and vertically. The vertical separation is shown as a one hour on the plans andഀ
the parking garage does not have a complete separation from the mechanical room on the floorഀ
above. Sheet G023 and 024 don't show stair ES02 as a rated assembly nor does it list a wall type.ഀ
Sheet M010 shows the wall type as an "R" wall assembly which is shown as a 2 hour wood framedഀ
party wall on sheet A 600. If the ceiling of the parking garage is being used for the 3 hour separationഀ
then the stairs going to the 2nd floor mechanical room from the garage and the large opening for theഀ
garage ventilation must be protected. Add opening protection to the garage ceiling below theഀ
mechanical room or revise plans showing extent of three hour separation to include ceiling ofഀ
mechanical room.ഀ
Detail the required fire separation where R-3 residential units are adjacent to S-2 parkingഀ
garage. Clarify whether the separation is driven by the difference in occupancies or theഀ
different types of construction. Also if any portions of these vertical walls support the 3 hourഀ
separation as referenced in Section 508.2 then the walls must have the same rating as theഀ
floor assembly. Include in response required protection of openings based on wallഀ
construction.ഀ
23. Addendum # 1 has changed location of rated walls separating the parking garage from adjoiningഀ
spaces. Addendum has added separation to the storage areas in the garage but not the elevatorഀ
machine rooms. The elevator machine rooms do however have 90 min rated doors shown on theഀ
schedule. The now rated storage rooms don't have protected openings. Coordinate door scheduleഀ
with wall construction for all spaces being separated from the parking garage.ഀ
Detail fire separation or absence thereof at adjoining spaces (elevator machine rooms,ഀ
residential storage units, trash room) and S-2 parking garage. First submittal showed noഀ
separation, addendum showed fire-rated partitions and second submittal has remov. _th~e_.._..,ഀ
separation again. Reference the code sectionsഀ
30. Provide smoke door assemblies per section 715.3.5.3 at all elevators doors. y oഀ
C3ഀ
Uഀ
Fddഀ
Response referenced sheet A700 and A701. There are no notes on these sheetഀ
LLJഀ
this. Revise response to reference correct sheets. z zഀ
e plans to show ventilation and access to void space between dwelling units an Cഀ
31. Updatഀ
0ഀ
1203.3)ഀ
'ഀ
CADocuments and Settings\mroyerWy Documents\Plan ReviewWront Door\tov-b06-0022 thru b06-00292DOC Page 2 of laഀ
Eഀ
How will the under floor areas be accessed to install the 518"X GWB to the underside of theഀ
floor joist. From a constructability standpoint how will 518" GWB be applied to the undersideഀ
of the floor joist in the void spaces where there is very little clearance between the bottom ofഀ
the joist and the concrete below. See sheet A342 Building Section-Building 4.ഀ
34. Life Safety Report references the construction of the party wall between units as providing additionalഀ
protection because the wall is being constructed as a two hour assembly. LSR states that the wall willഀ
continue to and terminate at the underside of the roof sheathing. This detail is not reflected on theഀ
plans in fact it is shown stopping the wall at the underside of the rafters. Please coordinate the plansഀ
with the LSR continuing the wall to the roof sheathing. Provide detail for roof ventilation as wall toഀ
deck will eliminate ridge vent.ഀ
❑ LSR also states that they are utilizing section 705.7 of the 2003 IBC for combustible membersഀ
entering the rated assembly at the party wall. The referenced section (705.7) is part of section 705ഀ
"Fire Walls". This section is a very prescriptive commentary on the construction of fire walls one ofഀ
which "705.3" states "Fire Walls shall be of any approved noncombustible materials. Sectionഀ
705.7 is not applicable to the assembly being shown on the plans because of the combustibleഀ
framing members used in the construction of the wall. Revise plans removing all framing membersഀ
from entering the party wall or change the construction of the wall to meet section 705.3.ഀ
The Chalet residences are not exempt from the requirements of accessible units. Per IBC Sectionഀ
3104.2 exception 2 requires that connected buildings shall be considered as one building for theഀ
purpose of calculating the number of type B units is required by IBC Chapter 11. Amend plan toഀ
comply with Chapter 11. Provide all details, specifications, parking, accessible routes, etc. whichഀ
would clearly show compliance with IBC for accessibility.ഀ
The LSR still states that the 2-hour fire rated wall will extend to and terminate at the undersideഀ
of the roof deck but that is not reflected on the plans. In fact the fire-wall is interrupted at eachഀ
floor level by framing members and then stops at the underside of the rafters. Determine whatഀ
type of wall will be constructed, identify it per code section and detail its construction to meetഀ
the code requirements.ഀ
34aഀ
Reference to section 705.7 in the Ad Min Mod has been removed. Determine what type of wallഀ
will be constructed, identify it per code section and detail its construction to meet the codeഀ
requirements.ഀ
34bഀ
As a result of the meeting held on 05102106 designer will determine feasibility of having allഀ
units comply with the Type B provisions on ANSI 117.1 1998 for accessibility.ഀ
New Architectural Comments:ഀ
57. Sheet A103 and A 105 Balloon States "Wall types not noted for concrete walls. See codeഀ
sheets for rating requirements". Identify what code sheets are being referenced.ഀ
58. Note ll sheet A 155 # 6 of the revision to documents states "revised location of elevator `08'ഀ
Sheet A 155 Floor Plan: unit 5C level 3 shows elevator 16, 17 and 18 with no reference toഀ
elevator 8. This same comment applies to Note mm sheet A157 revision to documents Reviseഀ
statement to address correct elevator or sheetഀ
59. Provide listing for detail S1 and S2 on Sheet A 600. E~ i EVV E D DYഀ
Fഀ
~rnrഀ
CADocuments and Settings\mroyer\My Documents\Plan Review\Front Door\tov-b06-0022 thru b06-00292.DOC Page 3 of 10ഀ
"110Nഀ
60. Sheets A113, 114, 123, 133, 134, 143, 153, and 164 all show "craw/spaces" on the floor plansഀ
with access from the units. The LSR states that TOVFD does not want access to under floorഀ
areas and that they shall be protected with 518 X GWB. Are these crawlspaces included in thatഀ
statement. If they are revise plans to show protection and remove access.ഀ
Mechanical Comments:ഀ
35. Provide manufacturers specs on fireplaces used in the residences. If fireplaces are open front andഀ
capable of burning wood all shafts for the vents must be constructed as 1 hour rated assemblies.ഀ
Decorative shroud must be listed for installation with the appliance.ഀ
Deferred Submittal?ഀ
Energy Code Review:ഀ
Envelope Corn Checkഀ
The Town of Vail recently established the heating degree days and cooling degree days for aഀ
base of 65 degrees. The numbers provided are:ഀ
Heating degree days (base 65 degree F): 9826ഀ
Cooling degree days (base 65 degree F): 3ഀ
l apologize for the notice of these numbers; however I have been instructed to pass thisഀ
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 beഀ
comments from this Volume's details in other Volume's comments, and vice versa. Note also that this review and eventualഀ
approval does not permit the violations of any section of the building code, or any other ordinance or State law.ഀ
Many of the comments below apply to all buildings even if not explicitly stated. Please verify applicability of comments toഀ
each building.ഀ
S3. D S116 - possible mis-marked section cuts. Section 16/S013 cut at grids 7 and H, 4/S015 cutഀ
at grids F & 4.5 and 13/S013 cut at grids F and 2.5 all show roof framing over concrete slab andഀ
walls. These details appear not to apply at the locations cut as there are neither concrete slab norഀ
walls shown on plan at these locations, please verify. For details 4/S013 and 13/S013 this commentഀ
is typical for all buildings.ഀ
M&N Response:ഀ
Please see individual roof framing plans for revised section cut locations. The elevator core wallsഀ
are indicated at each unit. The slabs over elevator cores are not called out on the plans but areഀ
noted on the typical elevator core wall reinforcement detail 19/S013, which refers to the applicableഀ
sections for cap slab construction.ഀ
KL&A, 515106: 131SO13 on S126, S145, S159 still appears to be cut incorrectly as there are noഀ
concrete walls shown on those plans or the plans below. FOR to address as required,ഀ
comment closed.ഀ
REVIEWED BY ;ഀ
C:\Documents and Settings\mroyer\My Documents\Plan ReviewWront Door\tov-b06-0022 thru b06-0029.2.DOC Page 4 of 10ഀ
~uECTIOiVഀ
~ ~~CYഀ
S4. D/C S115 -a 3-part 11-7/8" LVL spans between grids C & D approximately at grid 4.4 whichഀ
supports a column from above as well as floorjoists. No design of this beam is included in theഀ
calculation package, but the header that supports this beam on grid D has a shorter span and isഀ
designed as W10 steel beam (ref: calc package 1, 4th Floor Framing B16). Please verify theഀ
adequacy of this LVL beam.ഀ
In addition, section 10/S012 is cut at the header as shows steel WF beams framing into it on eitherഀ
side, but there is only an LVL beam framing into it from one side. This detail should show theഀ
connection of the LVL beam to the WF; alternatively consider the LVL beam should be revised onഀ
plan to be a steel WF.ഀ
M&N Response:ഀ
LVL beam to be W10x15 as per S124. Section to be 10/S012 Similar. See attachedഀ
Calculations.ഀ
KL&A, 515106: Verify adequacy of connection in 101SO12 for 16.9k load as indicated byഀ
calculations.ഀ
S6. C Please note Ref. Building #1 (vol.1), in general the calculations for the beams are notഀ
provided. A general summary of the loads and reactions are provided, but not the actual calculationഀ
(i.e. 2nd floor beams B11 and B19). Since it is the shear, moment or deflection that controls theഀ
design, we would expect to see this information in the beam summary or the design output of theഀ
program used. Please verify member sizes for strength and serviceability, this information can not beഀ
reviewed at this time. This comment applies to all buildings.ഀ
M&N Response:ഀ
As a single set of similar residences and to provide for ease of construction, beams areഀ
sized for the critical condition and sized the same in similar locations.ഀ
KL&A, 515106; No new beam calculations have been provided for our review. Based on theഀ
EOR's response, we feel that the FOR has reviewed this statement and based the design onഀ
accepted practices and principles of engineering. Comment closed.ഀ
S10. D Ref. S013. Please verify or provide attachment of the eave framing to the ridge beaഀ
exterior wall has been designed for the required wind uplift forces in sections 1, 6, 8, and C wഀ
Lijഀ
M&N Response: ' LU o ~ഀ
Wind uplift has been accounted for in the design.ഀ
Please see sections 1,3 and 4 on sheet S013 which have been revised to clarify thL._ഀ
rafter and blocking attachment to supports.ഀ
KL&A, 515106: There does not appear to be any attachment from the blocking to the rafter,ഀ
please provide attachment.ഀ
CADocuments and Settings\mroyer\My Documents\Plan Review\Front Door\tov-b06-0022 thru b06-0029.2,DOC Page 5 of 10ഀ
• -1ഀ
S17. D/C S012 Details 12 and 13, in the calculations for B33 and B34 it is assumed the beams workഀ
together, however this detail does not show connection between the beams to them act together.ഀ
Detail 13 does not appear to show a bearing plate under the LVL beam that is located outboard of theഀ
column face, if a bearing plate is not provided does beam B34 have sufficient shear capacity toഀ
support the loads from both beams. Please verify load path and provide more information. Inഀ
addition, there is no positive connection of the saddle shown to the 6-part LVL or the length of saddleഀ
required. Please verify if lags are required and required end distance to edge of 6-part LVL..ഀ
M&N Response:ഀ
On the plan view of detail 13/S013, the interior (3) 12" Ivl's running horizontally on theഀ
page cantilever over the column below to pick up the (3) 12" Ivis running vertically onഀ
the page which, in turn, support the outer (3) 12" Ivis running horizontally with aഀ
steel T-plate. Please see added section B-B to this detail to clarify the intent and indicateഀ
connection between LVL plys.ഀ
KL&A, 515106: There still does not appear to be a positive connection where the saddleഀ
hangs from the interior 3-part LVL or where the outer 3-part LVL's are supported by the by theഀ
3-part LVL's running vertical on the page.ഀ
S21. LS Ref all wood framed levels. Perforated wood shear walls appear to be used at the upper levelsഀ
of the building. However, detailing of collectors and connections of diaphragm to collectors andഀ
collectors to shear wall segments seem to be neglected. Please provide the required constructionഀ
details to satisfy the assumed load path.ഀ
M&N Response:ഀ
Perforated wood shear walls not used. Nailing pattern continued for ease of construction.ഀ
KL&A, 515106: if perforated shear walls are not used, several of the shear wall segmentsഀ
(between doors and windows) do not meet the code required aspect ratios. Please verifഀ
shear wall capacity and comment on shear wall lengths assumed in the calcu/ations7ഀ
S22. LS Ref Detail 9/S012. It seems additional detailing is required to transfer shear collectഀ
he oഀ
wall above over to the wall below. Please provide the load path and/or detailing required.ഀ
M Nഀ
Wഀ
oഀ
a}ഀ
zzഀ
M&N Response:ഀ
LUഀ
CD CUDJഀ
Please see revised section 9/S013 reflecting requirements indicated in shear wallഀ
wഀ
oഀ
schedule. Also see revised shear wall schedule indicating typical bottom plate attacഀ
Wഀ
tഀ
"ഀ
to floor sheathing.ഀ
KL&A, 515106: Please provide nailing of sheathing to blocking to complete the lateral loadഀ
path.ഀ
S24. LS Ref. 4th Level plan sheets, 9 & 12/S012, Please provide detail of attaching strapping whereഀ
shear walls do not align vertically.ഀ
CADocuments and Settings\mroyer\My Documents\Plan Review\Front Door\tov-b06-0022 thru b06-0029.2.DOC Page 6 of 10ഀ
M&N Response:ഀ
Please see revised sections 9 and 11 on sheet S012 reflecting location of strap hold-ഀ
downs indicated in shear wall schedule.ഀ
KL&A, 515106: Please provide nailing of sheathing to blocking to complete the lateral loadഀ
path.ഀ
S27. LS Ref Detail 16/S013. The short wood wall seems to require sheathing to transfer shear fromഀ
diaphragm to concrete elevator core. Please add sheathing if this is the intent.ഀ
M&N Response:ഀ
Please see revised section 16/S013 indicating wall sheathing in this areaഀ
KL&A, 515106: The attachment of the 1 -joist blocking to the top plate & attachment ofഀ
sheathing to the 1 -joist blocking is not defined, please show these connections to completeഀ
the load path.ഀ
S28. LS Ref. S013. Please provide detailing on the attachment of the diaphragm at the ridge beamഀ
allowing the diaphragm to be modeled as a continuous diaphragm in detail 5, at the valley beam inഀ
detail 4, and the step shown in detail 12.ഀ
M&N Response:ഀ
In details 4 and 5 /S013, the shear is transferred into the party walls through blocking.ഀ
Please see revised sections 5 and 12/S013 indicating blocking and attachment.ഀ
KL&A, 515106: Please provide nailing of sheathing to blocking to complete the lateral loadഀ
path. Explain the nailing of blocking to glulam in details 5 & 12, and how the shim will affectഀ
the connection.ഀ
S29. LS/F Ref S11 & 2/ S003:. The elevator core's overturning moment is resolved with the use ofഀ
epoxied dowels into the bedrock. Also, epoxy dowels are used to drag forces from concrete wallsഀ
into the supporting soil. Please provide in writing geotechnical engr's acceptance of this lateral loadഀ
path. Provide documentation that this connection detail is an IBCO tested and approved method,ഀ
also it seems that a specific epoxy should be identified for this unique application. It is our opinionഀ
that of Ag*fy for a #8 bar embedded into gravel & sandstone seems questionable. In addition, sheetഀ
S101 W says dowels are 3'-0 long vs. 2'-0" in the detail. Also, consider dillഀ
issues. (Volume 2 comments) 111-VI-WED BYഀ
M&N Response:ഀ
J U L 10 2006ഀ
Please see attached letter from geotechnical engineer indicating val es f r #8 barsഀ
epoxy-grouted into bed rock. The allowable lateral loads are based n the Maley no erഀ
capacity of the bars in bedrock producing shear friction between the rock surface andഀ
CADocuments and Settings\mroyer\My Documents\Plan Review\Front Door\tov-b06-0022 thru b06-0029,2,DOC Page 7 of 10ഀ
. I 6,ഀ
concrete. Hilti HIT RE 500 epoxy is ICBO approved and is suitable in soft or hardഀ
natural stone and in wet or submerged holes. Please note that these bars may not beഀ
epoxy-grouted into gravel, only competent bedrock as approved by soils engineer. Seeഀ
revised section 2/S003 with revised embedment depth and indication of specific epoxy.ഀ
KL&A, 515106: It appears critical that RE-500 epoxy is identified on the drawings, please canഀ
out the epoxy type in the details. Please explain the increased dowel embedment at theഀ
elevator core West side on S101W. If increased capacity was used for this longer embedment,ഀ
please provide geotechnical approval in writing. Please address the potential corrosion of theഀ
rebar at the interface of bedrock and concrete, suggest a liquid membrane or other means toഀ
protect this location for a few inches up into the concrete. ICC report ESR-1682 for Hild HITഀ
RE-500 does not specifically address the use of this epoxy for embedment in stone; pleaseഀ
confirm that Hild has accepted this usage of this product. We suggest holding a meeting toഀ
discuss and resolve this issue, as required.ഀ
S31. F/DC Ref. all foundation plans. Please provide locations of all shoring walls and state whetherഀ
they are temporary or permanent structures such that a proper understanding of the lateral soil forcesഀ
may be achieved.ഀ
M&N Response:ഀ
The shoring wall is design-build so there are no drawings reflecting the shoring wallsഀ
currently. The plan for the shoring walls is to have a permanent wall along the southഀ
wall of the residential garage and a temporary wall at the west side. Full lateral earthഀ
pressures as indicated in the soils report were used at the west perimeter walls andഀ
reduced values for gravel fill between the building wall and shoring wall were used at theഀ
south side as per the soils report recommendations.ഀ
KL&A, 5/5/06: Verify that movement of the shoring wall compressing into the EPS I gravelഀ
will not overload the chalet structures by forcing soil lateral loads where they have not beenഀ
intended to react. Verify height of gravel has not increased on Architectural sections A301-ഀ
A303 from last set of drawings. See also comment S56.ഀ
S52 DC S002 section 14: Consider ground snow load for grade level slab design; apply snow drift dueഀ
to bldg. geometry (see vol. 2 comments, similar)ഀ
R_E_/fEUU_ED BYഀ
M&N Response:ഀ
Iഀ
Grade level slabs have been designed for 100psf live load. Drifting has no been -ഀ
considered as per Town of Vail's amendment to the 2003 I.B.C. fഀ
OLuFs/.L 0 'i`!SPECTIONഀ
KL&A, 515106: Whether or not drifting loads are seen as applicable, snow 7s sure i~oslide 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 withഀ
calculations that these areas of the lid structure are not overloaded due to locally higherഀ
snow loading.ഀ
C:\Documents and Settings\mroyer\My DocumentsTlan Review\Front Door\tov-b06-0022 thru b06-0029.2.DOC Page 8 of 10ഀ
S56 LS S011 4.S011: Verify typical ledger is adequate for gravity plus lateral loads (wind, seismic, &ഀ
unbalanced soil)ഀ
M&N Response:ഀ
Wind and seismic loads are transferred into concrete walls through anchor bolts andഀ
hold-downs applied to the tops of the walls. Ledgers do not need to contribute toഀ
seismic or wind load resistance. Typical horizontally spanning foundation wallsഀ
designed for unbalanced soil loads or the lower level floor diaphragms are in directഀ
compression due to foundation walls on opposite sides of the diaphragm.ഀ
KL&A, 515106: Ref concrete retaining walls, lines E & 32: These walls are quite long (100+ഀ
feet, etc.) without any wall corners or perpendicular buttress walls, spanning horizontally isഀ
not realistic in terms of the vertical span stiffness and the horizontal span stiffness. Verifyഀ
1 unreinforced nonstructural topping can resist the soil lateral loading as middle spanഀ
support reactions from soil loading are often quite large, on the order of several kips perഀ
foot. Regarding the lateral load transfer issue, due to the stepping /sloping aspect of theഀ
surrounding grade, our concern is that any soil lateral loads in an unbalanced conditionഀ
(higher soil lateral loads at the south side than the north side) would need to be transferredഀ
to the side walls through diaphragm shear, please verify designs.ഀ
S61 LS 4&5/S013: Verify diaphragm continuity; provide valley or ridge pl or clips as required.ഀ
M&N Response:ഀ
Please see response to S28.ഀ
KL&A, 515106: See S28.ഀ
S65 F S101W: Concrete piers near gridline 27 are not identified, size, rebar,ഀ
M&N Response:ഀ
Please see added tie detail on sheet S101W.ഀ
REVIEWED- BYഀ
Yഀ
llf 1 „ , nrഀ
rn' C)RADO INSPECTIONഀ
AGENCYഀ
KL&A, 515106: No tie detail is shown, FOR to verify this information is provided forഀ
construction. Comment closed.ഀ
S79 D S5103W - Section 7/S003: Cut between H2 & J.5, east of line 29 does not seem to reflectഀ
actual plan conditions, please review this & all other section cuts. Also, #6 @ 6" top bars overഀ
beam CB20 will not work if there is a significant slab step as shown in 7/S003.ഀ
M&N Response:ഀ
Please see revised orientation of section cut 7/S003 on sheet S103W. Also see revisedഀ
detail 7/S003 indicating location of top bars indicated on plan.ഀ
CADocuments and Settings\mroyer\My Documents\Plan ReviewWront Door\tov-b06-0022 thru b06-0029.2.DOC Page 9 of 10ഀ
• Y •6ഀ
KL&A, 515106: No. 6 bars are shown straight on the plan, not stepped over the beam fromഀ
slab to slab. Please verify your response.ഀ
S90 D S111: Refer comment S6: refer to (3) W10x112 spanning about 27'+/-. Verify the deflection inഀ
these shallow beams; also verify that bending in the supporting column due to eccentric load @ഀ
contractor designed shear tab has been considered. Check bearing at wood or concrete wallഀ
below.ഀ
M&N Response:ഀ
These steel beams will bear on the columns with a cap plate so there will be no momentsഀ
in the steel columns. See revised plan with added note to this effect. All beam designsഀ
have considered deflection.ഀ
KL&A, 515106: Confirm if web stiffener is required at the W10 beam end, due to column pointഀ
load above. Typical all locations, all buildings.ഀ
Please refer to the cover sheet for information and instructions for resubmitting plans. The recheck of plansഀ
usually occurs within 3-5 working days of plan resubmittal. In order to avoid delays please check all requestedഀ
information is included with the resubmitted plans.ഀ
Contact Person:ഀ
Matthew Royerഀ
Building Official/ Project Managerഀ
Colorado Inspection Agencyഀ
970-328-1790ഀ
matt. rover(&coinsDect.cornഀ
Plans Examiners and Engineers:ഀ
Barry Kramer- Building Officialഀ
Todd Dunkin- Electrical Plans Examinerഀ
Dennis Lohmeier- Plumbing Plans Examinerഀ
Duskin Lowe- Plans Examinerഀ
James P. Horne, P.E., S.E. - Structural Review Project Managerഀ
REVIEWED BYഀ
Lഀ
COLORADO INSPECTIONഀ
AGENCYഀ
CADocuments and Settings\mroyerWy Documents\Plan Review\Front Door\tov-b06-0022 thru b06-0029.2.DOC Page 10 of 10ഀ
rbഀ
Y ~ഀ
I w Jഀ
JUL 0 6 ~CTOWN ®F ~COLORADO INSPECTION AGENCY PLAN REVIEW COMMENTSഀ
2nd review comments are shown below the original comment in bold italics. Comments that wereഀ
addressed have been removed from the list.ഀ
TO: Contractorഀ
Hyder Constructionഀ
Doug Thompsonഀ
EMAIL: dthompson(Oyderinc.comഀ
FAXഀ
NUMBER OF PAGES:ഀ
FROM:ഀ
DATE:ഀ
BUILDING PERMITഀ
OWNERS NAME:ഀ
SITE ADDRESS:ഀ
SUBDIVISION:ഀ
OCCUPANCY GROUP:ഀ
TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION:ഀ
NUMBER OF STORIES:ഀ
Architectഀ
4240ഀ
Randy Hartഀ
rha rt(o4240a rch . comഀ
Engineerഀ
Monroe & Newell Engഀ
10ഀ
Matthew Royerഀ
05/05/2006ഀ
B06-0022 thru B06-0029ഀ
Vail Resorts Co.ഀ
Building Eഀ
Mill Creekഀ
S-2, R-3ഀ
I-A, V-Bഀ
4ഀ
REVIEWED BYഀ
COLORADO INSPECTIONഀ
AGENCYഀ
The design documents submitted for this project have been reviewed for compliance with the locallyഀ
adopted codes and amendments. The following comments must be addressed before a buildingഀ
permit is issued.ഀ
For processing:ഀ
Please submit (5) complete sets of revised construction documents containing the requestedഀ
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 aഀ
response letter. Indicate which plan sheet, detail, specification or calculation shows theഀ
requested information. Please send revisions to the attention of the plans examiner with theഀ
building permit application number noted.ഀ
Responses such as "will comply with code" are not adequate. Revised drawings mustഀ
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 signatureഀ
registration number and date on the cover page of any structural calculations all structural detailsഀ
and structural sheets of the plans. For commercial or multi-family projects all sheets of the plansഀ
must be stamped.ഀ
= Previously answered 05/23/06 as part of partial "Grading and Excavation Permit" package.]ഀ
Page I of 7ഀ
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 exceptഀ
associated building permit application number B06-0018. Of the 14 some have beenഀ
addressed and remove from the list.ഀ
Architectural Comments:ഀ
20. The mechanical level above the parking garage has been classified as a mezzanine. This spaceഀ
exceeds 1/3 of the square footage of the parking garage. Reclassify the space as a second story andഀ
revise code analysis and plans to reflect change.ഀ
Response to item 20 states that the mechanical room has been classified as a story with a 2-ഀ
hour separation between the mechanical and adjoining spaces. How will this be accomplishedഀ
with the large opening in the mechanical room floor not being protected and used for theഀ
exhaust air from the parking garage and the removal of mechanical equipment? Detailഀ
separation of mechanical room from adjoining spaces with the protection of openings.ഀ
See revised sheet G023 and G024.ഀ
• Per 2003 IBC Section 707.2, openings through a floor/ceiling assembly are NOTഀ
required to be protected by a shaft enclosure complying with this section, if theഀ
opening complies with Exception 7. Exception 7 requires that the floor opening complyഀ
with the following:ഀ
7.1. Does not connect more than two stories.ഀ
7.2. Is not part of the required means of egress system except as permitteഀ
Section 1019.1.ഀ
7.3. Is not concealed within the building construction.ഀ
7.4. Is not open to a corridor in Group I and R occupancies. M UDഀ
oഀ
7.5. Is not open to a corridor on nonsprinklered floors in any occupancy.ഀ
~ഀ
7.6. Is separated from floor openings serving other floors by construction Uഀ
LOഀ
conforming to required shaft enclosures. CDഀ
zwഀ
The opening between the Residential Garage Parking Level and the Cooling lqwprഀ
asഀ
Room, on the Mechanical Level above, complies with Exception 7. Therefore the op 55 isഀ
not required to be protected. Lഀ
oഀ
rv°-ഀ
Uഀ
► 21. The LSR states that there will be a 3 hour fire separation from the parking garage to the re identialഀ
units both horizontally and vertically. The vertical separation is shown as a one hour on th4 pഀ
I.aa,s_a dഀ
ഀ
the parking garage does not have a complete separation from the mechanical room on the floorഀ
above. Sheet G023 and 024 don't show stair ES02 as a rated assembly nor does it list a wall type.ഀ
Sheet M010 shows the wall type as an "R" wall assembly which is shown as a 2 hour wood framedഀ
party wall on sheet A 600. If the ceiling of the parking garage is being used for the 3 hour separationഀ
then the stairs going to the 2"d floor mechanical room from the garage and the large opening for theഀ
garage ventilation must be protected. Add opening protection to the garage ceiling below theഀ
mechanical room or revise plans showing extent of three hour separation to include ceiling ofഀ
mechanical room.ഀ
Detail the required fire separation where R-3 residential units are adjacent to S-2 parkingഀ
garage. Clarify whether the separation is driven by the difference in occupancies or theഀ
different types of construction. Also if any portions of these vertical walls support the 3 hourഀ
separation as referenced in Section 508.2 then the walls must have the same rating as theഀ
floor assembly. Include in response required protection of openings based on wallഀ
construction.ഀ
See revised sheets G023, G024, G028, A103, A600 and Building E Door Schedule.ഀ
• Detail of required fire separation is provided on revised sheet G023. In addition, seeഀ
revised sheets A103 and A600 for revised wall ratings and wall types relative to fireഀ
separation revisions made to sheet G023.ഀ
= Previously answered 05123/06 as part of partial "Grading and Excavation Permit" package.]ഀ
Page 2 of 7ഀ
Aഀ
• Clarification has been provided for compliance with occupancy separation, separationഀ
of construction types, and compliance with 2003 IBC Section 508.2 for ratedഀ
construction supporting rated assembly above. See added designation for 3-hr fireഀ
rated construction supporting 3-hr fire rated assembly above on sheet G023, G024, andഀ
G028.ഀ
• See revised door schedule which reflects 3-hr protection for openings in the 3-hr fireഀ
rated wall.ഀ
• Regarding the previously questioned opening in the garage ceiling to the mechanicalഀ
room above, see revised sheet G023 and G024.ഀ
Per 2003 IBC Section 707.2, openings through a floor/ceiling assembly are NOTഀ
required to be protected by a shaft enclosure complying with this section, if theഀ
opening complies with Exception 7. Exception 7 requires that the floor opening complyഀ
with the following:ഀ
7.1. Does not connect more than two stories.ഀ
7.2. Is not part of the required means of egress system except as permitted inഀ
Section 1019.1.ഀ
7.3. Is not concealed within the building construction.ഀ
7.4. Is not open to a corridor in Group I and R occupancies.ഀ
7.5. Is not open to a corridor on nonsprinklered floors in any occupancy. m Qഀ
7.6. Is separated from floor openings serving other floors by construction in oഀ
conforming to required shaft enclosures. Wഀ
0ഀ
The opening between the Residential Garage Parking Level and the Cooli wer-ഀ
Room, on the Mechanical Level above, complies with Exception 7. Thereforഀ
opening is not required to be protected.ഀ
CSCഀ
► 23. Addendum # 1 has changed location of rated walls separating the parking garage from a 'oiniഀ
spaces. Addendum has added separation to the storage areas in the garage but not the elevatorഀ
machine rooms. The elevator machine rooms do however have 90 min rated doors shown onഀ
schedule. The now rated storage rooms don't have protected openings. Coordinate door scheduleഀ
with wall construction for all spaces being separated from the parking garage.ഀ
Detail fire separation or absence thereof at adjoining spaces (elevator machine rooms,ഀ
residential storage units, trash room) and S-2 parking garage. First submittal showed noഀ
separation, addendum showed fire-rated partitions and second submittal has removed the fireഀ
separation again. Reference the code sectionsഀ
See revised sheet G023, G024, A103, and Door Schedule.ഀ
• The Storage Rooms are being classified as Incidental Use Areas per 2003 IBC Sectionഀ
302.1.1. The S-1 Storage Rooms are incidental to the S-2 Residential Parking Garage.ഀ
An automatic fire-extinguishing system is being provided to the S-1 Storage Rooms.ഀ
Therefore, per Table 302.1.1, the S-1 storage rooms are not required to be separatedഀ
from the S-2 Residential Parking Garage.ഀ
• The Trash Room is a Waste Collection Room that is being classified as an Incidentalഀ
Use Areas per 2003 IBC Section 302.1.1. The Trash Room is incidental to the S-2ഀ
Residential Parking Garage. An automatic fire-extinguishing system is being providedഀ
to the Trash Room. Therefore, per Table 302.1.1, the Trash Room is not required to beഀ
separated from the S-2 Residential Parking Garage.ഀ
• Per 2003 IBC Section 3006.4, elevator machine rooms shall be enclosed withഀ
construction having a fire-resistance rating not less than the required rating of theഀ
hoistway enclosure served by the machinery. Therefore, elevator machine rooms areഀ
enclosed a rating not less than 2-hr.ഀ
• The private garages for residences 6A and 6B are Incidental Use Areas per 2003 IBCഀ
Section 302.1.1. The private garage space is incidental to its respective residence.ഀ
Therefore, per Table 302.1.1, with an automatic fire extinguishing system, a one-hourഀ
separation is required between the private garage and its respective residence.ഀ
= Previously answered 05/23/06 as part of partial "Grading and Excavation Permit" package.]ഀ
Page 3 of 7ഀ
► 30. Provide smoke door assemblies per section 715.3.5.3 at all elevators doors.ഀ
Response referenced sheet A700 and A701. There are no notes on these sheets to addressഀ
this. Revise response to reference correct sheets.ഀ
Refer BCER Memorandum of Understanding May 23, 2006: Item #1, Pg. 2.ഀ
31. Update plans to show ventilation and access to void space between dwelling units and garage. (IBCഀ
1203.3)ഀ
How will the under floor areas be accessed to install the 518" `X' GWB to the underside of theഀ
floor joist. From a constructability standpoint how will 518" GWB be applied to the undersideഀ
of the floor joist in the void spaces where there is very little clearance between the bottom ofഀ
the joist and the concrete below. See sheet A342 Building Section-Building 4.ഀ
See revised sheet G028.ഀ
• Void space to be entirely filled with non-combustible insulation conforming to Methodഀ
#7 of the 2002 NFPA 13, Sec. 8.14.1.2, or conform to an alternate method from the 2002ഀ
NFPA 13, Sec. 8.14.1.2, see sheet G021. Therefore, void spaces shall not be protectedഀ
by fire sprinkler. See revised notes on sheets G028. Notes, regarding the void spaces,ഀ
on sheets A301, A304, A321, A341, A342, and A343, have been deleted since they areഀ
repetitive to the notes on sheet G028.ഀ
► 34. Life Safety Report references the construction of the party wall between units as providing additionalഀ
protection because the wall is being constructed as a two hour assembly. LSR states that the wall willഀ
continue to and terminate at the underside of the roof sheathing. This detail is not reflected on theഀ
plans in fact it is shown stopping the wall at the underside of the rafters. Please coordinate the plansഀ
with the LSR continuing the wall to the roof sheathing. Provide detail for roof ventilation as wall toഀ
deck will eliminate ridge vent.ഀ
The LSR still states that the 2-hour fire rated wall will extend to and terminate at the undersideഀ
of the roof deck but that is not reflected on the plans. In fact the fire-wall is interrupted at eachഀ
floor level by framing members and then stops at the underside of the rafters. Determine whatഀ
type of wall will be constructed, identify it per code section and detail its construction to meetഀ
the code requirements.ഀ
Refer BCER Fire & Life Safety Report and Administrative Modification - Building E, Residentialഀ
Chalets: Pg. 12.ഀ
► 34a. LSR also states that they are utilizing section 705.7 of the 2003 IBC for combustible membersഀ
entering the rated assembly at the party wall. The referenced section (705.7) is part of sectionഀ
705 "Fire Walls". This section is a very prescriptive commentary on the construction of fireഀ
walls one of which "705.3" states "Fire Walls shall be of any approved noncombustibleഀ
materials. Section 705.7 is not applicable to the assembly being shown on the plans becauseഀ
of the combustible framing members used in the construction of the wall. Revise plansഀ
removing all framing members from entering the party wall or change the construction of theഀ
wall to meet section 705.3.ഀ
Reference to section 705.7 in the Ad Min Mod has been removed. Determine what typeഀ
of wall will be constructed, identify it per code section and detail its construction toഀ
meet the code requirements.ഀ
Refer BCER Fire & Life Safety Report and Administrative Modification - Building E,ഀ
Residential Chalets: Pg. 12.ഀ
REVIEWED BYഀ
JUL 10 x006ഀ
COLORADO INSPECTIONഀ
= Previously answered 05123106 as part of partial "Grading and Excavation Permit" package.]ഀ
Page 4 of 7ഀ
► 34b. The Chalet residences are not exempt from the requirements of accessible units. Per IBCഀ
Section 3104.2 exception 2 requires that connected buildings shall be considered as oneഀ
building for the purpose of calculating the number of type B units is required by IBC Chapterഀ
11. Amend plan to comply with Chapter 11. Provide all details, specifications, parking,ഀ
accessible routes, etc. which would clearly show compliance with IBC for accessibility.ഀ
As a result of the meeting held on 05102106 designer will determine feasibility of havingഀ
all units comply with the Type B provisions on ANSI 117.1 1998 for accessibility.ഀ
Refer BCER May 23, 2006 Memorandum of Understanding: Item #5, Pg. 4.ഀ
Relative to `Type B' provisions, a Meeting was held Thursday 18 May 2006 with theഀ
appropriate Town of Vail and Front Door Design Team members to discuss the IBCഀ
Chapter 11 ICC/ANSI A117.1-1998 issue. It was decided that in order to obtain theഀ
`Grading & Excavation Permit' through this specific CIA Commentary (now datedഀ
May 2006), the Permit Applicant would describe the direction the Design am wouldഀ
be taking in complying with IBC Chapter 11. That description, as well as t e toഀ
used, is described below.ഀ
mഀ
While many sections of IBC Chapter 11 were discussed, the consensus fo UQs oneഀ
provisions of section 1107.6.3 `Group R-3' and 1107.7 `General exceptions' W oഀ
specifically 1107.7.2, 1107.7.3 and 1107.7.4. 3ഀ
Jഀ
Section 1107.7.2 `Multistory units' states that multistory units (dwelling or I~ ing)~ഀ
without elevators are not required to have `Type B' units - but that if an ele gO isഀ
provided, and if that elevator provides access to only one level - then that ne eveഀ
shall "be accessible and contain a toilet facility". At the Chalets, elevator a cess coulഀ
only be achieved at the "lower levels" (generally the Junior Master Suite an u ti-ഀ
Purpose levels) due to the Town of Vail Zoning height restrictions and other siteഀ
impracticalities - requiring us to provide an intermediate landing between the top twoഀ
levels (Kitchen/Dining and Living Room level at the top; Senior Master Suite level justഀ
below).ഀ
Section 1107.7.3 `Elevator service to the lowest story with units' exempts access to theഀ
upper levels as long as access is provided to the lower levels serviced by an elevator.ഀ
At the Chalets, as described above, the lower levels requiring access would be theഀ
Junior Master Suite and Multi-Purpose levels. In following the requirements of sectionഀ
1107.7.2, an accessible toilet facility must be provided on those levels. It also must beഀ
noted that the IBC Commentary states that "if an elevator is utilized to provide accessഀ
to only the lowest level containing dwelling or sleeping units, this building would notഀ
be considered an `elevator' building".ഀ
Section 1107.7.4 `Site impracticality' describes under what conditions the requiredഀ
number of Type B units is permitted to be reduced - stating that "Type B units may beഀ
reduced to a percentage which is equal to the percentage of the entire site havingഀ
grades, prior to development, which are less than 10 percent". At the Chalets, theഀ
entire pre-developed Chalet site is over 10 percent slope - though `Condition 1' statesഀ
that no matter how steep the site, a minimum of 20 percent of the units would still needഀ
to be `accessible'. In that regard, of the 13 Chalet units, 2.6 units (13 x 20% [.20] = 2.6,ഀ
rounding up to 3) would need to be `accessible' - 3 units that would then continue toഀ
comply with sections 1107.7.2 and 1107.7.3 as described above.ഀ
In conclusion, 3 out of the 13 Chalet units will provide `access' as described above -ഀ
including parking stalls and routes to those 3 units within the Residential parkingഀ
garage (following ICC/ANSI All 17.1-1998 sections 1003.1 through 1003.11 - exceptഀ
z lഀ
2ഀ
LL,ഀ
arഀ
Cn Uഀ
zZഀ
Wഀ
C.) CDഀ
~aഀ
0ഀ
0ഀ
C>ഀ
= Previously answered 05/23106 as part of partial "Grading and Excavation Permit" package.]ഀ
Page 5 of 7ഀ
' 1003.12 'Kitchens'- and section 1004). While we have a good idea as to which 3 unitsഀ
will provide the necessary `access', we will provide that documentation later in theഀ
`Building Permit Responses' portion of CIA's commentary. As discussed in the 18 Mayഀ
2006 Meeting, we assume that for the `Excavation Permit', the description of our `intent'ഀ
is adequate for issuing the Permit.ഀ
See revised sheets A103, A131, A132, and A133, A162, A163, A171, A621, ID102A, ID104A,ഀ
ID203A, ID205A, ID220A, Spec. sections 08710 - Door Hardware, Door schedule, and Interiorഀ
Spec. Manual.ഀ
• The applicable levels of residential units 3A, 313, and 6A and have been revised to meetഀ
the above stated ANSI requirements. Some of the revisions include: Doors and doorഀ
hardware that have been revised to meet `Accessible Rout' requirements, bathroomsഀ
that have been revised to meet the `Toilet and Bathing Fixture `Type B" requirements,ഀ
and the parking garage parking layout and slab on grade slopes that have been revisedഀ
to provide `Accessible Parking Stalls' for these residential units.ഀ
New Architectural Comments:ഀ
57. Sheet A103 and A 105 Balloon States "Wall types not noted for concrete walls. See codeഀ
sheets for rating requirements". Identify what code sheets are being referenced.ഀ
See revised sheets A101, A103, and A105.ഀ
• Notes have been revised on sheets A101, A103, and A105 to reference the specificഀ
sheet which shows the wall rating for that portion of the building.ഀ
► 58. Note ll sheet A 155 # 6 of the revision to documents states "revised location of elevator '08'ഀ
Sheet A 155 Floor Plan: unit 5C level 3 shows elevator 16, 17 and 18 with no reference toഀ
elevator 8. This same comment applies to Note mm sheet A157 revision to documents Reviseഀ
statement to address correct elevator or sheetഀ
See revised sheets Al 51, Al 53, Al 55, and Al 57.ഀ
• Note "revised location of elevator 08" is incorrect. The note should have read "revisedഀ
location of elevator 18". Elevator 18 has been clouded on appropriate sheets. Refer toഀ
sheets A151, Al 53, Al 55, and Al 57.ഀ
59. Provide listing for detail S1 and S2 on Sheet A 600.ഀ
See revised sheet A600.ഀ
• See revised UL listing for rated CMU walls: S1, S2, and S3 on sheet A600.ഀ
60. Sheets A113, 114, 123, 133, 134, 143, 153, and 164 all show "craw/spaces" on the floor plansഀ
with access from the units. The LSR states that TOVFD does not want access to under floorഀ
areas and that they shall be protected with 518 X GWB. Are these craw/spaces included in thatഀ
statement. If they are revise plans to show protection and remove access.ഀ
See revised sheets Al 13, Al 14, Al 23, Al 33, Al 34, Al 43, Al 53, Al 55 and Al 64ഀ
• The room tag `crawl space' on sheets Al 13, Al 14, Al 23, Al 33, Al 34, Al 43, Al 53, Al 55ഀ
and A164 has been revised to `Fan Coil Room'. This space contains mechanicalഀ
equipment, and the title `crawl space' was an inaccurate description. Fire protectionഀ
and access, via access panel, will be provided for all 'Fan Coil Rooms' with in theഀ
residences.ഀ
REVIEWED BYഀ
JUL 102006ഀ
= Previously answered 05123/06 as part of partial "Grading and Excavation pernuV..package.lഀ
Page 6 of 7 n r r,ഀ
rഀ
N ecbanical Comments:ഀ
35. Provide manufacturers specs on fireplaces used in the residences. If fireplaces are open front andഀ
capable of burning wood all shafts for the vents must be constructed as 1 hour rated assemblies.ഀ
Decorative shroud must be listed for installation with the appliance.ഀ
Deferred Submittal?ഀ
A Deferred Submittal will be provided at a later time. For additional information refer toഀ
previous response included below:ഀ
Specification section 10305 has been added describing, Manufactured Fireplaces and Flues.ഀ
Re. A471 and A600 for 1 hr shaft assemblies. 4240 is currently working with the fireplaceഀ
manufacturer to satisfy this requirement for the shrouds. If a resolution cannot be reachedഀ
through the specified fireplace manufacturer, another compliant product will be substituted.ഀ
On the Gore Creek Residences we were able to satisfy the requirement by using a similarഀ
fireplace unit from another manufacturer, and are willing to repeat this alternative if itഀ
becomes necessary. We request that TOV accept a deferred submittal on this item."ഀ
Energy Code Review:ഀ
Envelope Com Checkഀ
The Town of Vail recently established the heating degree days and cooling degree days for aഀ
base of 65 degrees. The numbers provided are:ഀ
Heating degree days (base 65 degree F): 9826ഀ
Cooling degree days (base 65 degree F): 3ഀ
I apologize for the notice of these numbers; however I have been instructed to pass thisഀ
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 Codeഀ
Calculation method. COM Check will not allow the user to change the heating or coolingഀ
degree-days. They are automatically inserted when the town of Vail is chosen. Therefore, theഀ
calculations will remain as submitted originally. Per conversation between Jay Watson (ABSഀ
Engineers) and Matt Royer (CIA), it is understood that this is acceptable to the ToV for thisഀ
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 plansഀ
usually occurs within 3-5 working days of plan resubmittal. In order to avoid delays please check all requestedഀ
information is included with the resubmitted plans.ഀ
Contact Person:ഀ
Matthew Royer REVIEWED BBuilding Official/ Project Managerഀ
Colorado Inspection Agencyഀ
970-328-1790ഀ
matt. royer(acoinspect.com JUL EPEONYഀ
Plans Examiners and Engineers:ഀ
Barry Kramer- Building Official COLORADO INSCTITodd Dunkin- Electrical Plans Examiner AGENCYഀ
Dennis Lohmeier- Plumbing Plans Examinerഀ
Duskin Lowe- Plans Examinerഀ
James P. Horne, P.E., S.E. - Structural Review Project Managerഀ
= Previously answered 05/23/06 as part of partial "Grading and Excavation Permit" package.]ഀ
Page 7 of 7ഀ
,p aഀ
10 Rഀ
~rഀ
N Oഀ
II Oഀ
0ഀ
~yഀ
mlഀ
0ഀ
Nഀ
f c 1ഀ
.10ഀ
;7 C,4ഀ
'ഀ
mഀ
O ;;a Nഀ
-uഀ
mഀ
~mഀ
zഀ
=ഀ
_ഀ
~ഀ
m mഀ
O Nഀ
0ഀ
Dഀ
pഀ
cf) Omഀ
C7ഀ
;7 Oഀ
D z 0ഀ
Z Oഀ
Oഀ
nഀ
Oഀ
--Iഀ
m-ഀ
p=ZJഀ
Xഀ
mഀ
crimeഀ
zmmഀ
rഀ
rnഀ
Drഀ
~OVIഀ
Oഀ
zmഀ
D~ഀ
Oഀ
M,ഀ
Oഀ
0ഀ
D Nഀ
z Zഀ
co pഀ
Oഀ
zNഀ
ഀ
mpഀ
Nഀ
G7ഀ
Oഀ
Oഀ
Oഀ
mmഀ
zഀ
zഀ
zഀ
C =1ഀ
Xഀ
mഀ
cഀ
O -cഀ
wഀ
mmഀ
pഀ
00ഀ
m o mഀ
vഀ
mഀ
cഀ
7zഀ
mmഀ
Joഀ
zഀ
m pഀ
cഀ
mഀ
m -9ഀ
Zlഀ
ഀ
Z7ഀ
mഀ
Cnഀ
mഀ
~ (nഀ
O mഀ
Dഀ
-Iഀ
mഀ
m >ഀ
Zഀ
G7ഀ
Dഀ
Nഀ
Z ~ഀ
G7 Oഀ
zഀ
REVIEWED B-Vഀ
JUL 10ഀ
COLORADO INSPECTIONഀ
AGENCYഀ
aഀ
°ഀ
Dഀ
D °ഀ
Dഀ
aഀ
~ Dഀ
D ZJ Cbഀ
° mഀ
C7ഀ
° Cn Oഀ
~u nഀ
° n mഀ
D -Iഀ
mഀ
~ D a ~ഀ
°ഀ
0ഀ
D ~ഀ
AN °ഀ