HomeMy WebLinkAboutCorrespondenceBUILDING CODE REVIEW:
Buffalo Valley Apartments
Garfield County Building Department 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 970-945-8212
Project ID: BLCO-11-16-4498 Address: 3637 Highway 82, Glenwood Springs
Parcel No: 218527100029
Contractor: Janckila Construction Architect: Z Group Architects Civil Engineer: Mountain Cross Engineers
Code Review By: Dave Argo, Plans Examiner Date: Friday, 16 Dec 2016
Information & Clarifications Request
As a follow-up to our project review meeting on Dec. 21, 2016 please provide us with supplemental
project information as described below:
1. Building Height —
Provide additional back-up, supplemental information and/or calculations allowing for
independent verification of building heights for both Building 1 and Building 2. Information to
include existing pre -construction site grades, roof eave/ridge elevations and average natural grade
plane.
2. Retaining Wall —
Provide verification of Road & Bridge Dept. approval/sign-off of retaining wall located outside of
property lines and within right of way along County Road 154. Alternately, provide redesign with
retaining wall located entirely within limits of property boundaries.
3. Fire Rating at Underside of Decks —
Provide clarification at underside of wood decks (between dwelling units, floor -to -floor) which
don't have a 30 -minute fire rating matching the interior floor assembly fire rating.
4. Fire Rating at Corridors —
Clarify discrepancy between 30 -minute and 1 -hour fire rating assemblies at Wall Type (W3) as
shown on Sheets CR 1.5 — CR 1.8 and indicated by the following note: "one-hour at egress court"
5. Elevator—
Provide clarity on why elevator providing access to upper levels is not required.
6. Building Accessibility —
• Related to the previous item, provide clarity as to why accessibility to upper level residential
units is not required.
• Verify ADA/accessibility to temporary rental office to be located at bedroom of unit in
Building 1.
David Argo
From: David Argo
Sent: Friday, December 16, 2016 4:04 PM
To: 'normbacheldor@gmail.com'; 'ken@janckilaconstruction.com'
Cc: Andy Schwaller (aschwaller@garfield-county.com); Tamra Allen
Subject: Buffalo Valley Apartments - Permit # BLCO-11-16-4498
Norm:
I have reviewed the proposed plans for the Buffalo Valley Apartments (Permit # BLCO-11-16-4498) and have identified a
critical issue that needs to be addressed before we can issue this building permit. This particular issue is in addition to
other outstanding conditions of the land -use permit previously issued for this project — which are being handled by
Tamra Allen, Planning Manager here in our office.
More specifically, this critical issue centers on building height as described below:
Each of the proposed structures (Building 1 and Building 2) are shown to be 1/16" below the 40 -foot maximum
building height per Garfield County's Land -Use Code (Table 3-201 for Commercial Limited zone district). As currently
submitted, there is inadequate information provided on the drawings for us to verify these elevation heights and to
confirm adherence with this standard.
In order for us to verify accuracy of building heights called out on the plans, we need for the architect and/or
civil engineer to provide us with more detailed drawings which need to include at a minimum: (a) existing/proposed site
grades with the entire perimeter of each building's footprint shown, and (b) roof elevation heights (actual elevations to
match site grades) for eaves and ridgelines of the proposed buildings. For example, this could simply be the site plan
information with the roof plans superimposed on top of the building footprint with elevation heights noted. Absent this
information, or some other acceptable form of back-up to substantiate calculations of building height, we won't be able
to proceed with completing our plans review.
Another option perhaps worthy of consideration is lowering the buildings or reducing floor -to -floor elevations
heights and thereby effectively lowering the peak elevation of both roofs by a few inches, rather than only 1/16". We
are concerned that the design team has indicated such a "close shave" between allowable building height and proposed
design, especially when such a fine tolerance for construction is rarely seen when rough -framing a 3 -story + basement
sized building.
In any case, one of the conditions of our building permit will be a requirement for a Surveyor's certificate at
conclusion of the framing stage of construction in order to verify building height is under the 40 -foot limit. As I'm sure
you will agree, that is certainly not the time any of us wants to discover a building height problem, as remedies at that
point will be difficult and expensive.
Please let me know if you or your design team have any questions about this issue or require further clarification about
our concerns, and we look forward to receiving follow-up information to clarify this issue.
Dave Argo
Plans Examiner
Garfield County
Community Development Department
108 8th Street, Suite 401
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Tel: 970-945-8212
Email: dargo@garfield-county.com
1
David Argo
From: David Argo
Sent: Monday, December 19, 2016 10:47 AM
To: 'Randy Henrie'; Norman Bacheldor; Seth Hmielowski; Chris Hale
Cc: Ken Janckila; Andy Schwaller (aschwaller@garfield-county.com); Tamra Allen
Subject: RE: Buffalo Valley Apartments - Permit # BLCO-11-16-4498
Randy:
Thanks for your reply, and I agree that it would be beneficial for us to sit down and review this issue together.
I'd like to have Andy Schwaller, our chief building official, also included in this meeting. Given our schedules this week it
looks like the earliest we can sit down together with you will be Wed. or Thursday. Our schedule on Wed. is open with
the exception of between Noon — 2pm, and Thursday we have all -day availability on Thursday. Please let us know your
preference for getting together this week & I will reserve our conference room.
Information that will be helpful for us to discuss — which I find not included in the current plans — is existing site grades
at the full perimeter of both buildings and actual elevation heights for eaves & ridgelines (not shown on roof plans,
exterior elevations or building sections). If you can provide this information for us to substantiate your building height
calculations that will be most helpful.
Thank you —
Dave Argo
Plans Examiner
CGarfield County
Community Development Department
108 8th Street, Suite 401
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Tel: 970-945-8212
Email: dargo@.garfield-county.com
Web: _garfield-county.com
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email communication and any files transmitted along with it are intended only for the person or entity to which it is
addressed. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify the sender by email and delete it from your files.
From: Randy Henrie [mailto:randy@zgrouparchitects.com]
Sent: Monday, December 19, 2016 10:03 AM
To: Norman Bacheldor <normbacheldor@gmail.com>; Seth Hmielowski <seth@zgrouparchitects.com>; Chris Hale
<chris@mountaincross-eng.com>; David Argo <dargo@garfield-county.com>
Cc: Ken Janckila <ken@janckilaconstruction.com>
Subject: RE: Buffalo Valley Apartments - Permit # BLCO-11-16-4498
Dave,
Thank you for your comments regarding Buffalo Valley Building Heights. We have reviewed our process and
believe our methodology is correct based on the following definition from the Garfield County Land Use Code:
1
"Height, Building. The distance, measured vertically, from the average undisturbed or natural ground grade
horizontal plane of a building footprint to the top of a flat roof or mansard roof or to the mid -point between
the eave line and the peak of a gable, hip, shed, or similar pitched roof."
We have determined the "natural ground grade horizontal plane" for each building, and labeled this on the
Elevations, Sheets A3.1 and A3.2. However, I think we do need to show you additional information on how we
determined the horizontal grade plan, I think the Grading and Drainage Plan would be a good place to show
this as these Sheets already show elevations, proposed grades, building perimeters, etc.
Having said that —this is a close shave —to be absolutely sure we have interpreted Building Height and
determined grade planes correctly, and are using the proper point on the roof to measure to, and ensure
Garfield County receives the data needed for verification, we would like to schedule a meeting with you,
myself, and Chris Hale as soon as possible. I am available anytime after 1:00 today, and anytime all week.
Regards,
Randy Henrie, LEED AP
Z -Group Architects, P.C.
411 East Main Street, Suite 205
Aspen CO 81611
970.355.9773 p
970-925-1371 f
http://www.zsirouparchitectssom/
From: Norman Bacheldor[mailto:normbacheldor@grnail.com]
Sent: Friday, December 16, 2016 4:25 PM
To: Randy Henrie <randy@zgrouparchitects.com>; Seth Hmielowski <seth@zgrouparchitects.corn>; Chris Hale
<ch ris@ mountai ncross-eng.com>
Cc: Ken Janckila <ken@ianckilaconstruction.com>
Subject: Fwd: Buffalo Valley Apartments - Permit # BLCO-11-16-4498
Randy,
Please see below. The Garfield County Bdg Dept is challenging us to verify the bdg height vis a vis the
surrounding elevators. Based upon the questions in the email below, there is a methodology conflict between
my understanding of the height calculation and the verification request. Mr Argo is requesting perimeter
elevations, whereas, my understanding is that existing grade is average grade through the building.
He does have a valid point that IF the bdg height is slightly over the design height at completion, then it would
have been better to drop a few inches now. For instance the design bdg heights may be based upon rough
framing, and the roofing, ridge vent etc may contribute to the measured height and thus create a height
violation.
Please advise.
Norman Bacheldor
normbache ldor@gma i l . co m
970-379-7874
2
•12i22/I6, Rioy.
BUILDING CODE REVIEW: Buffalo Valley Apartments
Garfield County Building Department 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 970-945-8212
Project ID: BLCO-11-16-4498
Address: 3637 Highway 82, Glenwood Springs Parcel No: 218527100029
Contractor: Janckila Construction Architect: Z Group Architects Civil Engineer: Mountain Cross Engineers
Code Review By: Dave Argo, Plans Examiner Date: Friday, 16 Dec 2016
Information & Clarifications Request
As a follow-up to our project review meeting on Dec. 21, 2016 please provide us with supplemental
project information as described below:
1. Building Height —
Provide additional back-up, supplemental information and/or calculations allowing for
independent verification of building heights for both Building 1 and Building 2. Information to
include existing pre -construction site grades, roof eave/ridge elevations and average natural grade
plane.Additional data included, please see revised SHEETS C4, and A3.1 & A3.2
2. Retaining Wall —
Provide verification of Road & Bridge Dept. approval/sign-off of retaining wall located outside of
property lines and within right of way along County Road 154. Alternately, provide redesign with
retaining wall located entirely within limits of property boundaries.
3. Fire Rating at Underside of Decks —
Provide clarification at underside of wood decks (between dwelling units, floor -to -floor) which
don't have a 30 -minute fire rating matching the interior floor assembly fire rating.
Not required Per 2015 IBC, Section 1406.3, Exception 3, also see "Sprinkler" under Project Information on
Sheet A0.0
4. Fire Rating at Corridors —
Clarify discrepancy between 30 -minute and 1 -hour fire rating assemblies at Wall Type (W3) as
shown on Sheets CR 1.5 — CR 1.8 and indicated by the following note: "one-hour at egress court"
A court is open to the sky, an egress court provides access to a public way (Section 202). Due to
width as dictated by Section 1028.4.2, the note "one-hour at egress court" is not necessary. The
Assembly listed more than exceeds fire -rating for the corridors and courts, but is needed to meet
req. STC. We are proposing the same Assembly for each situation so finishes will be flush and STC
rating will be met.
5. Elevator —
Provide clarity on why elevator providing access to upper levels is not required.
Section 1107.4, Exception 3, indicates an accessible route is not required where Type A Units and common
areas serving Type A Units are on an accessible route. This is further evidenced by language in Sections
1107.7.1 and 1107.7.2.
6. Building Accessibility —
■ Related to the previous item, provide clarity as to why accessibility to upper level residential
units is not required. See Item 5 above.
• Verify ADA/accessibility to temporary rental office to be located at bedroom of unit in
Building 1. The sidewalk as shown on Sheet A1.1 shows a continuous path from
Accessible Parking to the rental office entry. The sidewalk at rental office entry shall
be no more than %:" below finished floor. The line on the Civil sheets that separates
the rental office sidewalk from the main sidewalk appears to be a minor drafting
error. The Landscape Plan, L1.0, does not show the rental office sidewalk, this is a
miscoordination. For purposes of rental office sidewalk layout, Sheet A1.1 is the
governing document.
Note: if we have any other items that come up as a result of completing our building code review or in
response to your answers to these item, we will follow-up accordingly. To the extent that you can provide
us with a single addendum which addresses these issues and other pending updates or changes to
Civil/Site Plans, it will be greatly appreciated and expedite our review.
David Argo
From: Randy Henrie <randy@zgrouparchitects.com>
Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2016 10:59 AM
To: David Argo; Chris Hale; 'Norman Bacheldor'; Seth Hmielowski
Cc: 'Ken Janckila'; Andy Schwaller; Tamra Allen
Subject: RE: Buffalo Valley Apartments - Permit # BLCO-11-16-4498
Attachments: C4-Elvs-12-21-16.pdf; Code Info Request BLCO-11-16-4498_Response.pdf; A3.2
_Elevations.pdf; A3.1_Elevations.pdf
David,
Thanks for working with us on the Code Review issues regarding Buffalo Valley Apartments. We wanted to get as many
of our Responses as possible to you before you take time off for the Holidays. We will follow up with stamped hardcopy
Addendum Sheets as soon as all items are complete. The remaining item appears to be the Site Retaining Wall issue.
Thanks again,
Randy Henrie, LEED AP
Z -Group Architects, P.C.
411 East Main Street, Suite 205
Aspen CO 81611
970.355.9773 p
970-925-1371 f
http://www.zgrouparchitects.comi
From: David Argo [mailto:dargo@garfield-county.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2016 2:35 PM
To: Randy Henrie <randy@zgrouparchitects.com>; Chris Hale <chris@mountaincross-eng.com>;'Norman Bacheldor'
<normbacheldor@gmail.com>; Seth Hmielowski <seth@zgrouparchitects.com>
Cc: 'Ken Janckila' <ken@janckilaconstruction.com>; Andy Schwaller <aschwaller@garfield-county.com>; Tamra Allen
<tallen@garfield-county.com>
Subject: RE: Buffalo Valley Apartments - Permit # BLCO-11-16-4498
Randy:
Thanks again for coming in earlier today to discuss the Buffalo Valley Apartment project. As follow-up to our meeting, I
have attached a list of questions and/or clarifications we discussed and need to have addressed, including the roof
heights (see attached PDF).
Let me know if you have any questions & we'll look forward to receiving an addendum from you addressing these items.
Please note that I will be out of the office from Dec. 23 —January 2.
Happy Holidays!
Dave Argo
Plans Examiner
. Garfield County,
1
BUILDING CODE REVIEW:
m12Lcc,iae4 1/13/17
Buffalo Valley Apartments
Garfield County Building Department 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 970-945-8212
Project ID: BLCO-11-16-4498 Address: 3637 Highway 82, Glenwood Springs
Parcel No: 218527100029
Contractor: Janckila Construction Architect: Z Group Architects Civil Engineer: Mountain Cross Engineers
Code Review By: Dave Argo, Plans Examiner Date: Friday, 16 Dec 2016
Information & Clarifications Request
As a follow-up to our project review meeting on Dec. 21, 2016 please provide us with supplemental
project information as described below:
RESPONSES — 01.12.17
1. Building Height —
Provide additional back-up, supplemental information and/or calculations allowing for
independent verification of building heights for both Building 1 and Building 2. Information to
include existing pre -construction site grades, roof eave/ridge elevations and average natural grade
plane.Additional data included, please see revised SHEETS C4, and A3.1 & A3.2
2. Retaining Wall —
Provide verification of Road & Bridge Dept. approval/sign-off of retaining wall located outside of
property lines and within right of way along County Road 154. Alternately, provide redesign with
retaining wall located entirely within limits of property boundaries. The retaining wall has been
changed to a concrete wall and is located entirely within the property line as requested by Garfield
County Road and Bridge. See Civil Sheets and Sheet A1.1.
3. Fire Rating at Underside of Decks —
Provide clarification at underside of wood decks (between dwelling units, floor -to -floor) which
don't have a 30 -minute fire rating matching the interior floor assembly fire rating.
Not required Per 2015 IBC, Section 1406.3, Exception 3, also see "Sprinkler" under Project Information on
Sheet A0.0
4. Fire Rating at Corridors —
Clarify discrepancy between 30 -minute and 1 -hour fire rating assemblies at Wall Type (W3) as
shown on Sheets CR 1.5 — CR 1.8 and indicated by the following note: "one-hour at egress court"
A court is open to the sky, an egress court provides access to a public way (Section 202). Due to
width as dictated by Section 1028.4.2, the note "one-hour at egress court" is not necessary. The
Assembly listed more than exceeds fire -rating for the corridors and courts, but is needed to meet
req. STC. We are proposing the same Assembly for each situation so finishes will be flush and STC
rating will be met.
5. Elevator—
Provide clarity on why elevator providing access to upper levels is not required.
Section 1107.4, Exception 3, indicates an accessible route is not required where Type A Units and common
areas serving Type A Units are on an accessible route. This is further evidenced by language in Sections
1107.7.1 and 1107.7.2.
6. Building Accessibility —
■ Related to the previous item, provide clarity as to why accessibility to upper level residential
units is not required. See Item 5 above.
■ Verify ADA/accessibility to temporary rental office to be located at bedroom of unit in
Building 1. The sidewalk as shown on Sheet A1.1 shows a continuous path from
Accessible Parking to the rental office entry. The sidewalk at rental office entry shall
be no more than %z" below finished floor. The line on the Civil sheets that separates
the rental office sidewalk from the main sidewalk appears to be a minor drafting
error. The Landscape Plan, L1.0, does not show the rental office sidewalk, this is a
miscoordination. For purposes of rental office sidewalk layout, Sheet A1.1 is the
governing document.
Note: If we have any other items that come up as a result of completing our building code review or in
response to your answers to these item, we will follow-up accordingly. To the extent that you can provide
us with a single addendum which addresses these issues and other pending updates or changes to
Civil/Site Plans, it will be greatly appreciated and expedite our review.
Commercial Building Code Review BLCO-11-16-4498
Buffalo Valley Apartments 3637 Highway 82, Glenwood Springs
Review Date: Dec. 15, 2016 (Updated on Feb. 6, 2017) Reviewed By: Dave Argo
General Description: Multi -family apartments (2 buildings, 3 stories + basement) with on -grade parking
located on the former Buffalo Valley Restaurant site, just south of Glenwood Springs and off Highway 82.
Building Summary
BUILDING 1 BUILDING 2
Type of Construction: Type V -B Type V -B
Overall Building Size: 32,384 SF 32,479 SF
Residential Units (R-2 Occupancy Group) 29,672 SF 28,873 SF
Storage (S-1 Occupancy Group) 2,712 SF 3,606 SF
Automatic fire sprinkler system? Yes Yes
Type of fire Sprinkler System: NFPA 13 NFPA 13
Number of Apartment Units: 29 units 25 units
Number of ADA Accessible Units:
• Unit Type A — Ground Floor 1 unit 1 unit
• Unit Type B — Ground Floor 4 units 6 units
Building Height:
• Garfield Co. Definition (Allowable) 40'-0" 40'-0"
• Garfield Co. Definition (Actual) * 38'-10 7/8" 39'-7 5/8"
• IBC Definition (Allowable) 60'— 0" 60'— 0"
• IBC Definition (Actual) 44'-2" 43'-4'A"
Location on Property
Setbacks: CL District Rents. Actual Distance
Front 25' > 50'
Rear 7.5' > 20'
Sides 20' 20' —Affix note for Improvement Survey Certificate
Retaining Walls:
a. Conc. retaining wall footing at NE corner extends over property line (by at least 18" min.)
b. Retaining Walls (#2, #4, #5) located outside of side yard setback, but 6' or less in ht.
Floor Area Ratio Calculation
Property Size: 2.204 acres x 43,560 SF/acre = 96,006 SF
Max. Floor Area Ratio = 50%: 96,006 x .50 = 48,003 Max. SF
Actual Habitable SF BUILDING 1 BUILDING 2 TOTAL
R2 Overall SF 24,932 24,419 58,545
Minus Mech. Rooms — 660 — 574 —1,350
TOTALS 24,272 23,845 51,040
Actual Floor Area — Max. Allowable Floor Area
48,117 — 48,003 = 114 Over Max. Allowable Floor Area — OK, as Architect's calculations were found
to be consisting higher than Garfield County's cross-checking calculations
Commercial Building Code Review BLCO-11-16-4498
Buffalo Valley Apartments 3637 Highway 82, Glenwood Springs
Occupancy Classifications
BUILDING #1: Occupancy Bsmt. Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Total
Residential Units R-2 5,408 8,088 8,088 8,088 29,672
Storage S-1 2,712 0 0 0 2,712
Total 8,120 8,088 8,088 8,088 32,384
BUILDING #2: Occupancy Bsmt. Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Total
Residential Units R-2 4,669 8,068 8,068 8,068 28,873
Storage S-1 3,606 0 0 0 3,606
Total 8,275 8,068 8,068 8,068 32,479
Fire -Rated Assemblies
REQUIRED OCCUPANCY SEPARATIONS:
• Between R-2 and S-1 occupancies, a 1 -hour fire barrier is required (Table 508.4)
• Openings in this fire barrier are required to be protected by 45 -minute fire assemblies (Table 716.5)
• No separation is required between accessory occupancies and the main occupancy (Sec. 508.2.4)
SEPARATION OF INCIDENTAL USE AREAS:
• Dwelling units are required to be separated by a 1/2 hour fire partition (Sec. 420.2 and 708.3,
Exceptions 1 and 2). Openings in partitions are required to have a 20 -minute rating (Table 716.5)
• The following wall assemblies shall comply:
➢ Walls separating dwelling units
➢ Corridor walls
• Horizontal assemblies separating dwelling units shall be not less than 1/2 hour fire -resistance -rated
construction (Sec. 711.2.4.3 - Exception)
FIREBLOCKING: In combustible construction, fireblocking shall be installed to cut off concealed draft
openings (both vertical and horizontal) and shall form an effective barrier between floors, between a top
story and a roof or attic space (Sec. 718.2)
DRAFTSTOPPING: Draftstopping is not required at floor/ceiling and attic/ceiling spaces in buildings equipped
with an automatic fire sprinkler system (Sec. 718.3.2 Exception 1). Also not required in attic/ceiling spaces if
automatic sprinklers are installed in attic spaces (Sec. 718.3.2 Exception 2).
Valuation
BUILDING #1: Bsmt. Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Total x Cost/SF $ Valuation
Residential Units (R-2) 5,408 8,088 8,088 8,088 29,672 x $ 68.40 = $ 2,029,565
Storage (S-1) 2,712 0 0 0 2,712 x $ 39.88 = $ 108,155
TOTALS 8,120 8,088 8,088 8,088 32,384 $ 2,137,720
BUILDING #2: Bsmt. Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Total x Cost/SF = $ Valuation
Residential Units (R-2) 4,669 8,068 8,068 8,068 28,873 x $ 68.40 = $ 1,974,913
Storage (S-1) 3,606 0 0 0 3,606 x $ 39.88 = $ 143,807
TOTALS 8,275 8,068 8,068 8,068 32,479 $ 2,118,720
Building Permit Fees
Total Valuation (from above):
$ 2,137,720 + $ 2,118,720 = $ 4,256,440
Plan Review Fee is 65% of Bldg. Permit Fee:
$15,868.30 x .65 = $ 10,314.40
First $1 Million
3,257 x $3.15
Bldg. Permit Fee
Bldg. Permit Fee:
Plan Review Fee:
Total Fees:
= $ 5,608.75
= $ 10,259.55
= $ 15,868.30
$ 15,868.30
$ 10.314.40
$ 26,182.70
Commercial Building Code Review BLCO-11-16-4498
Buffalo Valley Apartments 3637 Highway 82, Glenwood Springs
Key Issues to Review with Andy:
PRIMARY HOT -BUTTON ISSUES:
The following items all related to size, massing & height of buildings —
1. Floor Area Ratio — My calculations indicate that buildings are over by more than 3,000 SF, but
Achitect's summary indicates that number is below by 197 SF. Should I ask for Architect's back-up?
*NOTE: Recalculating by using unit sizes provided by Architect (and spot-checked) minus
mechanical rooms = only 114 SF overage, which is "negligible".
2. Building Height — Resolved per revised drawings & back-up submitted on 1/13/17, but Building 2 is
still less than 6" below max. height (Building 1 is 14" less than max. ht.) — Affix note for elevation
height survey verifying as -built height.
OTHER ISSUES:
• Site Plan —
> Retaining walls > 4' ht. beyond property boundary (see Sheet C4) — Retaining walls, including
footings must be fully located within property boundaries.
> Guardrails at retaining walls — Site walls vs. those attached to buildings?
• Fire Rated Assemblies —
> Draftstopping is not required for web joists in floors or attic (see page 2 for description)
• Enlarged Unit Plans — See Sheet A2.5
• Stair plans, sections & details — Not detailed by Architect ... Shop Drawings to be provided for
Inspector review?
• Mechanical lssues:
Mark-up typical unit plan (Sheet M2.3) with the following comments:
> Mech. Equipment to be located within conditioned space? (insulated)
> No ductwork allowed within party walls—See unit on Sheet M2.3
> Clearance between exhaust fan wall vent and operable window at exterior wall
> Shaft enclosure requirements — per Sec. 713.4
> Mech. Room door into bedroom?
> AC (condenser units) — How are these tied into ductwork?
> Dryer exhaust per Mfr's. requirements?
> Kitchen range exhaust not shown?
• Commercial Plan Review Attachments — Review modifications made to Residential Plan Attachments
Architect List of Clarifications:
Feb. 6, 2017
• UL Design assembly for ceiling type C-2 (one-hour rated) — perAchitect's email response
• Sheet A1.1 and all Civil drawings —
Confirm structural design of concrete retaining wall footing at NE corner (over property Line) — Issue
lot improvement survey requirement on drawings
• Sheets CR1.1 and CR1.3 —
Update Building Ht. Calculations to match revised exterior elevations (Sheets A3.1 and A3.2) — per
Architect's email response