HomeMy WebLinkAboutFile Documents.813 W Smuggler St.0253.2018 (43).ARBK 1
20 August 2019
Attn. Denis Murray, Plans Examination Manager
[+ Chuck DeVorss & Gil Rossmiller w/Colorado Code Consulting, LLC (CCC)]
Building Division, Aspen Community Development
130 S. Galena St.
Aspen, CO 81611
RE: 813 W. Smuggler • Permit #0253.2018.ARBK
Building/Energy/Structural/M&P Permit Review Comments
Dear Denis, et al.,
This letter accompanies our drawings, which we are resubmitting in response
to your department’s permit review comments on the above-captioned project.
We received your review comments on 6/21, then met with Denis @CoA on 7/30
to better understand them and how best to respond. Our response as follows
is based on your clarifications and direction, and is formatted according to
the 6/11/19 “Plan Review Report”, prepared by CCC.
B -1 Sheets A3.1 & 2 (Lower & Main Level Floor Plans)
CCC concern: Original submittal showed a 1-hour rated area
separation @Mech. Room/House and Garage/House, which is not
required by code.
Our response: ½” GWB is required at the wall between Garage &
habitable space & 5/8” Type-X at the ceiling (Table R302.6). For
simplicity’s sake & good practice, we are showing Type-X GWB
throughout @both Garage & Mech. Rm., but not a 1-hr rated assembly.
B -2 Sheet A5.2 [Building Section (N-S)]
CCC concern: Stair rise-run is shown on LL RCP only, with no notes
regarding other stairs, handrails, guard-rails, etc.
Our response: We now show complete information regarding stair
rise-run, and handrail/guard-rail requirements (per R311.7 and R312)
on the longitudinal building section.
B -3 Sheet A3.4 (Roof Plan)
CCC concern: Details/notes are required, regarding the skylight,
that demonstrate compliance with 2015 IRC Section R308.6.
Our response: We now show a note listing the various requirements
for skylights contained within R308.6.
B -4 Sheet A3.2 (Main Level Floor Plan)
CCC concern: The garage shows floor sloping to a drain. CCC seems
to suggest that a garage floor should slope out to the main vehicle
entry doorway. In either case, the question is where the floor drain
terminates.
Our response: Section R309.1 indicates that garage floors “shall be
sloped to facilitate the movement of liquids to a drain or toward the
main vehicle entry doorway.” This floor drain will exit to the west,
elbow to the north, then daylight to the swale along the west side of
the building (as discussed with Denis Murray on 7/30/2019).
08/26/2019
2
S -1 Related to Structural plans, calculation pkg. & Structural
thru Coordination with Geotechnical information provided:
S -6
CCC Concern: various questions & requested corrections re:
general notes, coordination with geotechnical information given
proximity to the micropile wall, and 2-details.
Our response: Please review revised Structural drawings (S0.1
through S3.2), and memo prepared by Albright & Associates addressing
items S-1 through S-6, along with 2-letters from HP Kumar, which are
attached to this letter.
EN-1 Sheet M -5 (Mechanical List & Sequence of Controls)
CCC Concern: Sequence of Control #5 domestic hot water
circulation pump does not comply with Section R403.5.1.1
Our response: Our Mechanical Engineer, Burggraaf Associates, Inc.,
has revised Sequence of Control #5 to comply with R403.5.1.1.
EN-2 REScheck & Sheets A5.1 & 2 (Building Sections)
a. CCC Concern: While REScheck indicates an R-50 ceiling assembly
above the Yoga, Sump, & Storage rooms (NW corner of building), the
drawings do not provide detail for this assembly.
Our response: Both building section drawings now have a notes and a
Roof Assembly Schedule that provides detail for the various locations
and roofing conditions on the building.
EN-2 REScheck & Sheets A5.1 & 2 (Building Sections)
b. CCC Concern: While REScheck indicates several R-50 roof/ceiling
assemblies, manual J & the Roof Dew Point calc indicate a R-70
assembly, & the drawings have discrepancies between sections & details.
Our response: See pertinent remarks directly above (EN-2.a) that
clarify these discrepancies. Manual J & Roof Dew Point Calc’s have
been corrected to reflect use of R-50 roof insulation assemblies.
EN-2 REScheck & Sheets A5.1-2 + A8 series (Building Sections + Details)
c. CCC Concern: While REScheck indicates R-3.6 continuous insulation
on the above-grade walls, drawings show R-5 (5.1) ThermalStar One
structural insulated sheathing.
Our response: Our REScheck has been revised to reflect R-5 SIS
panels as our continuous insulation method.
EN-2 REScheck & Sheets A5.1 & 2 (Building Sections)
d. CCC Concern: REScheck & drawings indicate use of R-19 batt
insulation in 5 ½” walls, which does not fit uncompressed into a 5 ½”
deep stud space (compressed to 5 ½”D, R-18 is the resultant value).
Our response: REScheck & drawings have been revised to show use of
R-21 high performance batts, which fit uncompressed into a 5 ½” depth.
EN-2 REScheck & Sheets A6.1 & 2 (Window & Door Schedules)
e. CCC Concern: While REScheck indicates a U-factor of 0.32 for all
fenestrations (as does the Window & Door schedules), the window
documentation sheet from Pella indicates lower (i.e. more thermally
efficient, even below the prescriptive limit) values.
Our response: The Window & Door schedules indicate a MAXIMUM U-
value of 0.32 as justified by the REScheck, which is what we’ll provide.
For the purpose of this response, we will alter the Pella window
documentation to show a less thermally efficient product per
REScheck, but will not have final documentation until this product has
been ordered. In no case will the U-value be greater than 0.32.
08/26/2019
Details on A8.3 do not match what
you call out in the roof assembly
schedule - for example on A5.1 you
call out RA-1 and 42/A8.3 for the
same portion of roof. RA-1 you note
as being 2" R12 rigid insulation with
3" spray foam and R19 batt on the
schedule, but you show 42/A8.3 as
being 4" of rigid insulation and make
no mention of spray foam or batt
insulation. Revise you plans so that
all roof assemblies, the
corresponding details, and the
ResCheck match.
ResCheck shows R50 cavity
but per the roof schedule you
are calling out R12 continuous
insulation with R38 cavity
insulation. The total R value is
the same but the types are
different. Revise one or the
other to match.
Multiple wood frame
walls still show R19 as
the cavity insulation on
the ResCheck, revise
all wood frame walls to
reflect this change.
3
EN-3 Sheets A8.1/2/3 (Details +Cross-References to Plans/Sections)
a. CCC Concern: Locations of details are not uniformly referenced on
the floor plans or sections, and should be shown.
Our response: Details shown on sheets A8.1, 2 & 3 are now cross-
referenced on plans & building sections, have been noted as “typical”,
or have been struck on the detail sheets as “not used”.
EN-3 Sheets A8.1/2/3 (Details +Cross-References to Plans/Sections)
b. CCC Concern: Air barrier details in Table R402.4.1.1 incorporate
more than just exterior sheathing, which are relevant @certain
locations & conditions. Provide additional details.
Our response: While we originally showed only the Exterior
Sheathing detail sheet authored by City of Aspen (Sheet A8.4), we have
now included 2-additional sheets (Spray-Foam & Framing/Drywall)
shown on sheets A8.5 & 6. We include notes on building section sheets
A5.1 & 2 that acknowledge the Aspen detail sheets are generic and that
a specific consensus approach is to be developed by Architect & GC
based on the generic details to meet the requirements of R402.
B -5 Sheets A3.1/2/3 (Lower/Main/Upper Level Floor Plans)
thru CCC Concern: A variety of Building code requirements is listed in
B -12 comments B-5 through B-12.
Our response: As suggested in the Plan Review Report, all of these
requirements have been incorporated as “general notes” and are shown
on Lower, Main, and Upper floor plan drawings.
M -1 Sheets A3.1/2/3 (Lower/Main/Upper Level Floor Plans)
thru CCC Concern: A variety of Mechanical & Plumbing code requirements
M -6 is listed in comments M-1 through M-6.
Our response: As suggested in the Plan Review Report, all of these
requirements have been incorporated as “general notes” & are shown on
the 3-floor plan drawings. The City of Aspen does not require plumbing
drawings for SFD permits, thus the inclusion of these notes on the
Architectural plans. Do note that the permit mech. plans show dryer
venting – including the use of a UL rated dryer booster vent
system. Additional notation has been added to Drawings M-2 & M-3 to
provide clarification needed by the plan reviewer
We believe the above responses to City of Aspen Building Division’s and
Colorado Code Consultants’ permit review comments address your concerns.
Please let us know if you require further clarification on any matter.
We appreciate your thoughtful and thorough review of our project to ensure
its compliance with Aspen’s Building Code’s requirements.
Respectfully yours,
Robert G. Sinclair, AIA
Principal, Sinclair Building | Architecture | Design
cc. John Barker, CoA Permit Coordinator
Craig Biere, Albright Associates
Mark Burggraaf, Burggraaf Associates, Inc.
08/26/2019
08/26/2019
08/26/2019
08/26/2019