HomeMy WebLinkAboutCorrespondence from MillerDunwiddie ZULU LA) -147P9 4W
MILLER DUNWIDDIE MEMORANDUM
123 North Third St., Suite 104 Minneapolis,MN 55401-1657 telephone: 612.337.0000 fax: 612.337.0031 www.millerdunwiddie.com
Date: April 11, 2005
Project: Wayzata Country Club
Addition/Renovation
RE: Smoke-Control/Draft-Control Devices at Elevators
To: Lyle Oman, Building Official
City of Orono
2750 Kelley Parkway
Orono, MN 55356
From: David Kulich
This memo and the attached letter from Tate Halvorson at McGough Contraction is a follow-up to our
meeting at the Wayzata Country Club on March 31, 2005 in regard to the smoke-control/draft-control
devices at the elevators.
We concur with Tate's letter that the smoke-control and draft-control devices are unnecessary at our
project and would ask that you further review this situation.
Please call with any questions. We will wait for a response from you.
Thanks.
C:\Documents and Settings\loman.000\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK9\memo 041105-Lyle Oman.doc
McGough
Five Generations Building Confidence
TO:David Kulich,Project Architect,
Miller Dunwiddie Architecture
FROM:Tate Halvorson,QA
DATE: 4/4/05
RE: Smoke-and Draft-Control of Wayzata Country Club Elevators
We would like to propose to you, for your concurrence,and the Building Official of Orono that the two
elevators in the Wayzata Country Club addition and remodel project be allowed to be installed without the
smoke-control and draft-control features that were originally anticipated.
The State of Minnesota has adopted the 2000 International Building Code(IBC)as the current Building Code.
As part of the adoption,a number of amendments were included and one of these amendments has had
unexpected consequences. The State Amendment designated as Section 707.7(below)has been interpreted
by the State as overriding IBC 707.14(below)which eliminates the requirement for elevator lobbies(and
smoke-and draft-control)for sprinklered buildings less that 5 stories via exception 4 in this section.
707.7 Openings. Openings in a shaft enclosure shall be protected in
accordance with Section 714 as required for fire barriers and listed in
Table 714.1. Such openings shall restrict the movement of smoke through
openings using smoke-control and draft-control assemblies in accordance
with Section 714.2.3.2 and shall be self-closing or automatic closing by
smoke detection.
707.14 Elevator and dumbwaiter shafts. Elevator hoistway and
dumbwaiter enclosures shall be constructed in accordance with
§707.4 and Chapter 30.
§707.14.1 Elevator lobby. Elevators opening into a fire-resistance-rated corridor as
required by§1004.3.2.1 shall be provided with an elevator lobby at each floor containing
such a corridor.The lobby shall completely separate the elevators from the corridor by
fire barriers and the required opening protection. Elevator lobbies shall have at least one
means of egress complying with Chapter 10 and other provisions within this code.
Exceptions:
1. In office buildings, separations are not required from a street floor elevator
lobby provided the entire street floor is equipped with an automatic sprinkler
system in accordance with§903.3.1.1.
2. Elevators not required to be located in a shaft in accordance with§707.2.
3.Where additional doors are provided in accordance with§3002.6.
4. In other than Groups 1-2 and 1-3, and buildings more than four stories above the lowest
level of fire department vehicle access, lobby separation is not required where the
building, including the lobby and corridors leading to the lobby, is protected by an
automatic sprinkler system installed throughout in accordance with§903.3.1.1 or
§903.3.1.2.
We have had a number of discussions with Plan Review personnel, in the State Building Codes and Standards
Division,who are intimately familiar with the current code adoption process and they have confirmed that it is
their intention and recommendation to delete Section 707.7 from the next code cycle. Per the original intent
of 707.7,they will probably develop additional code language that insures that buildings 5
or more stories will be required to have elevator lobbies or other smoke-and draft-control protection,even if
fire-rated corridors are not required.
We do not think that the State ever intended to be so much more restrictive than IBC Section 707.14
and their proposal for changing 707.7 demonstrates,we believe,that we are correct.
The following points may be appropriate for consideration:
1. As you are aware,the Country Club is basically a 2-story building with a basement(called ground floor)
and a small sub-basement.
2. Elevator B is the only elevator with more than 25 feet of travel. As a result,this elevator will be vented
and have draft curtains with smoke detectors. Interestingly,the draft curtain requirement is expected to also be
eliminated in the next code adoption.
3. The two elevators are very remote from each other and only have 2 levels in common. Thus there will be
very little"stack effect"within the building.
4. Elevator A connects the following:
(a)The basement or ground floor area separated by a hallway ramp system from any major use
areas. This passage to the elevator and elevation rise would tend to pocket smoke and keep it away from the
lower lobby. Smoke gaskets could be added to the 3 doors(normally locked)adjacent to the elevator to
further insure that smoke will not likely reach the elevator
(b)The west lobby area of the 1st floor. This area is enclosed(though not fire-rated), similar to a
lobby and would limit the passage of smoke to other areas of this level.
(c) 2nd floor: A very small office area on the 2nd floor which is remote from the exit and the
boardroom. The door that separates the elevator from the exitway and the boardroom could be
gasketed and have a closer provided if one does not exist.
5. Elevator B (with the draft curtain and smoke detection)connects the following:
(a)The small receiving area in the sub-basement. This area is only about 2600 square feet and
includes fire-rated enclosures for the Trash Room,Elevator Equipment Room and the Electrical Room. There
are also several low hazard freezers.
(b)The employee breakroom,on ground floor,which is basically like a large lobby with no direct
connection to more populated areas. Smoke gaskets could be added to the doors to the Seasonal Storage,the
Laundry and to Door 041 C which connects to the remainder of the floor level. Smoke gaskets could be added
to the employee restrooms but everything,except clothes in metal lockers, is pretty much non-combustible in
these rooms.
(c) The most remote portion of the kitchen. The entry doors to the Ballroom or Casual Dining are
over 60 feet away from this elevator. Smoke gaskets could be added to the adjacent Dry Storage Room 120
and Storage Room 121,but it would not seem to be necessary since this is the highest level of this elevator.
The kitchen has 6 possible exits for quick escape. Further,all the kitchen surfaces are cleanable should smoke
somehow make its way up the elevator from below.
CONCLUSION: We believe that special smoke-control and draft-control devices are unnecessary in such a
low-rise,sprinklered building. We propose to upgrade the smoke-and draft-control of adjacent enclosures
similar to elevator lobbies, in lieu of the apparent,soon-to-be-deleted,code requirement. To provide these
expensive devices on the elevators in the Wayzata Country Club seems,to us,to be a real disservice to our
client. To have to maintain them or to possibly be able to remove them in less than a year seems to be a
totally unnecessary condition.
If you agree with this assessment,we would greatly appreciate it if you would concur and pass this on to the
Orono Building Official. We think this qualifies as a common sense type of equivalency. Thanks much for
your consideration.
0 McGough
live Generations Building Confidence
TO: Mr. Lyle Oman,Building Official,City of Orono
FROM: Tate Halvorson,QA
CC: David Kulich,Project Architect,Miller Dunwiddie Architecture
Paul Egertson,Project Manager,McGough
Dave Krings, State Building Codes and Standards Division
Gerry Norman, State Building Codes and Standards Division
DATE: May 9,2005
RE: Wayzata Country Club Elevator Smoke-Control
Based on your desire to have a State opinion on the issue of smoke control for the Wayzata Country Club's elevators and with
the approval of our Architect, I called Dave Krings Monday morning. Dave called me back immediately and very graciously
agreed to meet with me in the afternoon. He asked Gerry Norman if he could attend and we all met at 2:00!
We discussed the status of the next code adoption cycle and the possible changes to the codes through amendments to the
2003 IBC. Gerry indicated that he is on the committee working on these amendments and the committee has recommended
the deletion of the amendment,IBC 707.7. As you know this amendment has, in effect,overridden the provisions of IBC
707.14 which allows the elimination of elevator lobbies and smoke control for low-rise elevators. Gerry indicated that it is
highly likely that the committee's recommendation will be upheld but it is not a certainty. There are pending amendments to
the 2006 IBC that will be voted on at the ICC Annual Business Meeting(ABM)in September that may affect the final
outcome. Additionally,proponents for the present amendment,especially manufacturers of products that achieve the smoke
control for elevators,may be successful in seeking a public hearing,during the adoption process,and have this amendment
retained.
One concern of many Building Officials, including myself, is that the final code adoption should address the issue of smoke
control for elevators in buildings with five or more stories even if rated corridors are not required.
We discussed the specifics of the Wayzata Country Club while looking at the floor plans and I indicated our desire to
eliminate some or all of the"Smokeguard"systems on the elevator openings based on the above possible code changes and
the limited nature of any"stack effect"in a low-rise structure such as the Country Club. I also discussed the possibility of
providing smoke gaskets on doors adjacent to the elevators area to provide lobbies or lobby"areas".
Both Dave and Gerry were reluctant to endorse this approach given the present codes and the uncertainty of changes.
However,upon further discussion some other options did develop. I will note,separately,the options that were developed.
Elevator A:
Elevator A is the elevator being added in the existing building. It travels from ground floor level through the 1st floor to the
small 2nd floor office area. The travel is less than 25 feet. It was noted that the 1st and 2nd floors are open to each other via
both an adjacent open stair and a large floor opening and it was agreed that it did not make much sense, since smoke and hot
gas from a fire rises,to worry about any smoke developed on the 1st or 2"d. Since the elevator at the ground floor level is
adjacent to mechanical and storage rooms,both Dave and Gerry were comfortable with supporting the idea of providing
smoke-and draft-control at the lowest,most critical level. Since Wayzata Country Club has requested an additional door be
added to close off this area on the ground floor level,visually,from the other areas, it is our proposal that we construct this
area as an elevator lobby. All the adjacent rooms are sprinklered and have been constructed to resist the passage of smoke per
2737 FAIRVIEW AVENUE; NOR I II sr PA( I.,. MINN1 S0.1 A 551 1;-1 33'%2
MOM':: (651) 633-5050 FAX: (6513 633-5673
McGough
Five Generations Building Confidence
the requirements of incidental uses.The doors are all 1-3/4 inch solid-core doors and they will be provided with smoke
gaskets. 1-3/4 inch doors have traditionally been considered more or less equivalent to 20-minute rated doors and it was
pointed out during the meeting that the 2003 IBC has"corrected"the language regarding elevator lobbies by changing the
wall requirement from a"fire barrier"wall to a"fire partition"wall. Thus,when the adoption of the 2003 IBC is complete,
only a 20-minute door will be required for elevator lobbies regardless of the number of stories. Thus we seek your approval
to just construct the described elevator lobby on the lowest level and recognize that the upper two levels,open to each other in
this area,can not be effectively separated.
Elevator B:
Elevator B is the elevator in the new addition that travels from the sub-basement through the ground floor to the 1St floor. The
travel is more than 25 feet so an elevator vent has been provided. It was acknowledged that the intent of the smoke-and draft-
control provisions for elevators was not necessarily to prevent smoke from entering the elevator shaft but,rather,to prevent
smoke from migrating to other floors from the level of development. Therefore, it should be possible to either provide a
positive or negative pressure within the elevator shaft to control the movement of smoke. A positive pressure within the shaft
could prevent the smoke from entering the shaft and a negative pressure might be utilized in conjunction with an exhaust fan,
in lieu of the elevator vent,to send smoke within the shaft out through the top of the shaft to the exterior.
Dave and Gerry indicated their concurrence, in principle,of this approach but also noted that it would be up to the AHJ to
determine if this was appropriate and what other considerations would be necessary.
After consultation with our Mechanical, it was decided that pressurizing the elevator shaft would be the most effective
method. If you consider this an acceptable option,the design team will put together a final design for your approval. The
system will be designed to only operate when one of the local smoke detectors in the adjacent draft curtain detects smoke. It
will then pressurize the shaft with a fan sufficient to keep smoke from migrating into the enclosure. The fan will draw outside
air for this purpose and the opening into the shaft will be protected by a combination damper. There will be a keyed control
for the fire department.
If you agree that we may take the approaches noted,we will work with Miller Dunwiddie to put a final design package
together as soon as possible. I have copied Dave and Gerry with this memo so they can let you know if I have not correctly
interpreted their comments. Thanks much for your assistance in this matter. We look forward to your response.
2737 FAIRVIEW AVENUE NORTH SI'. PAUL. MINNESOTA 55113-1372
PHONE: (651) 633-505O FAX: (651) 633-5673
a
d l3 Ao-f -734 �t-1
MILLER DUNWIDDIE MEETING MINUTES
123 North Third St., Suite 104 Minneapolis,MN 55401-1657 telephone: 612.337.0000 fax: 612.337.0031 www.millerdunwiddie.com
Copies to: FILE
Craig Lau, Jon Jasken, Paul Egertson,
Steve Gentilini, Dan Zitzer, Mike
Ramerth, Steve Carlson,
THOSE PRESENT
Code Review/Informational Meeting
City of Orono
Wayzata Country Club
Wayzata (Orono), MN
WCC 0301
This Next Minutes Prepared By:
Meeting Meeting
Date Start End Date Start Time Michael Bjornberg
Time Time
02/19/04 9:3I a.m. 10:30
a.m.
Attended By:
Name Firm/Dept. Phone/Pa Fax Email
ger
Lyle Oman City of Orono 952.249.4600 952.249.4616 loman@ci.orono.mn.us
Janice Grundlach City of Orono 952.249.4623 952.249.4616 jgundlach@ci.mn.us
Sherwin Nelson McGough 651.633.5050 651.633.5673 snelson@mcgough.com
Tammy Black _ MDA 612.278.7732 612.337.0031 tblack@millerdunwiddie.com
Michael Bjornberg Miller-Dunwiddie 612.278.7702 612.337.0031 mbjornberg@millerdunwiddie.com
(MDA)
A summary of this meeting includes the following items:
OLD BUSINESS
Item Description Action By
none
NEW BUSINESS
Item Description Action By
•
February 23, 2004 -2 - MEETING MINUTES
Purpose.
The purpose of this meeting was to update the
City of Orono as to the scope and progress of the
Wayzata Country Club proposed project. It was
1.0 noted that the design team is completing the
Schematic Design Phase and that a contractor
had been pre-selected by the Owner (McGough
Construction.)
Schedule.
MDA noted that the Schematic Design is to be
completed in 2 weeks and estimated by
1.1 McGough. We anticipate completion of Design
Development in early April 04, with construction to
begin in June/July 2004 and complete April 2005.
Plan walk-through. City of Orono
Tammy Black presented the floor plans of the
proposed project, noting that they are works in
progress, but expressive of the scope and intent
of the project. Included in the floor plans was a
code/exiting plan of the 4 levels. There was
1.2 discussion about required exiting of the upper
level administrative office area. Lyle indicated that
a corridor through the mechanical space may be
required. It was noted that it may only require one
exit, but the City of Orono was to review this area
further and advise the design team.
Approval Process. Team
MDA inquired about the approval required for this
project. Janice Gundlach noted that a Conditional
Use Permit/Amendment would be required and
that this requires City Council action. The project
is in a zoned Residential Area and is a
Commercial use. She noted that the following
needs to occur:
• The City needs a survey, plans and
elevations of the intended project from
1.3 MDA.
Janice noted the process would require Planning
Commission review (one month) and City Council
action (2 months.) The following dates were
provided for such action:
April Planning Commission review (March 17
submittal) provides a May 10 City Council
review/approval date, with a permit issued shortly
thereafter.
MDA noted that the required information was
ready for submittal and review.
C:\Documents and Settings\Ioman.000\Local Settings\TEMP\WCC Code Review notes 021904.doc
•
February 23, 2004 - 3 - MEETING MINUTES
Review Agencies.
MDA inquired as to the other regulatory/review
agencies involved in this process.
The following was noted:
• Health Department: Hennepin County.
• Storm Water: Minnehaha Creek
1.4 Watershed.
• Mech/Elec: State Inspector.
• Sprinkler System: Orono Fire Marshall (Bill
Myer.)
• Temporary exiting plan: Lyle Oman and
the Fire Marshall
The above represents the writer's impressions of the meeting. Any errors, omissions and/or
discrepancies should be reported to them promptly.
C:\Documents and Settings\Ioman.000\Local Settings\TEMP\WCC Code Review notes 021904.doc
1 -3
•
MILLER DUNWIDDIE MEETING MINUTES
123 North Third St., Suite 104 Minneapolis,MN 55401-1657 telephone: 612.337.0000 fax: 612.337.0031 www.millerdunwiddie.com
Copies to: FILE
Craig Lau, Jon Jasken, Paul Egertson,
Steve Gentilini, Dan Zitzer, Mike
Ramerth, Steve Carlson,
THOSE PRESENT
Code Review/Informational Meeting
City of Orono
Wayzata Country Club
Wayzata (Orono), MN
WCC 0301
This Next Minutes Prepared By:
Meeting _ Meeting
Date Start End Date Start Time Michael Bjornberg
Time Time
03/04/04 9:30 a.m. 10:30
a.m.
Attended By:
Name Firm/Dept. Phone/Pa Fax Email
ger
Lyle Oman City of Orono 952.249.4600 952.249.4616 loman@ci.orono.mn.us
Janice Grundlach City of Orono 952.249.4623 952.249.4616 jgundlach@ci.orono.mn.us
Sherwin Nelson McGough 651.633.5050 651.633.5673 snelson@mcgough.com
Tammy Black MDA 612.278.7732 612.337.0031 tblack@millerdunwiddie.com
Michael Bjornberg Miller-Dunwiddie 612.278.7702 612.337.0031 mbjornberg@millerdunwiddie.com
(MDA)
A summary of this meeting includes the following items:
OLD BUSINESS
Item Description Action By
MDA
Schedule.
MDA noted that the Schematic Design is to be completed in 2
1.1 weeks and estimated by McGough. We anticipate completion
of Design Development in early April 04, with construction to
begin in June/July 2004 and complete April 2005.
1 2 Plan walk-through. Orono
Tammy Black presented the floor plans of the proposed
March 8, 2004 -2 - MEETING MINUTES
Item Description Action By
project, noting that they are works in progress, but expressive
of the scope and intent of the project. Included in the floor
plans was a code/exiting plan of the 4 levels. There was
discussion about required exiting of the upper level
administrative office area. Lyle indicated that a corridor through
the mechanical space may be required. It was noted that it may
only require one exit, but the City of Orono was to review this
area further and advise the design team.
Approval Process. MDA
MDA inquired about the approval required for this project.
Janice Gundlach noted that a Conditional Use
Permit/Amendment would be required and that this requires
City Council action. The project is in a zoned Residential Area
and is a Commercial use. She noted that the following needs to
occur:
• The City needs a survey, plans and elevations of the
1.3 intended project from MDA.
Janice noted the process would require Planning Commission
review (one month) and City Council action (2 months.) The
following dates were provided for such action:
April Planning Commission review (March 17 submittal)
provides a May 10 City Council review/approval date, with a
permit issued shortly thereafter.
MDA noted that the required information was ready for
submittal and review.
NEW BUSINESS
Item Description Action By
Purpose.
The intent of this meeting is to conduct the Preliminary
Application Meeting for the Wayzata Country Club
2.0 remodeling/addition. Janice Gundlach indicated that the project
is in a residentially zoned area and as such requires a
Conditional Use Permit. Janice saw it as more of a formality,
than a problematic issue. The official address is noted to be:
200 Wayzata Boulevard.
Project Review.
MDA reviewed the project scope with Janice. Janice noted that
2.1 the project is not in a hard cover zone, nor in shore land zone.
We reviewed the existing survey information and noted that the
building survey is currently being updated.
2.2 Submittal Requirements. MDA
C:\Documents and Settings\Ioman.000\Local Settings\TEMP\WCC Planning-Code Mtg notes 030404.doc
March 8, 2004 -3 - MEETING MINUTES
Janice requested that:
• One full size plan set for Janice,
• one 11x17 set floor plans, elevations and site plan
clearly indicate the existing and the proposed,
• a brief narrative description of the project (including
parking,)
• the adjacent property owners list ( to be attained from
the county,)
• legal description (city has already,)
• a check for the noted amount,
• signature of property owner representative,
• to be submitted by March 17, 2004 at noon,
• Representative to present project to Planning
Commission at April 19 meeting (6 p.m.) Janice noted
that the agenda sequence is determined by the
sequence which submittals are received by the city.
Code Discussion. Orono
After the Planning meeting, MDA met with Lyle Oman, Building
Official, to review the project and ask for clarifications on
exiting issues. Lyle reviewed the elevator exceptions relative to
2.3 the lobby requirement and noted that he felt there are no
elevator lobbies required on this project. Lyle is to advise MDA
whether a rated elevator shaft enclosure is required. MDA
asked about clarification for exiting on the upper level — Lyle to
continue his review of this area.
The above represents the writer's impressions of the meeting. Any errors, omissions and/or
discrepancies should be reported to them promptly.
C:\Documents and Settings\Ioman.000\Local Settings\TEMP\WCC Planning-Code Mtg notes 030404.doc
i9/
MILLER DUNWIDDIE MEMORANDUM
ARCHITECTURE'rf PRESERVATION
123 North Third St., Suite 104 Minneapolis,MN 55401-1657 telephone: 612.337.0000 fax: 612.337.0031 www.millerdunwiddie.com
Date: June 4, 2004
Project: Wayzata Country Club Addition/ Renovation
RE: Document review by Tate Halvorson
To: Paul Egertson
From: Tammy Black
GENERAL COMMENT: It was our understanding from the initial meeting with the City (Sherwin Nelson attended
for McGough), that the City was "OK"with several options. One of the options was to consider the overall building
as a V-B (unrated combustible construction) with an automatic fire extinguishing system (sprinklers) throughout to
gain an additional story and area increases per the IBC. This is how the height and area allowances appear to be
determined on Sheet T102. If this is the case, then we do not understand why the addenda are now calling for all
new lumber and plywood in the addition to be Fire-Retardant Treated Wood (FRT). Even though the majority of
this addition is steel and precast concrete, the addition can still be classified as V-B construction (and should be
since it is not separated from and standard wood should be allowed.
The reason for changing to FRT wood was specifically to help reduce the amount of`combustibles"in concealed
spaces and therefore reduce the number of sprinklers required. This is a concern in the walls and roofs of the
"attic"spaces we are creating. Other areas that don't fall under this category can be constructed with standard
wood.
1. Sheet T102: We noted that the 2003 IBC is indicated as the code this project was designed under and that
incidental storage rooms greater than 100 square feet are indicated as just needing sprinklers per the State's PR-
03 memo. Has this code and/or"interpretation" or"equivalency" been approved by the Wayzata Building Official?
Also, we assume that the walls of these storage rooms will need to resist the passage of smoke per IBC
302.1.1.1. Is this a correct assumption?
Use of the State's PR-03 was mentioned to the local code official. A thorough code review by the city is pending.
MDA will make the changes necessary to wall construction and doors as required to resist the passage of smoke.
2. Sheet A100: Does the Sump Room SB10 require a rated door and "front"wall as indicated?
No. The door and north wall of the Sump Room do not need to be rated.
3. Sheet A101:
A. We noted that Doors 020 and 021 are indicated as 45 minute doors and the"front"wall of these
spaces are designated as 1-hour fire-rated construction. Based on the above item 1, can any or all of these
ratings be eliminated?
Yes. Doors 020, 021, and 016 can be standard doors without a rating. The walls can be standard construction
without a rating(similar construction to wall type 4 without insulation).
B. It appears that a gate or barrier and discharge identification is required by IBC Section 1005.3.2.3 in
Stair C. If so, please provide details.
Both the ground floor and sub-basement are considered a level of discharge. Therefore a gate or barrier is not
required.
WCC0301 June 4,2004
Wayzata Country Club Addition/Renovation Page 2
C. We have not noted a water fountain in the women's locker room. Is a water fountain to be provided
similar to the men's locker room area?
No. It is not required. Ice water and cups are provided at the sink in the Women's Lounge#026.
4. Sheet A102:
A. Has the exit plan and door swings shown from the Bar Deck been approved by the City?
No comment has been made to date with preliminary code reviews by the City. Final code review by the City is
pending.
B. Are the rated doors and enclosure required for the closet adjacent to"corridor" 122? This appears to
meet the requirements for exiting through an intervening room and may not need to be rated. (Sprinklers in the
closets have been noted, appropriately, in one of the addenda.)
The rated doors and enclosure are required due to the electrical panels and equipment housed within.
C. The glass in the W06 frame adjacent to Door 111A appears to need safety glass. Please review.
The panel of glass immediately to the west of Door 11A should be modified to include safety glass.
D. The glass adjacent to Door 111B and the W04 glass on the landing of Stair C may be subject to
interpretation. Has this been approved by the City without safety glass?
No comment has been made to date with preliminary code reviews by the City. Final code review by the City is
pending.
5. Sheet A103: The 2nd exit from the Northwest occupied office area appears to have been eliminated. Has this
been approved by the City?
Yes. The code official approved it as long as the total occupant load at this level is less than 50.
6. Sheet A130:
A. Detail 4B:
(1) Per our previous letter it still appears that an ambulatory stall is required in Men's Locker
Room 032. Mn Accessibility Code Section 1341.0460, Subpart 4 requires an ambulatory stall when there are 6
water closets or a combined total of 6 water closets and urinals. We have had this issue on many previous
projects and believe this detail should be changed so that all trades involved will be aware of the changes
needed. (Please note: the depth of the stall varies by type of w.c. [Figure 30b] and horizontal and vertical bars
have been required on both sides.)
Unfortunately, I never received a letter prior to this one. One of the toilet stalls will be modified to conform to the
requirements for an ambulatory stall with required grab bars. New detail pending.
(2) Has the City approved a separate accessible lavatory setup for the disabled? Will it have all
the same amenities as the other 2 stations?
The lavatories on the west wall of the Men's locker room are to be accessible per the note on 4C/A631. They will
have the same amenities as the other 2 stations and will be similar to 4D/A631 with two accessible lavatories..
B. Detail 6B (Typical): The accessible stall may not have a"to scale"toilet in the drawing but we would
recommend that a dimension of 4 feet from the front of the water closet to the front toilet partition be provided in
order to eliminate possible errors during ordering, etc. (MN Accessibility Code 1341.0450, Subpart 3)
The 4'-0"dimension will be added as a typical note in all accessible stalls.
C. Detail 2C (Typical): We would recommend, for the previous reason, that the dimensioning of the door
opening into the accessible stall clearly indicate that the 32 inch clearance is to the door when the door does not
swing 180 degrees out of the way.
This comment is confusing. I will note the required width at accessible stall doors be 32"min. from the face of the
door to the opposite jamb. (This should apply whether the door swings 90 or 180 degrees...?)
U:\WCC\WCC0301\Documentation\H-Prime Contr\H1 Contractor Correspondence\Document Review.doc
WCC0301 June 4,2004
Wayzata Country Club Addition/Renovation Page 3
r7it-D. Detail 6C: This may be subject to interpretation due to the wall "jog"adjacent to the door in this detail,
but it does not appear to meet the 18 inch side clearance required by the MN Accessibility Code. Section
1341.0442, Subpart 6 requires a door to have no more than an 8 inch recess.
MDA will shift the north bay areas of the room 2"south. This will alter the `jog"to a 7%"recess, therefore meeting
the intent of the code. It will also create a plane difference or a step between the first and second floor, which is
fine. As this is Alternate A2, no further details or modifications will be drawn until the alternate is accepted.
o•kc- E. Details 1D and 1 E: Do these reception desks fall under the requirements of MN Accessibility Code
Section 1341.0720, Subpart 1? If it is believed that they do not, has the City approved this design? Will there be
other"desks"or similar in our scope of work that may need an accessible portion?
These counters do not fall under the noted requirement since they are more a "security"counter than"assistance"
counter. No comment has been made to date with preliminary code reviews by the City. Final code review by the
City is pending. There are no other"desks"in this project, only two bars and two pieces of furniture used as host
stations at the restaurants.
7. Sheet A330(Typical), also 5D/A650: What are the deflections that we should expect in the new
construction? We like to check w/structural in order to provide the most efficient design of the fire stopping
systems.
Detail 5D/A650 indicates a typical wall joint in plan view. No substantial deflection is expected along wall panels.
A detail similar to this showing the top of a stud wall meeting a precast plank structure should show a slip joint
capable of allowing for 3A"max. vertical movement on this project. MDA to issue typical detail for clarification.
8. Sheet A331, Detail 2E and 1A/A350: How should the vapor barrier be maintained continuous at this section?
This detail should be modified to show the vapor barrier continuing down past the floor on the south side of the
laminated wood beam and under the 2X10 wood joists, until it connects with the vapor barrier that exists
(hopefully) in the existing north wall of the Pro Shop. Batt insulation will be removed and rigid applied on the
underside of the vapor barrier with plywood, metal lath and stucco finish. MDA to issue detail.
9. Sheet A380, Details 3D and 6D: Please clarify the extent of vapor barriers and/or waterproof membranes in
these details. Please Note: Detail 2D/A382 indicates a typical detail with a vapor barrier continuous over the
precast. This does not seem to be appropriate for 3D. If a vapor barrier is to be "exposed", does it need to be a
Class I flamespread material?
The vapor barrier at the `floor"level will continue from the roof area under the concrete topping and terminate at
the wall assembly. The concrete topping will be considered more of a "walking"surface than a structural surface.
The detail should be modified to cover waterproof membrane at the wall with gypsum board. This should
eliminate any exposed material in this area. MDA to issue detail.
10. Sheet A381:
A. Details 5B and 4E indicate that these spaces are vented per 4E/A382 and 5E/A382. Please clarify
venting, insulation, vapor barrier and waterproof membrane.
Modified details will be issued by MDA.
B. Detail 6E: If this floor is a walking surface, should additional protection be provided at the edges or
should the flooring be wider?
The plywood"flooring"should extend to the walls of the "dormer".
11. Sheet A382:
A. Detail 2B: Should the flashing in this detail be above the standing seam roof such that it will prevent
water from entering beneath the roof system?
Yes. The flashing should be above the standing seam roof, and the building wrap should lap the vertical flashing.
MDA to issue a detail for clarification.
B. Detail 4E: It is not clear to us how venting is achieved. Is attic venting intended? Shall the plywood,
membrane and flashing be held back? If so, how much?
U:\WCC\WCC0301\Documentation\H-Prime Contr\H1 Contractor Correspondence\Document Review.doc
WCC0301 June 4,2004
Wayzata Country Club Addition/Renovation Page 4
This detail is not intended to be an attic venting detail. The venting is provided for the breathable shingle
underlayment only.
C. Detail 6B: Please explain the purpose of this "Area Separation Wall"and the extent of this closure per
the initial discussion point of this letter. Is this essentially a draftstop? Are other draftstops required per IBC
Section 716.4?
This wall is acting as a draftstop to separate existing combustible and new noncombustible construction in the
attic. Sprinklers will be provided in the combustible concealed attic spaces, but not in the noncombustible spaces.
Draftstopping is not required throughout this building as it is provided with an automatic sprinkler system and the
new areas are constructed of noncombustible construction.
12. Sheet A400, Detail 3E (also 2E/A401): We believe the guard spacing should be less than 4 inches per IBC
Section 1003.2.12.1 (such that a 4 inch sphere can not pass through). However, drawing does not appear to be
to scale; please provide revision as necessary.
Details 3E/A400 and 2E/A401 should be modified to indicate guard spacing at 4"o.c. in lieu of 4"max. spacing
between guards.
13. Sheet A401:
A. Detail 1D and 2D: With more than 25 feet of travel, it appears that an elevator vent is required.
Elevator B travels between the sub-basement and the first floor, totaling 25'-8" A vent is required.
B. Detail 3B: What is the assembly we should provide to achieve the top closure of the elevator shaft?
Are there options other than spray-applied fireproofing?
The assembly is required to be 1-hour rated. This assembly can be achieved any way you would like, be it
precast plank, metal deck with fire-proofing, or light gage studs with gypsum board.
14. Sheet A500 Door Schedule: The secondary exit doors (Drs 26 and 43B) from the locker rooms have panic
hardware but the main exit/entry doors do not. Do these doors require panic hardware (if latching)? (The code
analysis indicates more than 100 occupants.)
These are latching doors and panic hardware should be added at Doors 024 and 036.
15. Sheet A501, Detail 1C: It appears that a header is required in this wall section. Shall we provide?
Yes. Please provide as required.
16. Sheet A630, Detail 2D: On what levels should pictorial emergency exit signage be provided by the elevator
call button?
No signs should be required.
17. Sheet A631:
A. We have not located any detail for accessible urinals. Please provide detail and location of accessible
urinals in each restroom that has at least one urinal.
The urinals we have selected will meet ADA requirements. Details will be provided by MDA indicating mounting
heights and locations.
B. We have not located details for the accessible showers including grab bars, length of adjustable
shower hoses, etc. (?)
Detail will be provided by MDA.
18. Sheet A632, Detail 2B: The sconces in this detail appear to be too low to meet the requirements of MN
Accessibility Code Section 1341.0424, Subpart 1 for protruding objects; in that they protrude more than 4 inches
and are lower than 80 inches. Can they be raised or revised?
Once the final fixtures are chosen, we are intending to set back the wall above the chair rail as required to make
sure the sconces do not protrude more than 4"into the arched area.
U:\WCC\WCC0301\Documentation\H-Prime Contr\H1 Contractor Correspondence\Document Review.doc
WCC0301 June 4,2004
Wayzata Country Club Addition! Renovation Page 5
19. Sheet A670, Detail 2B: The employee's lavatory counter does not appear to meet accessibility
requirements. Has this been approved?
MDA to issue a revised detail indicating 29"min. clear from the finished floor to the bottom of the apron and 34"to
the rim of the sink above finished floor.
20. Sheet F101: It has been our recent experience that an elevator inspector has objected to a single sprinkler
pipe serving the elevator equipment room and then continuing through to serve the elevator pit. Please verify that
the proposed design is acceptable.
Also, please clarify locations of sprinkler heads in Stair C.
Comments from Mechanical pending.
21. Sheet M101:
A. No ventilation appears to be provided for the elevator equipment rooms. Is ventilation required?
(Typically we have been required to provide mechanical ventilation to maintain ambient temperature and humidity
per manufacturer's specifications per 2000 ASME 17.1 Section 2.7.5.2 or similar.) If so, are combination
Fire/Smoke dampers required?
B. Do the ducts entering the shaft at approximately Gridline 11 between L and M require dampers? This
may be subject to City interpretation of IBC 715.6.3 and related sections.
Comments from Mechanical pending.
22. Sheet M103, Detail 2: It appears that piping, which does not serve the stair enclosure, is passing through
the enclosure. Should this detail be revised?
Comments from Mechanical pending.
23. Sheet E101: Is emergency lighting to be provided in the elevator equipment room and is said lighting
adequate in the employee break room?
Comments from Electrical pending.
U:\WCC\WCC0301\Documentation\H-Prime Contr\H1 Contractor Correspondence\Document Review.doc