Correspondence 13k-A92-0-2_,v —oo t53
LLc000 RIVeCT-errace
Branden Taggart
From: Branden Taggart
Sent: Wednesday,January 13, 2021 10:22 AM
To: Christian Cutul
Cc: Debbie Pearson; Dianna Ornelas
Subject: RE: Recent Submittal - BUP2020-00153
Attachments: TransmittalLetter-Revisions_073120_Rutkin.pdf
Christian,
Thank you. The transmittal letter we received listed Geotech calculations, but It appears they were submitted back in
April. I took a closer look at the calculations, and they reference stairs,which were not listed on your transmittal
letter. Thank you for clarifying and completing our Transmittal Letter. We will let you know when we have completed
our review.
Thanks,
Branden Taggart
a City of Tigard
® Senror Permit Technician.
Community Development
TIGARD
13125 SW Hall Bfvd
Tigard, OR 97223
(503)718-2444
brandent@tigard-or.gov
From:Christian Cutul<cutul@bora.co>
Sent: Wednesday,January 13, 2021 9:31 AM
To: Branden Taggart<brandent@tigard-or.gov>
Cc: Debbie Pearson<Debbie.Pearson@otak.com>; Dianna Ornelas<Dianna@tigard-or.gov>
Subject: RE: Recent Submittal
Caution!This message was sent from outside your organization. Allow sender I Block sender
Hi Branden,
Please see attached for the CoT transmittal form.
These "clean" drawing sets and hard copies of supplemental structural engineering calculations are for the building permit
only (BUP2020-00153). (There shouldn't be any geotechnical calculations.)
Thank you,
Christian Cutul AIA, LEED AP
he/him/his
Bora Architecture&Interiors
503 226 1575
1
r
From: Branden Taggart<brandent@tigard-or.gov>
Sent: Wednesday,January 13, 2021 8:57 AM
To: Christian Cutul <cutul@bora.co>
Cc: Debbie Pearson<Debbie.Pearson@otak.com>; Dianna Ornelas<Dianna@tigard-or.gov>
Subject: Recent Submittal
Hi Christian,
We received your recent Art Rutkin Elementary submittal with volumes 1 and 2 of plans and Geotechnical
calculations. However,we will need to know which permits the plans and calculations are associated with. We would
appreciate it if you can complete the attached Transmittal letter and provide the correct permit numbers. Also, please
provide separate transmittals for each permit. I will route this submittal to Tom Hochstatter once we have the
completed transmittal letters.
Thanks,
Branden Taggart
n City of Tigard
Senior Permit Technician
Community Development
4.11(1011
13125 SW Hall Blvd
Tigard, OR 97223
(503)71B-2449
brandent@ttgard-or.gov
DISCLAIMER' E-mails sent or received by City of Tigard employees are subject to public record laws. If requested, e-mail
may be disclosed to another party unless exempt from disclosure under Oregon Public Records Law. E-mails are retained
by the City of Tigard in compliance with the Oregon Administrative Rules"City General Records Retention Schedule."
2
Christian Cutul
From: Michael Clark <MikeClark@catenaengineers.com> RECEIVED
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2020 8:27 AM
To: rogerst@rosenet.net JAN 112021
Cc Jason Thompson; Damian Andreani; Neil Hartman
Subject: Rutkin Elementary School: Structural Plan Check Response 2 CITY OF TIGAAD
Attachments: Comment 30.pdf; Comment 43.pdf; Comment 67.pdf; RUTKIN-STR1J1DWIMA$}ON
RESPONSE 2 -20200526.pdf
Tom,
As requested,you will find our responses to the unresolved comments for the plan review of Art Rutkin Elementary
School below and the updated drawings attached.
Comment 22: Double top plate analysis was conducted using a pinned end condition and continuous double top plates
over 5+studs.The moment at the first bay was 3/16(P/L).This captured the condition at the end of any wall in the case
that there was a joist in the last bay. Double top plate splices, per 11/S601, are 4ft long minimum and spanning over
three wall studs.The load calculated above is adequate, if not conservative,at the location of these splices.
Comment 30: See attached calculations. First floor shear wall calculations have accommodated the correct first floor
relite height.The location of the second floor relite has been adjusted to accommodate a full-height non-perforated
shear wall west of the new relite location.See updated structural drawings for updated shear wall callouts and hold
downs. See updated architectural drawings for updated location of second floor relite.
Comment 43: See attached calculations clarifying reinforcement required in each direction of rectangular Footing
Type D. Also, refer to updated 3/S501 for corrected longitudinal reinforcement.
Comment 51: See updated structural drawings for listed footing extension.
Comment 59: See updated structural detail 11/S801.
Comment 63: The architect has incorporated the necessary structural information into their stair handrail details.See
updated architectural drawings.
Comment 67: A 9 ft heel length is not structurally necessary. An 8 ft heel length is structurally acceptable. See
attached calculations.
Let me know if you have any further questions.
Best,
Mike Clark
catena consulting engineers 11500 NE Irving Street,Suite 412, I portland, or 97232
t:585.880.9657 I f: 503.467.4797
www.catenaengineers,com
follow us on facebook
a connected series of related elements
1
Christian Cutul
From: Michael Clark <MikeClark@catenaengineers.com> RECEIVED
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2020 8:27 AM
To: rogerst@rosenet.net JAN 112021
Cc: Jason Thompson; Damian Andreani; Neil Hartman CITY OF TIGARD
subject: Rutkin Elementary School: Structural Plan Check Response 2
Attachments: Comment 30.pdf; Comment 43.pdf; Comment 67.pdf; RUTKIN-SLAM
RESPONSE 2 -20200526.pdf
Tom,
As requested,you will find our responses to the unresolved comments for the plan review of Art Rutkin Elementary
School below and the updated drawings attached.
Comment 22: Double top plate analysis was conducted using a pinned end condition and continuous double top plates
over 5+studs.The moment at the first bay was 3/16(P/L).This captured the condition at the end of any wall in the case
that there was a joist in the last bay. Double top plate splices, per 11/S601, are 4ft long minimum and spanning over
three wall studs.The load calculated above is adequate, if not conservative,at the location of these splices.
Comment 30: See attached calculations. First floor shear wall calculations have accommodated the correct first floor
relite height.The location of the second floor relite has been adjusted to accommodate a full-height non-perforated
shear wall west of the new relite location.See updated structural drawings for updated shear wall callouts and hold
downs. See updated architectural drawings for updated location of second floor relite.
Comment 43: See attached calculations clarifying reinforcement required in each direction of rectangular Footing
Type D.Also, refer to updated 3/5501 for corrected longitudinal reinforcement.
Comment 51: See updated structural drawings for listed footing extension.
Comment 59: See updated structural detail 11/S801.
Comment 63: The architect has incorporated the necessary structural information into their stair handrail details. See
updated architectural drawings.
Comment 67: A 9 ft heel length is not structurally necessary. An 8 ft heel length is structurally acceptable. See
attached calculations.
Let me know if you have any further questions.
Best,
Mike Clark
catena consulting engineers 11500 NE Irving Street,Suite 412, I portland, or 97232
t:585.880.9657 I f: 503.467.4797
www.catenaenaineers.com
follow us on facebook
a connected series of related elements
1