Correspondence (704) OCT -19 -99 TUE 03:41 PM MACDONALD MILLER FAX:5037360597 PAGE 3
,t WEI O2: 52 iM MACDONALD MILLER FAX :50 7 ?6,0597 :AGE 2 642 ,
MaCDorttald- Miller V °°"'" "" SW 11/400
r Asti 11r201 R
cN t p C 2 3rr-
COMpany ,Inc. is9t Nova C•ir4ca oe Yam sd3.73$11597 fat
Oclobar 5. 1999.
car of Thg
Budding t pd. and Rano Examination
Ain: Mr. 8Qb Peskin, mechanical plaits examiner
Re: Tigard 'corporate Center, Tigard Oregon
Dear Bob,
Ac poi alai telephone cone► o on on 10.4 99, it wet noted Met the aubrnitlol for plan rchew architectural and
mechanical dwgs indicate rile enclosure surrounding the main duct risers as being rated aria, oonsequentty, the
ductwork smoke damper+ed. We befieve the "rating" of the duct riser enclosures was in emir and are
submitting a conmciive Amendment for your review.
We are sybmitting for Tigard Building Dept formal review the following four Amendments to the project's
docvmenta:
1. Owg .2 , Building Code Summary - Structural fire resistivity, note 6, delete '1 ht.
2. Deg A F1 Second floor plan - delete words 4 1 hr rated' from sentence' 1 be rated shaft sac. 304.6 table
6A and sect. 711.3 Shall read duct enclosure per sec= 304.6 table 6A and section 711.3' (note an Dan at
aPPrd. grid 10/A)
3. Ng M2.11, at grids 8.58 and 2.518. delete (6) fire smoke dampers where ductwork pr3netrates the duct riser
emirates.
4, Dwg 021, at grids 8.5/8 and 2.58, delete (6) fire smoke dampers where the ductwork penetrates the duct
riser d
M our coneersadon, R was confirmed that the proposed office building is B ea: money, type V Nt ft was
confirmed! that there is no occupancy separation behveen the two t(oors. Our research in IUBC section /11.3 has
tea us m tee conclusion tttat the auctwont nser enclosures adjacent to the two stairs shafts is not required to be
rated and drat the ductwork penetrating the enclosure does not nave to be frelsmoke dampered.
(grease note h one or me tour aura nswr encosure MSS rs adjacent m hoe Sian. wnlcn is 1 noun ram Tor
along, and so the stair wall is untended to remain rated.)
If you have any concerns or questions regarding the above amendments. please do not hesitate to caH, We
thank you in advance for your time and conskleralion in this review.
4 7/6/./Te'z) Sincerely, /
CITY OF TIGARD ,� - • �
Approved
isieffte. ,��'�""'
Conditionally Apprdved [ ]:
Mike Gorman, AlA Isaac Simkin, PE
For only the work as described in:
PERMIT NO = q,_ 9492 I z 3 12. -- Project Architect Project engineer
See Letter to: Follow
IRS Architects Mx ona d Miller of Oregon
Attach [ ]:
Job Address: 1 2143 sw �q4
By: ' • Date: i0j20l4l
` _ �- ��� .- . �V T • cz �aZ L l]�.1H , : D 66- 90 -1-zo
OCT -08 -99 'FRI 10:24 AM MACDONALD MILLER FAX:5037360597 PAGE 2
OC , - -99 WED O2:5r MACDONALD MILLER FAX: 503 :AGE 2 /"/ i�� - 7 7,
Mac0on81d- Miller A ti m, SW Nod
Company, Inc 720'
1991 National Conaacat ate Yet 911.7364697 tux
orfaDor S, 1999.
City of Tigard
Builiire Dept. and Plass Exantiestkrn ( # &
9/ j
Attn: Mr. Bob Peskin, mechanical plan examiner
Re: Tigard Corporate Tig
Center, ard Oregon
Dear Bob,
As per out telephone conversation on 10499, it was noted that the submittal for plan review architectural and
mechanical dwgs indicate Me enclosure surrounding the main duct risers as being ranted and, consequently, the
cluchvork fee/smoke darnpered. We believe the "rating" of the duct riser enclosures was In error and are
submittng a corrective Amendment for your review.
We are submitting for regard Building Dept formal review the fallowing four Amendments to the project's
doeurrnnnts:
1. Owg A02 , Burldkrg Code Summary - Structural fire resistivity, note 8, delete 1 hr,
2. Dwg A0.2, Fi Second floor plan delete words' 1 hr rates from sentence " 1 hr rated shaft sec. 304.6 table
6A and sect. 711.3' Shat Led duct enclosure per sect 304.6 table 6A and section 711.3' (note on plan at
appreur. grid 14VA)
3. Dwg M2.11, at grids 8.518 and 2.618, delete (6) Are stoke dampers where ductwork penetrates the dud riser
endosums.
4. Dwg I18221, at grids 8.518 and 2.58. delete (6) fire smoke dampers where the ductwork penetrates the duct
riser enclosures.
in ax oonwersation, it was confirmed that the proposed office building is 6 occupancy, type V NR. It was
confirmed that there is no occupancy separation between the two floors. Our research in UBC section 711.3 has
led us to the conch ion that the ductwork riser enclosures adjacent to the two stirs shad is not required to be
rated and that the ductwork penetra ng the enclosure does not have to be fireismoke darrpered.
(Please note that ono of the four duct riser enclosure was is adjacent to the stairs. which is 1 hour rated for
exiling, and ao the staff 'wall is intended to remain rated.)
if you have any concerns or questions regarding the above amendments. please do not hesitate to call. We
thank you in advance for your time and oonsideraftion in this review.
Sincerely, 7 : L L1 - e ���E -a-% yasav v`• -
Mike Gorman, AIA Isaac 3imkin, PE
Project Arr.hitect Project engineer
LAB Architects MacDonald-Miler of Oregon
i
OCT -08 -99 FRI 10:23 AM MACDONALD MILLER FAX:5037360597 PAGE 1
t
a FAX AM& 1 Date October 8, 1999
I Number of pages including cover sheet 2
TO: City of Tigard . FROM: Isaac Simkin
Building dept. M acDonald - Miller
Attn: Mr. Bob Poskin
Phone 639 -4171 P hone ( 503) 736 - 0554
Fax Phone 684 -7297 - F ax Phone ( 503) 736 - 0555
I CC:
REMARKS: x Urgent x For your review x Reply ASAP x Please Comment
❑ ❑ ❑
ATTACHED: Tigard Corporate Center, plan review
Bob,
As per our conversation this week, we are submitting for review the attached amendment to the
dwgs. (fax copy to you in the interest of time, with hard copy to follow)
Thank you for your time and effort on this. If you have any questions, or I need to submitt the
amendment in a different procedural way, please give me a call.
p .../ , -
Isaac Simkin, • E
Project engineer
e:lwordfilelformslfax- mm.doc