Correspondence (135) NOV -11 -2002 MON 01 :33 PM SHERMAN,SHERMAN,MURCH FAX NO. 5033704308 P. 02
( %91/
i
November 11, 2002
Mark C. Hoyt
Attorney at Law Greg Lampella
City of Tigard Via Hand Delivery
13125 SW Hall Blvd.
Tigard, OR 97223
RE: Green Office Building
Dear Greg:
1 write to follow our meeting of October 15, 2002 at Ankrum Moisan
Associated Architects. At that time, Joe Green, Jr., Roger Supemeau of Anlcrurn
Moisan Associated Architects, you, Darrell Jones and I met to discuss how to
address the fire safety issues which had been previously raised regarding the
plans for the Green Office Building. As 1 understood it, the purpose of the
meeting was to try to address how the design could be adapted to meet all
applicable fire safety regulations.
At that time, you reaffirmed the previous statement that my client could
use the IBC standard to determine the minimum separation between exits, as
opposed to the UBC standard.
Using the IBC standard, my client must provide a separation distance of
1/3 the diagonal of the building between entrances to the exit passageways in
case of fire. Because the entrances to the two stairwells do not achieve the
separation under the IBC, it was necessary to create at least one exit passageway
to achieve the required separation.
When we reviewed the plans during that meeting, we were able to
determine that the entry door at the southwest corner of the central core in
which this staircase is located, achieves the required separation from the entry
•
door to the central core of the building in the northwest corner. Accordingly, if
those two doors provide the required entries, my client provides the requisite
separation.
475 Cottage St. N.E.,
Suite 120 To achieve the separation, we agreed doors on magnetic holdbacks
y' would be installed at the intersection of the east/west northern hall, and the
Salem, Oregon 97301
Phone: 503- 364 -3302 north/south central hallway. Appropriately rated firedoors would then be
Fax: 503- 370 -4308 installed at each of the four entrances to the central core. That design would be
•
E -mail: carried on the second and third floors. This design could be easily
hoyt@hoytlaw.net accommodated, because the previously designed plumbing could be reserved,
moving the toilet in the ADA bathroom from the south, tonorth wall.
NOV -11 -2002 MON 01:34 PM SHERMAN, SHERMAN, MURCH FAX NO, 5033704308 P. 03
Greg Lampella Page 2 November 11, 2002
Unfortunately, on the first floor, because the plumbing is poured under the concrete slab, the
bathroom could not be as easily reconfigured. This prevented installing the same system for
magnetic doors on holdbacks as was to be used on the second and third floors.
Accordingly, my client proposed placing the magnetic doors, which would achieve the
required separation between entrances to the exit passageways, in the middle of the building. This
would create an issue, in that the two bathrooms would exit into the exit passageway. You indicated
that, if my client could demonstrate adequate safety precautions had been taken in order to address
the two bathrooms which opened into the exit passageway on the first floor, the installation of the
magnetic holdback doors in the center of the structure might be acceptable.
Pursuant to your request, we discussed the possibility that 90 minute doors, frames and two
hour walls might provide the required safety measures to allow the bathrooms to open into the exit
passageway.
Consistent with our discussions Roger Superneau of Ankrum Moisan Associated Architects,
has redesigned the central core of the building, to incorporate the changes we discussed at our
meeting. A copy of his design plans are enclosed together with a letter explaining why Mr.
Superneau feels his plans comply with the IBC and UBC as applicable.
In preparing the plans, Ankrum Moisan Associated Architects is responsible for the
documents they stamp. They are not the architect of record and will not be providing construction
observation services.
Please review the enclosed plans together with Mr. Superneau's letter, and let us know
whether they satisfy your requirements, so that my client may proceed with the project.
If there is any further information we can provide to aid you in your evaluation, please let
me know and will do all that we can to provide it to you. Thank you for your continuing courtesy
and cooperation in this matter.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please feel free to contact me at your
convenience.
urs
f `!
Mark C. Hoyt
MCH:vmp
cc: Joe Green
Roger Supemeau
11/23/02 SAT 12:02 FAX 5036243681 CITY OF TIGARD BLDG DEPT a001
******* *********** ***
is
***c TX REPORT ***c
** * *** ********** * ****
TRANSMISSION OK
TX /RX NO 0077
CONNECTION TEL 5032457710
CONNECTION ID
ST. TIME 11/23 12:01
•
• USAGE T 00'54
PGS. SENT 2
RESULT OK
curr
November 23, 2002 CITY OF TIGARD
OREGON
Roger Superneau
Ankrom Moisan Associated Architects
6720 SW Macadam, Suite 100
Portland, OR 97129
Re: Revised Exiting and Alternate Methods of Construction
Green Office Building, 11560 SW 67
BU P2001 -00061
Dear Mr. Superneau,
We have reviewed the revised exiting plans for the above referenced project as well as
the request for alternate methods of construction. Based on the structural conditions of
moving the stairways and the stage of construction this project is in, we are approving
the alternates subject to the following conditions. This review was performed under the
provisions of the State of Oregon Structural Specialty Code (OSSC), 1998 edition and
the International Building Code (IBC), 2000 edition.
• The current configuration of the exit enclosures does not meet the provisions of
OSSC Section 1004.2.4. The overall diagonal of the building is 114 feet requiring
the exits to be separated a distance of 57 feet. They are currently 32.5 feet apart.
The revised plans show one -hour rated exit passageways on all three floors at
the north end of the building. This puts the required exits approximately 38 feet
apart. You have requested Exception 2 of IBC Section 1004.2.2.1 be utilized as
an alternate which allows the exit separation to be reduced to one -third the
overall diagonal when the building is equipped throughout with an automatic
sprinkler system. One -third of 114 feet is 38 feet. We understand that an
automatic sprinkler system will be installed. The IBC is a nationally recognized
document containing similar provisions as the OSSC. In accordance with OSSC
Section 104.2.8, for alternates, we believe this provides an equal degree of
safety and this request is hereby approved.
11/23/02 SAT 12:00 FAX 5036243681 CITY OF TIGARD BLDG DEPT 0 001
*******xc**xcsk*sk*******
• *** TX REPORT ***
•
TRANSMISSION OK
TX /RX NO 0076
CONNECTION TEL 15033704308
CONNECTION ID
ST. TIME 11/23 11:59
USAGE T 00'53
PGS. SENT 2
RESULT OK
November 23, 2002 OF TIG .
OREGON
Roger Superneau
Ankrom Moisan Associated Architects
6720 SW Macadam, Suite 100
Portland, OR 97129
Re: Revised Exiting and Alternate Methods of Construction
Green Office Building, 11560 SW 67
BUP2001 -00061
•
Dear Mr. Superneau,
We have reviewed the revised exiting plans for the above referenced project as well as
the request for alternate methods of construction. Based on the structural conditions of
moving the stairways and the stage of construction this project is in, we are approving
the altemates subject to the following conditions. This review was performed under the
provisions of the State of Oregon Structural Specialty Code (OSSC), 1998 edition and
the International Building Code (IBC), 2000 edition,
• The current configuration of the exit enclosures does not meet the provisions of
OSSC Section 1004.2.4. The overall diagonal of the building is 114 feet requiring
the exits to be separated a distance of 57 feet. They are currently 32.5 feet apart.
The revised plans show one -hour rated exit passageways on all three floors at
the north end of the building. This puts the required exits approximately 38 feet
apart You have requested Exception 2 of IBC Section 1004.2.2.1 be utilized as
an alternate which allows the exit separation to be reduced to one -third the
overall diagonal when the building is equipped throughout with an automatic
sprinkler system. One -third of 114 feet is 38 feet. We understand that an
automatic sprinkler system will be installed. The IBC is a nationally recognized
document containing similar provisions as the OSSC. In accordance with OSSC
Section 1042.8, for alternates, we believe this provides an equal degree of
safety and this request is hereby approved.
{ J
•
400010
.214 -64
November 23, 2002 OF °NG
OREGON
Roger Superneau
Ankrom Moisan Associated Architects
6720 SW Macadam, Suite 100
Portland, OR 97129
Re: Revised Exiting and Alternate Methods of Construction
Green Office Building, 11560 SW 67
BUP2001 -00061
Dear Mr. Superneau,
We have reviewed the revised exiting plans for the above referenced project as well as
the request for alternate methods of construction. Based on the structural conditions of
moving the stairways and the stage of construction this project is in, we are approving
the alternates subject to the following conditions. This review was performed under the
provisions of the State of Oregon Structural Specialty Code (OSSC), 1998 edition and
the International Building Code (IBC), 2000 edition.
• The current configuration of the exit enclosures does not meet the provisions of
OSSC Section 1004.2.4. The overall diagonal of the building is 114 feet requiring
the exits to be separated a distance of 57 feet. They are currently 32.5 feet apart.
The revised plans show one -hour rated exit passageways on all three floors at
the north end of the building. This puts the required exits approximately 38 feet
apart. You have requested Exception 2 of IBC Section 1004.2.2.1 be utilized as
an alternate which allows the exit separation to be reduced to one -third the
overall diagonal when the building is equipped throughout with an automatic
sprinkler system. One -third of 114 feet is 38 feet. We understand that an
automatic sprinkler system will be installed. The IBC is a nationally recognized
document containing similar provisions as the OSSC. In accordance with OSSC
Section 104.2.8, for alternates, we believe this provides an equal degree of
safety and this request is hereby approved.
• OSSC Section 1005.3.4.4 states that openings into exit passageways shall be
limited to those necessary for egress from normally occupied areas. The revised
plans show the main floor restrooms opening into the main floor exit
passageway. Due to the hardship of reconfiguring the under -slab plumbing and
to minimize the possibility of compromising the structural footings, you have
requested that we approve an alternate for the existing configuration. Your
proposal is to construct the walls separating the restroom and exit passageway
with 2 -hour fire - resistive construction with 90- minute doors. These two restrooms
contain only 1 water closet and 1 lavatory each and will only be used by a single
occupant at any given time. In accordance with OSSC Section 104.2.8 for
alternates methods of construction, we believe this provides an equal
degree of safety and this request is hereby approved.
13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639 -4171 TDD (503) 684 -2772
upr
•
The submitted revised drawings by Ankrom Moisan Associated Architects are approved
subject to the following conditions.
1. All doors opening into the exit passageways and exit enclosures shall be
provided with doors with a maximum transmitted temperature end point not
exceeding 450 F above ambient at the end of 30 minutes of the fire exposure
specified in UBC Standard 7 -2. OSSC 1005.3.3.5, 1005.3.4.4.
2. Penetrations into or through exit passageways are prohibited except for those
serving the exit passageway such as sprinkler piping, standpipes, and electrical
conduit terminating is a listed box not exceeding 16 square inches. OSSC
1005.3.4.4.
3. Penetrations into or through exit enclosures are prohibited except for those
serving the exit enclosure such as ductwork and equipment necessary for
independent stairway pressurization, sprinkler piping, standpipes, and electrical
conduit terminating is a listed box not exceeding 16 square inches. OSSC
1005.3.4.4.
4. Automatic - closing fire assemblies shall have one heat - actuating device installed
on each side of the wall at the top of the opening and one on each side of the
wall at the ceiling height where the ceiling is more than 3 feet above the top of
the opening. OSSC Section 713.2, 713.6.1
5. There shall not be enclosed usable space under stairways or ramps in an exit
enclosure. The open space under such stairways shall not be used for any
purpose. OSSC Section 1005.3.3.6.
6. Exit signs shall be provided and illuminated in accordance with OSSC Sections
1003.2.8 and 1003.2.9.
7. A copy of the approved plans shall be kept on site at all times and made
available for inspection purposes. OSSC 106.4.2.
If you have any questions or concerns, please contact me at (503) 718 -2448.
Sincerely,
Gary Lampella
Building Official
c. Joe Green
Mark Hoyt
Hap Watkins, Supervising Inspector
Jim Hendryx, Director of Community Development
File
•
MEMORANDUM
TO Gary Lampella, p Watkins, Daryl Jones :._..
FROM: Albert Shields
RE: Chronology – Green Office Building
CC: Jim Hendryx, Gary Smalling, Gary Firestone
DATE: Friday, October 04, 2002
ti
Attached is a chronoloby of contacts and documents concerning the Green Office
Building, 11560 SW 67 Ave., BUP2 -1- 00061.
•
!I • (
•
\\ V
•
CHRONOLOGY - BUP2001 -00061 - 11560 SW 67TH AVE
GREEN OFFICE BUILDING.
2/14/01 -- Application (and original plans) received, permit created. Fax to .
architect from RDP requesting stamp on 3` floor plans.
3/2/01 -- Plan Review Letter sent to Office Services (and then to Architect) from
RDP with specific questions and requests. [Copy in file.]
3/7/01 -- Dated revision of architect's building plans. Plans do not show or refer
to sprinkler system or supply. [Latest plans as of 10/4/02.]
3/15/01 -- Dated revision of engineer's civil /site plans. Plans show vault and
sprinkler supply line to building. [Latest plans as of 10/4/02.]
3/27/01 -- Revised plans rec'd from applicant; Plans checked /approved by PE
(RDP); Approved plans routed to DSTs. [Tidemark entries.]
3/29/01 -- DST post- review completed. (Deb)
3/29/01 -- HOLD for ENG approval of SDR, deferral of TIF.
1 ' mo. -- No data.
5/15/01 -- RELEASE Hold to Ready to Issue, both PLN & ENG OK issue.
5/25/01 -- Permit issued
2 '/a mo. -- No data.
8/17/01 -- Footing /Foundation Inspection - Pass. (RDP)
8/30/01 -- Footing /Foundation Inspection - Pass. (RDP) [Foundation walls.]
10/8/01 -- Footing Drain - Pass, Dampproofing - Pass. (JF)
10/22/01 -- Slab inspection - Pass. (RB)
10/22/01 -- Received letter from architect Bayard Mentrum (dated 10/18/01) to
Oregon State Board of Architect Examiners, City of Tigard, and Joe
Green declaring that (1) Green Investment has begun construction on the
project without notifying Mentrum Architecture; (2) Green Investment is
acting as general contractor and has refused to pay Mentruin; (3)
Chronology — Green Office Building 10/04/02, p. 2 of 3.
Mentrum is not authorized to do any construction observation on the
project; (4) Mentrum will take no responsibility for architectural
documents or construction observation.
10/23/01 -- Phone call to GaryL from architect Bayard Mentrum saying he was no
longer architect of record for project.
10/23/01 -- Letter from GaryL to Joe Green saying we would do no more inspections
until a new architect or engineer of record was identified and that no
work requiring inspection was to be done until that time.
12/11/01 -- Letter from Joe Green, countersigned by Gary Darling, declaring that
"engineer of record for this project will be DL Engineering" and that
Gary Darling of DL Engineering "will become the engineer of record for
the building. Tim Covert will remain the structural engineer of record
on the project."
6 mo. -- No data.
6/10/02 -- Phone call from Bayard Mentrum to GaryL saying that he had talked
with Gary Darling and that Darling "did not understand he was to be
responsible for the entire design of the building." GL confirmed this
with Gary Darling and that Darling would talk with Mr. Green and "get
back to us."
6/11/02 -- EMail from GaryL to staff saying there will be no more inspections at
this project and "There will most likely be a stop work posted due to the
absence of an architect or record for the project."
2 ' mo. -- No data.
8/29/02 -- Framing inspection - Fail, Roof nailing Insp. - Pass, Shear Wall Insp. --
Part. (Hap.)
9/9/02 -- Shear Wall Inspection - RECD (RB) [Notes: Engineering received as
per HAP inspection notice dtd. 8/29/02 items 3 & 4.] [Stamped detail
plans from Tim Covert, Engr., Expir. 12/31/03.]
9/12/02 -- Gyp board inspection - Part. (RB) [Exterior gypsum to 5 ft. level
exception front entrance.]
9/18/02 -- Gyp board inspection - PASS. (TLP). [9 ft. level.]
Chronology — Green Office Building 10/04/02, p. 3 of 3.
9/26/02 -- EMail GaryL to Hap re GL's 10/23 and 6/10 contacts with architect
Mentrum and engineer Darling.
9/27/02 -- Gyp board inspection - PASS. (DWJ). [ext. to 2n floor, front only.]
9/27/02 -- At 4:30pm GaryL ordered Stop Work Order posted: "All Trades.
Previously approved plans rescinded by Tigard Building Official as of
9/27/02. Submit new plans." Posted at 5:OOpm.
9/30/02 -- Faxed to Mark Hoyt standard plan review letter re re- assessment of code
requirements.
9/30/01 -- Meeting at 11:OOam with Greens, Sr & Jr, atty. Gary Hoyt, DLJ, Hap,
AMS. Stop Work Order changed to allow brick veneer on building
front, gyp board on front and center rear, and roof.
10/1/02 -- Faxed to Mark Hoyt OSSC Code Sections 106.3.4.1 - 106.3.5 and
106.3.2.
10/1/02 -- Phone call 3:OOpm between JH, GL, Hap. Per GL, re- revised Stop
Work Order posted, faxed to Mark Hoyt, Joe Green; "Stop all work
except that which provides temporary weather protection of exterior
walls" until plans stamped by engineer /architect of record are submitted.
10/2/02 -- Phone call from GL to Hap, 12:15pm. Per GL, Green to be allowed to
continue all exterior work but only upon receipt of confirmation from
Gary Darling of his acceptance of position and responsibility as Engineer
of Record. Hap called and advised Green Investment, Gary Hoyt, and
Gary Darling of this. Gary Darling agreed to provide above
confirmation to Hap by FAX if and when agreed upon.
10/4/02 -- No contact or further communication as of 10:OOam. AMS.
/02 itP /D2 -- 0eCrr.-4, DG If 4, y /( .4
4, ,A 44,42 f io j ee -1 . g es- 747 .?L .0P #u2
07 i
UV/ oZ A///./-f i DL /P- #o ;7v� . � nit I�-X
1 14/k 1 194014