RE MOB reviewIPM.Note
RE: MOB review
RE:
Steve Harrington
Gina Dais
Steve Harrington
SMTP
GDais@TGBArchitects.com
MOB review
EX
/O=CITYOFYELM/OU=FIRST ADMINISTRATIVE GROUP/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=STEVEH
EX
/O=CITYOFYELM/OU=FIRST ADMINISTRATIVE GROUP/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=STEVEH
Microsoft Mail Internet Headers Version 2.0
Received: from psmtp.com ([64.18.0.125]) by server1.ci.yelm.wa.us with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959);
Mon, 4 May 2009 15:35:10 -0700
Received: from source ([68.178.4.20]) by exprod5mx239.postini.com ([64.18.4.10]) with SMTP;
Mon, 04 May 2009 18:33:50 EDT
Received: from calvin.taylorgregory.com (127.0.0.1) by calvin.taylorgregory.com (MlfMTA v3.2r9) id hvtm6u0171s6; Mon, 4 May 2009 15:30:06 -0700 (envelope-from <GDais@TGBArchitects.com>)
Received: from PowerEdge02.taylorgregory.com ([10.0.0.15])
by calvin.taylorgregory.com (SonicWALL 6.2.0.9993)
with ESMTP; Mon, 04 May 2009 15:30:03 -0700
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C9CD08.61543B9C"
Subject: RE: MOB review
Date: Mon, 4 May 2009 15:30:00 -0700
Message-ID: <CA9E63238F3CDA4B931278AF3FC3E9A0011E87AA@PowerEdge02.taylorgregory.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: MOB review
Thread-Index: AcnJEQykoghQ1lLXTGOyIS3cz0z5WwArNYPAANItaqA=
References: <DC90029353CCCD468AA2A2858FFCD8F592F219@server1.ci.yelm.wa.us>
From: "Gina Dais" <GDais@TGBArchitects.com>
To: "Gary Carlson" <garyc@ci.yelm.wa.us>
Cc: "Steve Harrington" <steveh@ci.yelm.wa.us>
X-Mlf-Version: 6.2.0.9993
X-Mlf-UniqueId: o200905042230030068237
X-pstn-neptune: 0/0/0.00/0
X-pstn-levels: (S:99.90000/99.90000 CV: 5.7566 FC:95.5390 LC:95.5390 R:95.9108 P:95.9108 M:97.0282 C:98.6951 )
Return-Path: GDais@TGBArchitects.com
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 04 May 2009 22:35:10.0531 (UTC) FILETIME=[9550E930:01C9CD08]
------_=_NextPart_001_01C9CD08.61543B9C
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----_=_NextPart_002_01C9CD08.61543B9C"
------_=_NextPart_002_01C9CD08.61543B9C
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
------_=_NextPart_002_01C9CD08.61543B9C
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
------_=_NextPart_002_01C9CD08.61543B9C--
------_=_NextPart_001_01C9CD08.61543B9C
Content-Type: application/octet-stream;
name="2009-04-30 MinStairWidth.pdf"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-Description: 2009-04-30 MinStairWidth.pdf
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="2009-04-30 MinStairWidth.pdf"
------_=_NextPart_001_01C9CD08.61543B9C--
Gina Dais
SMTP
GDais@TGBArchitects.com
Steve Harrington
Gary Carlson
MOB review
Gary,
We are currently preparing the resubmittal, but wanted to verify the
stair issue has been resolved per my email last week (also below).
Just let me know!
Thanks, Gary.
Gina Dais
tgba | tgbarchitects
21911 76th Ave W Suite 210, Edmonds WA 98026
t: 425.778.1530 f: 425.774.7803
From: Gina Dais
Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2009 11:08 AM
To: 'Gary Carlson'
Cc: Steve Harrington
Subject: RE: MOB review
Gary,
Please see my response below in red. We will be working on a resubmittal
to address your outstanding concerns and get that to you with in the
next couple of days.
Kind Regards,
Gina Dais
tgba | tgbarchitects
21911 76th Ave W Suite 210, Edmonds WA 98026
t: 425.778.1530 f: 425.774.7803
From: Gary Carlson [mailto:garyc@ci.yelm.wa.us]
Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 2:26 PM
To: Gina Dais
Cc: Steve Harrington
Subject: MOB review
Gina,
Attached to this email are Joe’s responses to the resubmitted plans.
Our primary issue still remains on the landing length for the stairs.
Do you have the width at 5-9” for anticipated occupancy load of the
second floor?
Based on our calculations and Table 1005.1 to determine minimum width of
stairs: 2nd Floor Occupant load = 159 (shown on sheet A0.10), Required
width Multiplier (0.2 inches per occupant, Table 1005.1 with sprinkler
system). 159 x 0.2 = 23.85” required, but not to be less than 44” (as
required by 1009.1). The provided width (69”) is primarily for
aesthetic purposes and exceeds code minimums. We exceed the required
minimum width by 25”.
The concern is the length of the landing at the dog leg not being the
width of the stairwell.
Based on 44” as a MINIMUM which we have exceeded it seems to reason that
the 4’-9”(57”) provided (see 1/A5.00) is already in excess of the
minimum REQUIRED width of the egress path. Section 1009.4 also further
caps this minimum required width to 48”…”Such dimension need not exceed
48” where the stairway has a straight run”
Secondary concerns are the overflow drain locations and bases for the
light standards. The design of the overflow drains are code correct,
however, their proximity to the roof drains will require timely
maintenance.
Is this a requirement for us to change or just an owner maintenance
issue?
Neither, Steve nor I could find the pole installation requirements in
our drawing for the parking lot light standards. Are the light poles to
be ground supported like street lights or sit on a base as is typical in
parking lots? If they are to be ground set do you think the planter
strip curbing will protect them? If they are on a base what is the
height of the base and do you take that in to account for our light
height.
We will provide a detail describing this in a forthcoming resubmittal.
Thanks
Gary
<CA9E63238F3CDA4B931278AF3FC3E9A0011E87AA@PowerEdge02.taylorgregory.com>
<DC90029353CCCD468AA2A2858FFCD8F592F219@server1.ci.yelm.wa.us>
RE%3A MOB review-2.EML
Steve Harrington
urn:content-classes:message
Gary Carlson
EX
/O=CITYOFYELM/OU=FIRST ADMINISTRATIVE GROUP/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=GARY
gary
Gary Carlson
SMTP
garyc@ci.yelm.wa.us
Steve Harrington
EX
/O=CITYOFYELM/OU=FIRST ADMINISTRATIVE GROUP/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=STEVEH
steveh
Steve Harrington
SMTP
steveh@ci.yelm.wa.us
2009-04-30 MinStairWidth.pdf