HomeMy WebLinkAboutMULT DOCS & CO - 11-00352 - All Studio Apartments - Remodel (1 of 2)c.o lssued by:
oeeupaney ctasa
ig or any portion
Fire Inspector:__
6acmct
!.{o
l{l;t IE
l*lm a
lE rl
lF g
IF;l; =
lg e
IF H
f S'ols g
l5 2l;3rP;sfraETBFg$
I >\
m-ln*:{J-!rn9tr-ft
mL!
9 rf
"Frlf.l r/ r.t
t!2 \t6
t:
"j.rd
it
;ry
s-{Y,
s\-..c
F?"{
nt{J
:
i
tt
a:6
;s
x
i:ss:
i'
;xe
{I
t
(\
\s
h)
Fl .
fL
.,rt,gtco.[L
:F
g.
tLrtcr
mrll?:l:tfr)
t:{,v(t>t?
g$ $ iiN
fifg Ff ffigi fi *sF'
Buifdin$ $afaly Depcrtment
Clty ol Rexbvrg
Permir#
L()'l'llt.(x.K_
Mechanical
ilf c c h a rr i ca I C orr tra ctor's N ame a4 ffi * & ! u" ft | L - _*_4d.iI*Llu s r n cs s N ame
Stntci3f - -2ip .fffia",r.a,p-{,-cll f)lrurrc g*,y S t ?.:;^*7t2_**--.**$r:sincss phnncV-d",,frm
linx i 4d tA C ffi,;**ta& {r""",u
//- 35a
l lll-$f
REXI}URG
q*o,u,; t,l*? { !+u,r'i',r.}
35 N. l'r [i., Rcxburg, Id SJ.l,l0
I'R() Ill':R. l'\' A DDRf 'lSS
SUBPIVISION
PHASI':
Required.!!
lf"7#X:,i:H!::H:I*l*11o.3| 11et llflI*li*'g$v$tem {con*acrecrAmounr) E,kw*:'l:i:i::,!; ::: H;',x!::,,"',j! :r:y',:' ..1 tj;; ryy ;.u,bi.s;; [ ]-t" t*-t",,,7,;i;;;;;r;;;;;.;:;:.ff;;ii",l*; , ;,;,,iatkllatiow not 4ttdlhal$ wtntiotted rLrcu,lt*o oi t*ii hil.rr Up to gl0,0g0:.1 Up to $10,0S0 (tnfal c<"rst ef s],srsrrr x 0_02) + 60 = $
f Pr".::::1"*lo,o01-st00,m0 tt.,,,-Gn- -.r x$.fl')+$?6{)x$ti Ovet 9100,001 i(CItatcersr,if ill x0.iH5) +$l,l#)RESIDENTIAL
Ay'crr'; 'srngrfc F*mily Dv'elliag, induding nll buildings with wiring bcing conctrutu:d on each prupcrr*,. (*rln"*o d nn living space,*cc rlcfrnition bclon)
il Lip to 1,5{$ sq fr - $13(}
n 1.5{)l to 3,500 sq ft - $ZC{)ili i)r-er .l.5Uti sc1 ti $3li Flus 965 frrr each *dcliricrral
iL 1,"5il1 to ?,SLXI $q fr - $lg5
n 3,501 trl 4,5${tsr1 fi _ $3?5l,(X*) sq ft. or pnrtion thr:rcnf
N c *, : M u t r i - Fn n ilS, Dvc I ling (Con ua c to rs i) n lyS.,.t l)uplex :\parrnrsnt g26(j
i]"l.|trcccrrmoremulti-familvrrnits:$l3{)ptrburldingp|us$65perrrrrit:
rJ Exieting Residence, Madular, Mrnuiactur*a
", iwolir* fio*** rnd rlctached slrcp: $65 l,cc plrrs $l{J per4 rl I\','\{l cquipnrent being i'*rallcfrrl
1;,:Ht-:n::,1$ c'rrc*poncti'g st1. ft. *f ttrc builctirrg
MISCELLANEOUS
l Plm Chrck 565 p*r hour
n Tcchnical $enrice: $65 pcr horrr
l: Cle Liner $65
tl Vater Heater Replacement: $S5n Requesred Inepectian: g65
lJ Fireplace,/Solid Fuel Burning Appliancer $65 per inspection
.l,rl,trrglipact_spaccwitlrinat|t,cllirrgurritiltcnd*dforlrwnnnhrllitanr:nwhichnrar,reasgna|rlt.}lcutj1ied
I'ril:lTilr;:rfii'iliiffJ,'gl;xl1;:rnrni*:;fl**:g*;*iiffitJ:ffiffiJ',nc,i'rng*p,.*' *'*'
Sigrranrre of Iiccnsctl Cnnrractor
ng Sofely De
35 N. 1.t E,., Rexburg, Id g3440
Phone - pOApSrl-SOZO,/ Hotline - e0B)372_2344 / Fax _ e08)35g-3022
PHASE LOT BLOCK
_O_WNF'R'S NAME Certranl i?.+rNPROPERTY ADDRESS
SUBDIVISION _ pernit#
B
City of Rexburg
CITY OF
RiixBmC
c\' *- -**_-
Ameicals Fanily Commudi tv
(COMMERCTAL/IND-{JSTRIAL) Total cost of elecftical system (conftactedAmount) $J:a.,ot_f::'#"r,*;'iL#::;;:;;i:i ;r:f 9;
'1iu l",E ruppting it. rhefees r;*a ,uao ,ri, i,p,,,n-uei ,r,a// app!, n ary and )// elexricat installationtn Up to $t0,990^^ - - (total cosr of system x 0.02) + 60 = $! Between $10'001- $100,000 i?@ x 0.01) + g260 = gF ovet $100'001 ii@ x 0.005) + g1,160 = g
:TL:":'f .:t"TT::'J,?#:rff]me*ngszooi''.o,tr,dnoiinvorvingachangein
RESIDENTIAL
Requtuedlll ELECTRIC,4L
Electrical Con atractor's Name frACl(EE E lecwry. hrsiness NameAddress
Cell phone (eo1)
citv-fueLp_fu/k_State E/) Zip t34o /
Fax (lo{i)
s Phone (7o) :;'?? * 1O I i
y;-;:;:1-1::W;welling' including aII buildings with wiring being constructed on each propetty.(*Based on liuing space,
D 1,501 to 2,500 sq ft - g195
3,501 to 4,500 sq ft _ $:ZStt. or porrion thereof ($325 + ($65 x # of additional
; Ii;n::*,illtj^r#^t uruts: g130 per building prus g65 per unit:tr *::'i"^q*:t*i:":,-oiuf ar, M;l.1il ;;;? ffi"nil'fiilff '
1i,1,?"T.h."1 9Fr: sas i" pru' gro plCenftalHeating/Coolingsy.t"-",6;i"4;;"I.iiiii]l;;?::ffilHHf;ffi"",
Wi"irg
D Spas' Hot Tubs, and swimming pools: g65 fee for each trip to inspectPumps-lyate4 kdgatio-n, Sewage f.r.i _"ri"1D $65 up to 25Hp -
rgg5 _ 26 to200Hp ng130 0ver 200 HpMISCELLANEOUS
! Tempotary construction services. ONLY: 200 ampor less, one location (for a period not to exceed 1 year) - $65tr Temporary Arnusemenc $65 fee plus $10 per ride, io...rrro., or generatorD Itrigation Machine: $65 for center pivor plus $10 per tower of drive motortr Technical Service: $65 perhour
D Plan Check g65 per hour
! Requested Inspection: g65
for human habitation whi;h ma1 leasonabry be utilized for sleeping eating, cooking,An unfinished basement is considered p"ri of *" u*g ,p"...
tr Up to 1,500 sq ft _ g130
D 2,501 to 3,500 sq ft _ g260
n Over 4,500 sq ft g325 plus g65 for each additional 1,000 sq
_ 1-000 sq. ft. or portion ihereog).New: MuI ti-Family Dwelling 1C"i ronol! OrrtylD Duplex Aparment g260
lignature of Licensed Contractor /0-26-//
Datedate
er I ELicense number & ex
Bu g Sofety Dep
:: N. 1" E_.,_Rexburg Id 83440 Clfy of Rexbur!Phonc - (208)359-3020/Hotline - (2Os)372_2344 /Fcx_ (2/Jq3[g-3022 REXBURG
Ame r i cai Fam il7 (h mmuni ty
ifff,*3iinff:sffi::'Business Name lfrhere Vork WilI B.-D;;;Dates for Vork to Be Done:
Contact Percon:
Phone Numben
Requtued!ll FIRE SPRINITIER
Fite Sprinkler Contractor,s Name: Je E eEb4 k/
Business Name Za.t 57efe. F:EE GeTaz-TrodAd&ess-/h2'9 212't'/A FD--c;ry@t^t &.-z.iCell Phone ( )Business phone (A) gz-4- gz z 6Fax(PA) Sz4-zL( a
E^il|
(CoMMERCrAL/TNDUSTRHL) Total cost of fire sptinkler sy*rem (contracted Amount)
(Includes tbe cost of nateiah rcgarlhss of tbe pafl| su?, ptJing it. Tbefees listed under tltis inspection upcsball appfi to anit and atlfire alarw inrfothtionr'ro,, $rlfi*$-*rE*a ,*irir* on tbisfom).
Up to $10,000
Between $10,001 - $100,000 (
(total cosr ef system x 0.02) + 60 = S_
tr Over $100,001
MISCELLANEOUS
tr Existing Inspection Base: $60
7, Re- Inspection: 965 per trip
'. n___ __". "r oJou-ur = luruuu.rl X U.Uf) + $260 = $_( (toal cost of system _ 10e000) x O.OOS; i $t,tfO? $
0.01) +$_
construction $1 per sprinkler head ($2,000 ^^*i*ru )_4 7 6 gumber of heads
(Psc -ooz
License"@
,(a\
W) l:^{"tt' Giryof Rexbury O
Department of Gommunity Development Receipt Number:11-s1*2
35 North 1st East / Rexburg, |D.-34AO'
Phone (208) 359-3020 I Fax (208) 359_3022
RPR000K002i Automatic Fire-Extinguishing Systems
$ 496.00
REXBIIRG
ctl/ -__.-,_.,
tlnrc itai Fonr i\, Com nn ni ty
35 N 1''E, REXBURG.ID 83440208-372-2326
PrutCE.I. NUIvIBER:
SLIBDIVISION:
r\ ddressing is bas.gd. on the info;;;;;, b;;
CONTRACTOR: _
]vTAII.TNG ADDRESS:
PFIONE: Cell#
-(\Y_:d provide this for you)uNrr# BLOCi<#_LO.|#
Wbrk#
:'e_ID-zIP_E3&6
Fax#
o
clTY Of
l-:)tVAIr. - IDAHO REGISTR.I.TION # & EXI'. DA
FIowmanytUAn@
3':]]'*','"*".1:!ry*"thisproperty?N<l@gfyes,listpreviousorvnc/s'"*")@Is this a lor split?(p ''ES (prease bring copy ofl'erv reg:rr crescription of properry)
PROPOSE,D USE,:
(i.e., Singtc F;" n*a"
APPLICANT's SIGN'{TURE' CERTIFICT\TION AND Aurl.IoRIzAnoN: -u,rdcr pcnarty orperi*ry, r hercby crriri. rh* rF];1!!:ii#i,H'gn$r:1lt{r'ffi:fil",ir.,':',i;*;*"",ru,',lii*i*:,:r_J"Lyff;i$fil:li-"y*arin6uerore,heto rhe srtbi'c matter orthis ooricerio" ""a rL"r,y ""u'l;;;**il;*.^i';i;|Lttf1[::,11,:ffi;: j*:i:^T:tl_:i| n cirj"rcgulaions aid sr.rci*" .r"rins
l^n:Tlo-iq:l"iiJ;;;;;'fJ;.*ooapprovarissuco*"0*,*lli'.i1,::lfr:;:*,ii::,3.T,^I P-i:.*',i"'lip'"r*il'i"iinspcctonspurposs. No'r'r!:;TlildFffirfi'Jffh:ffio'*r'"' "pp'l"r'"""iHi;'il:;l;ffi15';3$.?iT#"ni::,"HJ::ryH""!1fffi3,3ffi:*'"":frffi;i;**Xi.i- " ' ' -^k'
;'
"" "'' "'':''l/
'1"1*-n*-n "' app,onal ,uas bnrca. r'"""u '"J'li".i'.rr"? *lrr,i" rno a.yr. n.--,, -ii iiio.u ,u,p. ror 16o dqs.
Signarure oF Owner/dpplicant
DATEDo you prcfer ro be conacted.p_l Fl email or phonel Circle One
",.- Xllrl9 _-.nun-nrruc irinlnr,\rusr BE rosrED oN coNsrnucrtoN srrE!pt.n fe6 rc non-rcarn<Lrbtc rnrt arc pairr tn rut er orc rim J;;ffi;b;",*;1;.;:X. *r,ci.y of Rcxbtrrcs Aecprmcc'of rhc plan rcvi'J-il* ioi'l, -r*,urc ptrn app.ov.trrBuildire Pmit Fs orc rJul ar rim of opprieririnr ;B;;;;;;;," arc vcirr if lour chak dm noa (ra,o
to .r- 6*JJJ
CONI''ACTPHONE# YCPROPEI{TY r\D NIK p rhv,,' \ l) 9lV rt oPFTONE #: Fromc (zcg) I7 ( -y ( V (
OWNER IUAILING
riuw Ahr;r &€
APPLICAI{I: flf,other than owner
A PPLICAN'I' INFORIVf,ATION: ADDIT ESS
q'rA'rt].J r r\ l l:,; ZII)
PFIONE #: I{orne ( )
The Right Fit,
Date: November 8. 20'11
To: Chad Richards - Headwaters Construction
Subject: Inspection of 450 W 4th South, Rexburg, ldaho
1 1 00352
Magnussen Remodel
_,_J _, .errvurVl
Nilil *i ii:;i
rEL 208.359.t461
FAx 2O8.359.O74O
ScoTT@DESIGNI NTEL,CoM
i 1037 ERrKsoN DRrvE
REXBURG. ID 83440
WWW.DESIGNINTEL,COM
Dear Mr. Richards,
Per your request, I inspected the above referenced building on
purpose of the inspection was to verify that the building is still structurally
lntroduction
The building is being converted into student housing. lt's previous usage was a motel.
The building is two stories tall. The walls are constructed with structural brick. These
waffs carry 8 inch pre-stressed voided slabs. The pre-stressed voided slabs form
the second floor and the roof of the second floor rooms.
Observations
I walked around a portion of the building with the contractor, Nate Richards. He pointed
out where the ceiling had been removed to expose the 8" voided slab ceilings and where
additional electrical panels were planned for installation. He indicated that they needed
to bore holes for piping (4" - 6" diameter) up through the 8" voided slabs in the hallways.
I told him that the slabs were most likely pre-stressed and that he would need to avoid
the pre-stress strands. In our walk-around he also showed me where leaks in the roof
had caused significant damage. lt was raining that day and there was large amounts of
water coming into many of the second floor rooms. In most cases, this leakage was
passing through the second floor down into the first floor rooms.
After my initialwalk-around with the contractor I walked through allthe rooms and visually
Inspected the exposed brick walls for cracks or signs of damage. None were found. None
of the interior walls of the individual rooms are bearing walls. In all cases, the voided slab
spans from party wall to party wall. In the hallways the voided slabs run perpendicular
to the room slabs spanning the short direction. In some rooms the joints between the
voided slabs are visible on the ceilings. Headers supporting slabs are HSS steel.
On the main floor there is a laundry room with a maintenance/service room directly above.
There are multiple vent holes in the voided slabs in both the lower and upper level ceilings.
rEL 208.359.1461
The Right Fit. FAx 2os.sse.o74o
ScoTr@DESIG NINTEL.coM
IO37 ERIK3ON DRIVE
REXBURG, lD 43440
WWW.DESIGNINTEL,COM
One of these measures 12 inches square. I have included pictures of these.
Gonclusions
It is my opinion that the building is structurally adequate for the intended usage. I was
told that the roof was being replaced in order to correct the leaking. As noted in the
attached photographs, there are many penetrations through the 8 inch voided slabs that
will exceed the diameter needed during the remodel. In spite of the large penetrations, I
did not see any cracking or sagging of the 8 inch voided slab. lt is my understanding
that the additional penetrations needed will be located in the slabs over the hallways.
I recommend that prior to cutting any holes in the 8 inch voided slabs that the area be x-
rayed to locate reinforcing/pre-stressed strands and that these be avoided.
I recommend that new electrical boxes be placed at the same vertical location and at
the same horizontal spacing as others located in the buiHing.
Please give me a call if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Scott A Spaulding, P.E.
Design Intelligence, LLC
rEL 208.359.t461
The Right Fit. FAx 2o8.3se.o74o
scoTT@oEsIG NINTEL.coM
TO37 ERIKSON DRIVE
REXBURG, ID 83440
WWW.DESIGNINTEL.COM
The Right Fit.
rEL 208.359.1461
FAx 2O8.359.O74O
gcorr@DEsrG NtNTEL.coM
IO37 ERIKSON DRIVE
RExBun€, lo 8344()
WWW.DESIGNINTEL,COM
The Right Fit.
rEL 2O8.359.1461
FAx 2O8.359.O74O
scorr@DEglGNr NTEL.coM
IO37 ERIKSON DRIVE
RExBuRs, tD E344o
WWW.DESIGNINTEL.COM
The Right Fit.
rEL 208.359.1461
FAx 2O8.359.O74O
scoTr@DESIGNI NTEL,coM
lo37 ERIKSON ORTVE
REXBURG, ID 83440
WWw'DESIGNINTEL,COM
The Right Fit.
rEL 2()8.359.1461
F,a,x 2O8.359.O74O
scorr@oEsrGNr NTEL,coM
lO37 ERIKSoN DRrv€
RExauRG, to 83440
WWW.DESIGNINTEL,COM
The Right Fit.
rEL 2()8.359.1461
FAx 2O8.359.O74O
scorr@oEstcNt NTEL.coM
lo97 ERrKgoN DfitvE
REXBURG, tD eg44o
WWw'DESIGNINTEL,COM
The Right Fit.
rEL 2O8.359.1461
FAx 2O8,359.O74O
gcoTT@DESIGNINTEL.coM
tO37 ERIKSON DRIVE
REXBURG, ID 83440
WWW.DESIGNINTEL,COM
/ffih
Erynryr'lrpiiP'The Right Fit.
rEL 2O8.359.t461
FAx 2O8.359.O74O
SCOTT@DEIiIGNI NTEL.COM
tO37 ERrKgoN DRIVE
REXBUFS, tD e344o
WWw'DESIGNINTEL,COM
/l* 7sz-
Amanda Saurey
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Chad Richards [crichards@headwaterscc.com]Tuesday, November 08,20119:27 AM
Amanda Saurey
Magnuson Building Permit
ADA Room Construction Drawings.pdf; Headwaters Construction - Inspection of 450 W 4th
South Rexburg, ldaho 10-07-11.doc
Amanda,
Here is the information we talked about to finalize the permit on the Magnuson project.
Mechanical Costs: S160K
Plumbing Costs: S95K
Electrical - Already Paid
Sprinkler - Already Paid
Totaf Construction Costs - 51-,225,OOO
Also note that the fire alarm and fire sprinkler drawings have been submitted for approval to the state.
lf you need anything else, let me know.
Thanks.
Chad eichards
PRoJECT MANAGER
LEED AP
HEADWATERS CONSTRUGTIoN CoMPANY
Enrcunnos@sEaowAlen
Ceu-:(2O8) 313-2092
rmNFPAMEMBER
@momil
SECURITY SYSTEMS INC.
FIRE ALARM INSPECTION AND TESTING REPORT
Testing performed in accordance with applicable NFPA 72 Standards / By NICET Certified Technicians
Building occupied as t ?*.A&ft"rr of Building
Owner /I\4anager:
Name of Tester Date of Inspection
Type of Inspection Notification of Testing
Control Panel Manufacturer & Model
#ofZones: P SLC Loops: t NAC's _ FACp: FCpS:Total NAC's:System should be tested on Standby (battery power) for 30 min. prior to Battery Test.
Battery Inspection
FACP Inspection
& Number
AU mrcrfaced equlpment operates
(Elevators, Fans, Dampbrs)-'-
Name of Monitoring Company:- Communication Verified:
Account #
N/A
Equipment Tested
lnterl'aced
Equipment
F of Units
Iested
satrsmctory:
Yes
Jauslactory:
No
N/A F OI Umtl
in Bldg.
Ventilation Controls
Elev. Recall Primarv X
Elev. Recall Sec
EIev. Recall Shunt .*"
Access Control Door
Release Gailsafe)r
Auto Release \Door Holders X
Jroblems Found:
lorrections Made:
fhis is to certify that this Fire Alarm has been properly Tested and Inspected for liability to. pover the items listed in this report, according to
$anufacturers Recommendation.
tqature of Fire Marshall: *- " -.
'ure of Owner or representative:
e of CertifiedTester: dffi;****F -
nni Security Systems, Inc. . P. O. Box 309 . Rigby, lD 83442 . Office 205-745-rc20 . Fax: 208-745-1564
CITY OF
REXBURG
cls' - ..-
Atn e r i ca! I:dtti ly ( htrtuu fi i ty
P.O Box 280
35 North 1st East
Rexburg, ldaho 83440
Phone (208) 359-3020
Fax (208) 355-3022Review Action
January 3,2012
Permit Number: 11 00352
Project Name: Central park Remodel
Project Type: Multi-Family Remodel
Review ltem Actions Required for Approval
Building Oopartmont Review r':.: i
Complies with approved Site Plan Review
Building Type Compliance
Exiting Review
Building Code Fire Compliance Review A Fire alarm and Sprinkler system is req,d to
be installed throughout the building.
Approved
10113t2011
10t13t2011
10t13t2011
10t't3t2011
10t13t2011
10t13t2011
10t13t2011
10t13t2011
10t13t2011
10t13t2011
10t18t2011
Accessibility Review
Energy Conservation Compliance Review
Structural Review
Mechanical Review
Height and Area Review
Interior Environment
Electrical Circuits Review
Parcel#'s RPR000K0022891
2 Accessible units will be req'd per ICC/ANSI
A.117.1-2003
=J
T'9)o.+
!)
CL
o
AI
9.
Fl.
'Tt
oo
r
o-1.a
# g F# I€-"e 3 id;asYc)A) 0)o< <g"
g
io
0)
J
z * orb=(,.tro.DS(,o
AA
z |'D'o cl
=N)O)O.D@{o
@
-(t(,^)o
9oO)
trro)oS(,AO.DS(,o
--A -cDo) o) N)N) N) O) (to@{o
@
ItAAst(tl(o
V)
do
@
-n
ao
!o
oo
ao€o-\
i;...'
|llr':'ill:i:::,:,,
il,Sr,r'1,;,,t;titiii:'r.1):,)t\),:Nll
3
iiicd
:: .1':1ttr;(
O{rlc)
i€(P
*F
ii::::,:',l;1::::::::
@
@O)I(Jl
\t
g
*r
@Fo)
@
A()
I
@o
&9
oo:(Do
i(}r€l
@
A
\OIoo
@
O)
@
J
bO)
@
O)(o
A
cl)
&
(}l
!r'
N)o)
,rs
I ,,l,ii
''uF\:
(lt
6',:b
rtl:
@
o)(o
:.Joo
Hffi.lrilri::::
Otto,
.{fi
@
o)(o
A
bro)
4
o)(o
Fo)
{f
(Jl
sttN)o,
4A
,;Ji
.A
.-riliIrN)ilr
6
J
i\)(o(,
bo
#
tv':t'l:':lil
t, ';t,s'c)
A'.r
'i(JiltNl
;lu
ffi
F*.-6i
(tl',mc),o
,' :l ):
@
A
-o)
9)
O)
@
@
(o
!'
F
&
!(r)s'|('|o,
@
J
\oPOo
P9JON)
@('N)
A(O\|os:#6
o m orl
MFR Difference bl.vz
€tr
\
$64,332.00 ($64,337j)q
$70,397.O0 Jgfrqz.oo)
$2,335.32$z,ot 2.43 -($4,677.11
$8,880.69 $5,58 t $g,zgq.ogl
$o $46,343.85 ($46,343.85)
wo $69,857.66 L$affi+a261€
I( &qD ,@/ 5 t t t2 t'7.o'/
/
/ --=.--? , n ?, b36 ,02
M
g)t- utb'?q<z
I
pe( Un,T
I
rota-l
4z'-,/o2r{ttl5t. ss.
?.r wn'l /o / 6o'*
@ to&7=fr,':-
./
/trl6,/0r
t al e/ft*.-
C x, t.zdG //- o- Jhze,y s
/6 / Zooo-,
lo 6f--,/Zre2
^?
@"7 ?0-4
/-. yqF
It rL<lo'({)
Totaf Construction Costs - 5L,22s,oOO
Also note that the fire alarm and fire sprinkler drawings have been submitted for approval to the state.
lf you need anything else,let me know.
Thanks.
chad eLchards
PROJECT MANAGER
LEED AP
HEADWATERS CoNSTRUCTIoN CoMPANY
c RIcHARDS@H EADWATERSCC.CoM
CELL:(2OB) 313-2c92
CI'TY OF
Gc\r,
A fr e ric a's lldtili ly ( :o tfr trn t n i ty
P.O Box 280
35 North 1st East
Rexburg, ldaho 83440
Phone (208) 359-3020
Fax (208) 359-3022Review Action
January 3,2012
Permit Number:
Project Name:
Project Type:
Review ltem
11 00352
Central Park Remodel
Multi-Family Remodel
Flie DCparlment'Rstielv ., r,
Alarm Systems
Fire Extinguishers
Automatic Fire Extinguishing Systems
Parcel#'s RPR000K0022891
Actions Required for Aoproval
Fire alarm plan required before proceeding.
No plans have been submitted yet, need to be
approved by the State Fire marshalls office
before proceeding. Approved by the State Fire
Marshall.
Approved
10t28t2011
12t02t2011
12t02t2011
.(
\-lr| -#
-c
) i\\
-sr
Madison County / City of Rexburg GIS
I
"-.d[-
Page 1 ofl
ffi**
z __
DISCLAIMER: This map is intended for display purposes only and is not intended for any legal representations.
http:llgislintranet/arcims/printable.aspx?MapuRl:http://agentsmith/output/arclMS
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Chad Richards [crichards@headwaterscc.com]Thursday, November 10,2011 8:44 AM
Amanda Saurey
RE: Magnuson Building Permit
We are converting 101 of the guestrooms into studio apartments yes. The building is roughly 39,000 sf.
chad
From : Amanda Sau rey lma ilto:amandas@rexburg.orgl
Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2011 LZ:44 pM
To: Chad Richards
Subject: RE: Magnuson Building Permit
I counted 101 units for Magnussen, is that correctP
From : Chad Richa rds lmailto :crichards@ headwaterscc.coml
Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2011 9:09 AM
To: Amanda Saurey
Subject: RE: Magnuson Building Permit
Just under SfOOf.
chad
From : Amanda Saurey f mailto : amandas@rexburg.orqJ
Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2011 9:00 AM
To: Chad Richards
Subject: RE: Magnuson Building Permit
Thank you for the information below. I do have one more question, what is the valuation for the Fire Alarm
SystemP
From : Chad Richards lma ilto :cricha rds@headwaterscc.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2011 9:27 AM
To: Amanda Saurey
Subject: Magnuson Building Permit
Amanda,
Here is the information we talked about to finalize the permit on the Magnuson project.
Mechanical Costs: S160K
Plumbing Costs: $95K
Electrical - Already Paid
Sprinkler - Already Paid
t*ognussgn lmpoct F
'l|t ss.
?1" wn'l
-177,q[ ,/ o 2, b
lo / 6u"'
@to
./.
/F/6,/0r
y'-- Sl-.e.y s
Z.ur'v? s
6r-',/2"a2
y'er -f-rrro
'y'
g)t'ztb'?q<z
I
z f Utn,t
-t o*rr,/
Hotel MFR Difference
€tr
\
$64,337.0A ($64,337J)g)
$7A397.OO lffi'pqz.ool
Flre, t $2,335.32$7 ,ol2.l3 ($4,677.11
Polie6 ,$8,880.69 $5,581 $3,299.69.1
$0 $4p,343.85 ($46,343.85)
wp*Ao $fig,8s7.66 $6|&ra361 t
l(,'t-rlo . taa 5l tblT-0
f ,n7,/ni9 ,62
t/' bZ 6/ //u.-,I
€ x, trTMG
/6/
/c
lY rLgo @
a.
To: Blair Kay, Rexburg City Clerk
From: Chris Carr, Owner Magnuson
Date: December 23,2012
Subject:lmpact fees for Magnuson Remodel
Dear Mr. Kay,
Pursuant to chapter 16.02.050.6, Development lmpact fee, I am requesting an Individual assessment review of my
remodeling project of the Magnuson property. I am paying the impact fee I have been assessed by the city of Rexburg
today under protest. I have clear and convincing evidence that the established impact fee for my remodel is
inappropriate.
o Overview:
o The property was developed as a hotel in \g77
o The property has been branded under multiple hotel brands but has recently lost all branding because
of the disrepair and dilapidated state it has fallen into
o The property has had multiple owners to date, the most recent owner lost it to the bank in a foreclosure
action
o My group purchased the hotel on October L and immediately shut it down due to the condition it was
in. There were uncountable health code violations and city code violations.
o My group decided to remodel it and offer the units to long term tenants instead of the nightly tenants it
catered to as a hotel.
The International City Management Association at their Association of ldaho Cities 2006 Annual Conference
defined lmpact Fees as:
o "...monies collected formally through a set schedule, or formula, spelled out in a local ordinance... fees
are levied only against new development projects as a condition of a permit approval to support
infrastructure needed to serve the proposed development. They are calculated to cover a proportionate
share of the capital cost for that infrastructure.,,
In the staff report for my project, the city engineer felt the infrastructure is adequate for existing public streets,
yet I was later billed for a street impact fee. The number of service units hasn't changed and the number of
parking stalls haven't changed.
o Estimated weekday vehicle trip generation rates per unit for:
. Hotel: 10
. Multi-Family:8
o The amount of trips have decreased, but I have been told I still have to pay a fee because the number of
trips gets plugged into an equation and there are two different equations. There are different equations
because of the potential for double counting of trips.
o lhave been told that "technically" a hotelconsidered commercialalthough actual usage of a hotelis
much more residential in nature.
o The impact fee assessed to my remodel should be reviewed because my usage is essentially the same as
it has been for the last 34 years.
As a structure built in 1977 the property was not required to have fire sprinklers.
o We have made the structure and its occupants safer by adding fire sprinklers. Even though the square
footage hasn't increased and the building is now safer, I have been assessed an impact fee.
o According to the development fee program, the impact fee is calculated on a "Proportionate share". lt
discusses how the fair formula or method does not exceed a proportionate share of the costs incurred in
providing improvements to serve new development.
o lt also discuses a determination that undeveloped property has not made a significant contribution to
existing fire protection facilities
o My property was developed in 1977. lt is clear when reading this section that it is referring to
undeveloped property.
o The impact fee assessed to my remodel should be reviewed because my building was built in 1977 and
was already taken into consideration as a structure when the report was made. Also, I have improved
the fire safety of the structure in my remodel.
My remodel is not a new development
o Everything I have read pertaining to impact fees references "New Development" and "Undeveloped
Property"
' The city has cited Chapter L6.O2.O2O.5 that defines development as "Any man-made change to
''o:""1;;il':Tffl;:il:T::?in
,pprvine the impact rees that I pay today under
protest.
' While the city often cites the first part of this paragraph, they rarely mention the last part of thiso"'j'il;;;1ffi:,;I'i;T;;;;llilJ;1,:;H:1:::ffi::"i#:*Jil'i;:T;."
people. lt was specifically targeting people who might stay a month, a week, or less.
I am renovating that same property with the purpose of providing an overnight shelter
to people. I am specifically targeting people who might stay over a month.
The usage is the same, the target market is different. Because of the difference in target
market, I am being treated as though I am creating service units from scratch. That
what once did not exist before, does now exist.
' The impact fee assessed to my remodel should be reviewed because I am not creating any new
demand. The demand of my residents are essentially the same as the demand created by the
previous residents.
Chapter 16.02.03 - Discusses Exemptions, specifically "Remodeling or repairing a structure that does not
increase the number of service units"
o lt has been explained to me that my remodel is not Exempt and that this article does not pertain to my
remodel. They claim my remodel is "New Development"
o What they have never explained to me is why every piece of documentation I have ever received from
the city describes my remodel as a "Remodel"
' They are determined not allow the exemption for my remodel but yet they continue to officially
call it a "Remodel"
. By the city's own written words, my project is a remodel
o The impact fee assessed to my remodel should be reviewed because the city officially considers it a
remodel.
o The ldaho Development Fee Act that Rexburg operates under, requires that all Plans be updated every five
years. The last publically available plan for Streets was June 2006 and for Fire was July 2003. l've asked no less
than 8 city officials for a copy of the updated reports and have been assured by all of them that the reports have
been updated. None of them have followed through and provided me with updated reports. lformally request
a copy ofthem from you.
Thank you for completing this review, I appreciate your time reviewing this matter and providing a written decision
within thirty (30) days. I hope that I was able to demonstrate the exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or
conditions of my remodel. I know your review and approval of the individual assessment will not adversely affect the
capital improvement plan for the city.
Sincerely,
Owner, Central Park Rexburg, formally Magnuson
25L W. River Park Dr. Suite #300
Provo UT 84604
801-404-5995 chris@edgecregk.com
CC:John Millar, Rexburg City Public Works Director
Val Christensen, Rexburg City Building Official
Richard Woodland, Rexburg City Mayor
Chad Richards, Headwaters Construction
Attachments:
1. Permit Application Invoice, Magnuson Remodel, Multi-Family Remodel
2. Definition of lmpact Fees, International City Management Association
3. Staff report for project
4. City of Rexburg Development lmpact Fee Program, Streets, June 2006
5. City of Rexburg Development lmpact Fee Program, Fire, Parks, July 2003
6. Chapter 16.02- Development lmpact Fee
7. Email from Amanda Saurey
@ cIlY {)ll
nrxnunc. - .- cu _- --_'-
Att. r ka\ I:nfi i l)r {bnnillh i Ll
City of Rexburg
Department of Gommunity Development
35 North 1st East/ Rexburg, |D.83440
Phone (208) 359-3020 / Fax (208) 359-3022
PERMIT APPLICATION INVOICE
lnvoice Datez 1 1 I 23 | 201 1
I
Applicant: HEADWATERS CONSTRUCTION
175 S 2ND W
REXBURG. ID 83440
Site Addressi 420 W 4TH S
REXBURG. WA
The following fee amounts for this permit application are unpaid at this time:
Automatic Fire-Extinguishing Systems 2832215
2832211
2832212
2832215
2035500
3s34730
3434630
2832214
3835500
2832220
0735500
2832214
3335500
$ 0.00
$ 6,430.00
$ 0.00
$ 1,160.00
$ 4,677.11
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 1,460.00
$ 46,343.85
$ 643.00
$ 0.00
$ 1,110.00
$ 51,617.06
Building Permit Fee
Electrical Fee Based Calulation based on Electri<
Fire Alarm and Detection Systems Fire Fee
Fire lmpact
Hookup Fee/Sewer
Hookup FeeMater
Mechanical Fee Based Galulation based on Mech
Park lmpact Fee
Plan Check Fee
Police lmpact Fee
Residential Plumbing Permit Fee
Street lmpact Fee
Total:$113,441.02
Page 1 of 1
z
l'-(
(nz
/x
U
9
rIJa
&
uFltnIIRT
t/oz{*Edr
co
.g(Jott1tt',
cc)
c.)o)(o
(o
1
P.
O
(gco
(gc
o
I
sTrhaaS(t)
N.s
{ra
$h
IH
F
*.(a
I
.H
\ar
!uqt
g
E
\o
EIslbl
sl(!l
FIstblH
$
\o(f
o*.
E
$EI
E$
bs
*;
F6E
sqs
€
E(u
bo
$
$
h
IH
sH
orha
Etse
SI$tt4l
!!lEI
EI
$s
s
*.F
sa.
\o
s
€traqr
a
e/l
G
sl
$*jlslEI€t€l
EIol
E.s
e
E(!
(a(ue
I
I
sh\$Ft\
1S
6
Is
(!
.s
t\Ua
Es(u
*
ssF
bsEq)
FEta
*.(u|a
aso
HE
5GsE
Es(.)t
(a.s
tsE
t
t
(,ocI|r
fJleTEsET
t:o
g
0rr#ITg
IJtr
{lEI
z
F-+
v)z
U
#
EH
V)
&
ut?ilnENEI
oooo
5
o(o
cD oq
c@'r= O
P=N
E ? Pg,iE
s-E I588
OOOr
at
@oo
oci
r-Oc)N
E_U€.!(oC)d9
F: o}-r-v,
1,7 .- .-
:(/)M
T\
$rr)a'l
PN.= oo
Eoodo
c cf)oOo
"dEl-*oc YE'o-Hd
.+H do-il 0)\-t() c€BE
i"tro*rqo(4ol-q.
q)
C)tr(l)
()
co('J
(tr
cc
(o
OoN
I
.t)
.q
.=
O
o
(o
]f,
!(o(JO
(-O
ONE+'c, r
ootn-tJ) =
o
*f
bo
*fF\aJa/)It
og
IUE
I
trr:
ooo
l|rl
*fetug
ET
Community Devetopmenl Depqrtmenf
35 Norfh Isr Eost
SUBJECT:
APPLICANT:
PROPERTY OWNER(S):
PURPOSE:
PROPERTY LOCATION:
PROPERTY ID:
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
CURRENT ZONING:
PROPOSED ZONING:
SURROUNDING LAND USESAND ZONING:
APPLICABLE CRITERIA:
AUTHORITY:
BACKGROUND
The Rexburg Development code allows for the commission to make recommendations to the city
8".,lt',X::?liiffr:,1:.er or not thepropertv should or should not be rrron.Jilured on the criteria
ct't'Y 0f
volc@rexburg.org
www.rexburg.org
STAFF REPORT
Phone: 208.359.3020
Fox: 208.359.3022
REXB{IRG
A rfl e ricd',\ Fil ft , il), (hm mun i fy
Rezoning Application , file # ll 00325
Chris Carr
All Studio Apartments LLC
251W. River park Dr. #300
Provo, UT 94604
All Studio Apartments LLC
Request is to rezone from Community Business Center (CBC)to Mixed Use 2 (MU2)
420 and 450 West 4th South
Rexburg,ID 83440
RPR000K0022891
Moderate-High Density Residential andNeighborhood Commercial/ Mixej Ur"
Community Business Center (CBC)
Mixed Use 2 (MU2)
Restaurant, apartments, trailer park, laundromat, tire storeHigh Density Residential l, Community eurirr"rs Center,High Density Resident ial 2, Light fnJuJt.iuf
City of Rexburg Develop.T"lt Code (Ordinance Code 1026)$ 6.13 Amendments tolhis Ordinan)e
'
$ 6'13 (E) "The commission may recommend that the qmendment begranted as requested, that it t" ^@na, or that it be denied
Case No. I100325
Page I
II. SITE DESCRIPTION
The total area involved in this.relzonins request isapproximately 3.rg acres, which if approved wilrresult in changing a community nusinJsr i"n,". (cBC) ,on irii uMixed Use 2 (MrJ2) zone.
III. ANALYSIS
The requ^est would require the commission and council to review the proposal against one set ofcriteria' for the t"q"tt to rezone. Below, staff has p.ouio.a uri-tt " rrit..ia listed by ordinan ce 1026(Development code) that are required to te addredd, fbril;;'ui uurr, anarysis of each criterion.
a. Be in conformonce wuiiif,ciry,s Comprehensive plan
The Preferred Land use Map identifies the property as Moderate to High Density Residential andNeighborhood commercialMixed u;;.-;y use ailowed in either of these rand use designations isallowed' The applicant has requesrJui..o use 2 (MU2). This zone is allowed.
b'
7l:,::::;:1,:lT:!;f;:,i'i:;:;":;;"::;;;: sewerracitities, storm drainageracitities, sotid
The city Engineer feers the infrastructure is adequate.
c' The capacity of existing public services, including but not limited to, public safery services,pubric emergencJ) t"-i"nr, schoors, ori pirn, qnd recreationor services.
;:::ll#:?fiTii1,X?Jffi? concern' rhe appropriate rmpact Fees wlr be conected prior to
o'
[!:;"*"'for
nuisances or health and safery hazards thar may adversery offect adjoining
Staff has reviewed and does not feel the change will have a negative effect. The commissionshould review the potential impact of .i*"Jure zoning.
e' Recent changes in land use on adioining properties or in the neighborhood of the map revision.
;|iffT*1nffi,|ttt to the southeast and to the north have both been recently changed to High
"f Meets the requirements of the Comprehensive plan.
The Preferred Land Use Map identifies the property as Moderate-High Density Residentiar andNeighborhood comme*::r,1:":q.u;t.-1i,n1*lt.n*'*;;;;"v zonethatis arowed in either
L::T.:J-""*ij":se designations' Mixeo use z is alrowed #iir" N"iehborhood commerciarivrixed
IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
If the Planning and zoningcommission determines that ail of the criteria are met, Staffrequests thatthe Planning and zoning dommission .""o-."nJ,rru, city council process the requested zonechange.
CaseNo.1100325
pase2
INTRODUCTION AND PIJRPOSE
Developmenl lmpocl Fee
The city council hos determined thot d.evelopment impoct fees should be o primory fundingmechonism to finonce future public focilities improvements needed to serve new development.The focilities onolysis provides the necessory informotion for the developmenl impoct feeprogrom for the City of Rexburg. There ore provisions in the ldoho Development tmpoct Fee Acithol ollow for the modificotion ond updoting of the development impoct fees. Additionolly, theAct (section 67-8208(2)) requires thof oll copitol lmprovements plons be updoted every fiveyeors.
Bosed on the reseorch conducied, the onolysis of impocts to focilities ond the costs ossociotedwith those impocts, o proportionote shore determinotion must be mode to ensure thot theresulting developmenl impoct fee reosonobly relotes to the service demonds ond needs forfuture development. The proportionote shore determinotion, in occordonce with ldoho codeSection 67-8207 specifies o number of "considerotions" thot must be mode by the city to ensurethot the development impoct is "bosed on o reosonoble ond foir formulo or method...,,Explonoiions for the proportionote shore determinoiions ore provided of ihe end of eochchopter' The finol result of the reseorch. discussions, onolysis, ond re-onolysis is o developmeniimpoct fee study ond ordinonce thot reflect bolh professionol expertise ond locolexperience.
The informotion provided in this report is intended to be os occurote os possible. ond oble towithstond close scrutiny, either legol or otherwise. Further, it is the intention of this report to beeosily comprehended, without socrificing necessory detoir.
CITYoF REXBURG
DEVELoPMENT IMPACT FEE PRaGRAM
Ho FMA N PLA NNT N G A s s o C TA TEs
JUNE2006
CIRC ULATToN FA CILITIES
tv.FEE CALCULATION
lmpocl of Fulure Developmenl
Afler the costs for circulotion focilities hove been identified, fhe next step in
colculoting the fee is to quontify the impocts of future development.
The fee colculolion opplies to both residentiol ond non-residentiol development.
The numbers of lrips generoted by lond use ore used to determine the impocts of
development on roodwoys. Provided below ore the trip generotion rotes for non-
residentiol ond residentiol development used in this circulotion onolysis:
Toble 7: Trip Generolion Roles by Lond Uses
Lond Use Trip Generotion Role
Sinole Fomilv l0 trips/du
Multi-Fomily B trips/du
Commerciol 120 trips/ 1000 so.ft.
lndustriol 12triosl l0OO sq.ft.
These trips ore representotive overoges used notionolly lo estimote the impoct of
development on roodwoys. Specificolly, the commerciol stondord is bosed on
the trips for o Neighborhood Shopping Center. The trips for industriol lond uses is
generoted from on overoge of Industriol ond combined Industriol/Commerciol
lond use. The multi-fomily trip generotion is on overoge for oll types multi-fomily
dwelling units.
The totol impoct of fulure development on roodwoys is colculoted by muliiplying
the trips for eoch lond use cotegory by the future residentiol dwelling units ond
non-residentiolsquore foologe in the study oreo.
Credit for Non-Residenliol Developmenl
An odjustment must be mode to occount for the double counting of commerciol
ond residentiol trips. For exomple, round lrips from o dwelling unii moy include o
trip to o commerciol destinotion within the City. This some trip, however, is
included in the trips for the commerciol lond use. To odjust for double counting
of trips, lhis onolysis ossigns o 40% discount to non-residentiol development. As o
result, this discount foctor provides o more occuroie trip generotion
meosurement.
To moke this odjustment, the percenioge of troffic impoct is colculoted for eoch
lond use. The percentoge is then multiplied by the totol cost for focilities lo
idenfify the proporlionol cost for eoch lond use. The fee credit, however, reduces
this cost to non-residentiol development by 40% ond tronsfers the cost
proportionolly to residentiol development. lf the cost wos reduced by 40% ond
not tronsferred to resideniiol development, the fee would be insufficient ond
A.
B.
CITYoFREXBURG
DEVELoPMENT IMPACT FEE PRoGRAM
HoFMAN PL.A NNING Ass o CIATES
JUNE2006
t6
c.
there wourd be o shortoge of funds coilected by the city for futureimprovements.
The tronsfer of the 40% cr.edit is reopportioned to residentiot development bosedon the percentoge of single fomily ond multi-fomily units of resideniioldevelopment within the study oreo. The tronsfer of creoit for non-residentiordevelopment to residentiol development resulis in o reuleJ cost for eoch of thefour lond use cotegories: sFD, MFD,'commercior ond industrioilond use.
Cost per lond use
The lost step in the fee colculotion is to divide the cost per lond use by the futuretrips projected for the four lond uses. Due to the credit tronsfer, the result is qdifference in cost per trip between residentiorond non-residentioilond uses.
since ihe non-residentiol fee is bosed on o per trip generotion rote ond differenrnon-residentiol lond uses hove different trip genero-tion rol.t, oll non-residentiollond uses will not hove the some fee. untortuioterv, il'ir i.nor to complicote thecollection of circurotion impoct fees becouse it is difficurt to ossign o tripgenerotion rote for oll the vorious lond uses.
The generotion rotes should be bosed on either the ITE stondords or on onofherset of generorion tobres which more crosery resembre conditions in Rexburg. Asimplified trip generotion rote toble is provided in Appendix c. This toble shouldbe consulted when determining development impoct fees for non+esideniioluses. However, for uses not risted, the pubric works Director shoil moke thedecision regording the oppropriote troffic gunerotion ,oie. This determinotionsholl be bosed upon rTE stondords or troffic ieports ,rorittJ with the proposednon-residentiol use.
A detoiled breokdown of chculotion impoct fee colculolions is shown on Toble B.
CtTyoFREXBURa
DEVELoPMENT IMPACT FEE PR^GRAM H oFMA N PL,A N N I NG A1s o cI.A TEs
JUNE2006
Tqble 8: Circulolion Fee Colculotion
$35,999,450.00
$t 4,000,000.00
$21,999,450.00
Fomily Detoched (SFD)11,470 DUs
2,950 DUs
5,203,558 5q. Ft.
1,924,603 Sq. Fi.
X
X
X
l0 Trips/DU
8 Trips/DU
l2O Trips/1000 sf
12 Trips/1000 sf
114,700 Trips
23,600 lrips
624,427 Trips
23,095 Trips
114.700 Trips t4.6%$3,211,078.91
$660,692.78
$17,481 ,116.47
$646,561.84
$21,999,450.N
23,600 Trips 3.0%
624,427 Trips 795%
23.095 Trips 29%
100.0%
$17 ,481 ,116.47
$646,561.84
40%
40%
= 82.9%
$6,992,446.59
$258,624.74
$7,251,071.32
$6,013,722.93
g1 ,237,348.40
$7,251,071.32
I 14,/00 Trips
23,600 Trips
$3,21 1,078.91
$660,692.78
$17 ,481 ,1 16.47
$646,561.84
$6,013,722.93
$1 ,237,348.40
$6,992,446.59
$258,624.74
$9,224,801.83
$r,898,041.t8
$10,488.669.88
$387,937. I I
$21,999,450.00
$9,224,801.83
$r,898,04t . tB
$r 0,488,669.88
$387,937.1 I
ll4,Z@ Trips
23,6@ Irips
624,427 Irips
23,095 Trips
$80.43 / Irip
$80.43 / Irip
$16.80 / Irip
$16.80 / Trip
$80.43 / Irip
$80.43 / Trip s643.40 /DU
$16.80 / Trip
Sl 6.80 / Tilp
identiol 1000 Sq. Ft.
i 1,470 DUs
2,950 DUs
647,522lrips
$9,224,ffi1.83
$1,898,041 .18
$1O,876,606.99
DEYELoPMENT IMPACT FEE PR,GRAM JUNE2006
25l1OO0 sq. ft., 25olacre
Park (less than 40O,OOO sq ft
Post Office
a. CentralAlValk-in Onlv
b. Community (no maiidrop tane)
c. Community (w/ mail drop lanej
90/1000 so. ft.
20011000 sq. ft./ 1300/acre
300/1 000 sq. ft / 2000/acre
150/1000 sq. ft., 1 1/seat
CTTYoFREYBURG
D E VE Lo P M ENT I MPA CT FEE PR o G RA M HoFMAN zLANNTNG AssocrATEs
JUNE2006
V. PROPORTIONATE SHARE DETERMINATION
As required by section 67-8207 - Proportionote shore Determinotion, ,,oll deveropmenlimpoct fees sholl be bosed on o reqsonoble ond foir formulo or method under whichthe developme.nt impoct fee imposed ooes not Lxceed o proportionote shore of thecosts incurred" in providing improvements to serve new development. Severolfoctorsmust be considered when determining proportion-te shore costi. ihe tollowingprovides on explonotion of the foctors consioereJ in moking this deierminotion ondresulted in ihe development impoct fee for 1r. p.t".tion focilities.
Secfion 67'8207(2) (o) - "The cosl of exisling system improvemenls wifhin lheservice oreq or qreos,,; ondSecfion 67'8207(2) (b) - "The meons by which exisling sysfem improvemenlshove been finonced,,
Bosed on HPA's findings ond the omount of money thot could be troced, it wosdetermined thot undeJeloped property hod not mode o significonl contribution toexisting fire protection focilities.' since'the known -onuy spent for exisring focirities
ffi:ffi?ff:l:til:ir smor omounr, ir wos oecioeJ *rot m'e p..opor"oiro..t fee wos
Seclion 67'8207(2) (c) - "The exlenf lo which rhe new development willconlribule fo lhe cosl of syslem improvements iirougr,loxqfion, ossessmenf, ordeveloper or londowner conlribufiirnt, oirtor prerioustv conlribufed fo lhe coslof syslem improvemenls fhrough developei oilonoo*ner confribulions.,,
The entire Development lmpoct Fee Repori provides necessory detoils regording theextent io which new development will contribrG t. the cost of the future fireprotection services' As stoied in the Finoncing ,".lion Jor this chopter, ihe primoryfunding source for future focilities *itt o. irpoli r".s] provisions hove been mode.which collfor the revision of fees if olternote tir"Ji"J-rrces ore mode ovoirobre.
seclion 67-8207(2) (d) - "The exlenl lo which lhe new developmenf is requiredro conrribufe fo rhe cosr of exisfing system improlu"-.nr, in rhe furure.,,
tmpoct fees collected from new development will not coniribute to the costs of onyexisting improvements' The impoct fee oroinonce ruqril, thot impoct fees collectedsholl be deposiied. into o
'seporote
fund .o^'ort.o specificolly for copitoltmprovements to future fire focilities neeoeJ
'ti"
,.ru. new development.Mointenonce ond operotion costs will come trom oft'ei funding sources. lmpoct feesconnot finonce the mointenonce ond operoii"n oiiir. protection fociliiies.
seclion 67'8207(2) (e) - "The extenl to which new devetopmenl shoutd becredired for providing sysrem improvements, withour chorge ro orherproperlies wifhin lhe service oreo or oreqs,,;
section 8 of the Dgygloomeni lmpoct Fee ordinonce provides oll the porometersregording credits' This section stoies thot.if o J."uioprent impocf tee'is cunenttybeing collected, then o creditrnoy O. ovoiloble.
:flilfl:l?\7(2) (t) - "Exlroordinory cosfs, if ony, incuned in servins fhe new
Plonning Assocloles
City of Rexburg
2003 Development lmpoct Fee Reoort
July 15, 2003
Associoles
$6,947,648.16 + $t ,842,406.03 = $B,Z9O,OS4.19
B.
There ore other funding sources ovoirobre to ossist in the finoncing for porkfocilities. rt is ossumeolnot the cr'ty *itt ,r. ftrose oter'r"orr.., to ossist withthe funding of the future needs. nt ir,i, time, it i, orrrrJo thot g3o,o00 perocre for o totor of $3,r1o,Bgz wiil come from other tunoing sources. Bysubtrocting this omount from the totoi cost for pork focirities, the cost to befinonced by the development impoct tee wiil be'gi, ii;,1;;.
Fee Colculqlion
To determine on equitobre pork focirities impoct fee, o methodorogy wosdeveloped thot equitobry disiributes the fee. The t." *irt onry be required tooe poid for residentior deveropment. The fee omouni to oL poio is bosed onthe type of residentior deveroprunt .o-nrtructed - singre fomiry detocheddwelling units, murti-fomiry ottochei dweting units for,,singres,,ond murti_fomiryottoched dweting units for,,non-.ingt.r';. As exproined inlhe buird our onorysissection of this report. on onorysis rioi conoucted to oeteimine the impoctscreoted by these ty.pes..of housing units. ro, poit to.iriti.r, the impoctscreoted ore bosed direcfly on the riumoers of persons per unit. The buird outonolysis demonstroied thqt there ore +.or p.rroni-J.ii"gr. fomiry unit, 5.6persons per murti-fomiry "singres" unit ond 2.3 persons pei"multitomiry ,,non_singles" unit. Therefore, *rJ tee i. o. poid wi, oe otieo direcry on theimpocts creoted by eoch of these resiJentiol unit types.
The build out onorysis identifies o future popurorion of 37,644persons. with thecost for pork focirities to be finonceo oy t. deveropment impoct feedetermined to be g5,629,167, tfre cost per person is $l5O.gZ.
Pork Cost /
$5,679,167 /
Cost per person
$ 150.82 / person
Future Populotion =
37,644 persons =Cost per person
$l50.BZ per person
By multiplying the cost.per person by the number of persons per the specifictype of residentior unit, the oeuetopmlniimpoct fee per unit is determined.
Cost per Person x persons per MF_Singles$150.82 / person x 5.6 personi (rvtr_iingles)
Cost per Person x persons per MF Non_Singles Unit = Cosr per MF Non_Singlesgl50.BZ / person x 2.3 persons (rr,{r Ntn-sin6tes) = {s1e.rr (MF Non_sinsres)
A summory of the colculotions used to determine the fees for pork focilities isshown on Toble 4 - pork Focilities fee Cofcufotions on poge 33
Finoncing Oplions
Pork focilities wiil be provided to the residents of.the city of Rexburg os theneed orises ond when funding is ovoitolte. Funding for pork focirities shourdbe obtoined now in order to piovioe ooequote porkTocilities in the future. The
flrl'l.Tr:::rce of fundins ror ruture-port< tocititiet *iri o. ine colecrion on
x Persons per SF Unitx 4.01 persons (SF Unit)
= Cosf per SF Unit= $604.97 /(SF Unii)
= Cost per MF Singles= $844.85 /(MF-singtes)
City of Rexburg
2003 Development lmpoct Fee Reporl July 15, 2003
CHAPTER 16.02 DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE
16.02.010 Title and purpose
The provisions of this ordinance shall be kloyn as the "city of Rexburg Development ImpactFee ordinance'" The purpose of these regulations-is to pi#ribe the procedure wherebydevelopers of land shall pay an impact fei as set forth in tt* ordinance for the purpose ofproviding the public facilities-and system improvement, n""o.a to serve future iesidents andusers of such development. (Ord. tlO gf 6art),2003).
16.02.020 Definitions
l) Building permit: The permit required for new construction and additions.
2) capital improvements: Improvements with a useful life.of twen ty (2D)years or more, bynew construction or other action, which increase the service capacityof a public facility, orservice improvement.
3) capitat improvements plan: A plan adopted and amended pursuant to the provision of theDevelopment Impact Fee Act, tdaho coae al-g208 that identifies capital improvements forwhich development impact^fees maybe used as
"-r""ai"g source. The capital improvementsplan is included as a part of the Deveropment rmpacfreJR.pon.
4) city: The city of Rexburg, a municipal corporation duly organized pursuant to the laws ofthe state of ldaho.
5) Development: Any man-made change to improved or unimproved real property, the use ofany principal structure 91 land, o. uny other activity trtui..quires issuanc" oiu buildingpermit' or manufactured/mobile home permit, which creates additional demand and need forpublic facilities.
6) Development approval: Any written duly authorized document from the City thatauthorizes the commencement of a development.
7) Development impact fee: A payment of m^oney imposed as a condition of developmentapproval to pay for a proportionate share of the-cosiof system improvements needed to servedevelopment' This term is also refened to as un irnfu"t 6l in,6i, ordinance. The term doesnot include the following:
a) A charge or fee to pay the administrative, plan review or inspection cost associated withpermits required for development;
b)
c)
or hookup charges;
Availability charges for drainage, sewer, water, or transportation charges for servicesprovided directly to the development; oi
6)Individual Assessment: Individual assessment of impact fees is permitted in situations where
li:,fi"XililHrfmonstrate bv clear and convin"i;s;'il;;"e that the estaurisnea impact
a) Individual assessments of developmentimpact fees may be made by application to thecity clerk, or his o.r.l"T duly designated agent, p.io. to ."reiving bulding permitsmanufactured / mobile home insta-ilation p"...itr, o. "irt.. necessary approvals from thecity' The city clerk, or his or her outy aesignateo ;gent, shall evaluate such individualassessments under. the guidelines provided for in seciion'05.010.F.+. ritrr" g"idelines aremet, the individual assessment stratt b.e upprourJ Lv rr" ci,y crerk, o,. rri, o? r,"r dulydesignated agenf' Any decision regarding a.equert"fo, un inaiuiaral assessment shall beprovided in writing to the applicanl and a copyorsaiJdecision, along with supportingjff:ffil",ion, shalr be provided to the city councii*iirri" thirty (30) days orihe
b) Late applications for individual assessments may be submitted within thirty (30) daysafter the receipt of a.building permit only if the ib" p;t;.akes a showing that the factssupporting such application were not known o. air"o*.uble prior to receipt of a buildingpermit and that undue hardship would result irr"io
"ppiiiution is not considered.
c) The city clerk, g.t ltit or her duly designated agent, sharl render a written decisionregarding the individual assessrnent and forwari itio trr" city council wittrinlrrirty (30)days of the date acomplete application is submitted. The decision of the city clerk, orhis or her duly designated ug.nt' shall establi.rr ,rt" i.f*i r". ro. the project in questionfor a period of one (r) year from the date said decision becomes finar.
d) The city clerk, or his or her duly designated agent, shall evaluate an application forindividual assessment.and may upprou".tt
" ruri" iir..-o*o has shown by crear andconvincing evidence that the estabfishea impact f.;;;H;propriate and that thefollowing facts and conditions exist.
i) Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions apply to the developmentthat does not apply generally to other properties in the vicinity of the development.
An individual assessment is necessary for the reasonable and acceptable developmentof the property.
iii) The approval of the individual assessment will not be materially detrimental to thepublicvelfare or injurious to property in the vicinity in which the development is
The approval of the individual assessment will not adversely affect the capitalimprovement plan for the Citv.
e) Appeals to the city clerk, or his or her duly,designated agent, determination of individualassessment shall be made to the city council uyitre niiniorun appeal with the citv
an
3) A request for refund must be fired within the time alrowed by
6) The City shall annually adopt a capitalbudget.
7) As part of its annual audit process, the city shall prepare an annual Report describing the;3:tTi".:i"tT,"J"ffi :'#fi fi'ff ::*::lF;i'iatea,o.,p.nlluJ"e,r,"pieceding
8) All other requirements of Idaho code 67-8210, regarding earmarking and expenditure ofcollected development impact fees, shall apply. (Ord. g96 ,,7,2003).
16.02.090 Refunds
" ;B::ff*:Ttr"T;i:ltrtffilaser orproperrv on which an impact ree has been paid
a) Service is available but never provided;
b) The project for which a building permit has been used has been lawfully artered resultingin a decrease in the amount of tte impact fbe due: or
c) The city' after collecting the fee when service is not available, has failed to appropriate
A:To
the coiected deveropment impact f.";;;;;;""1to Section 67_s210(4) rdaho
t
fr*t$:5.ott-t'or
permit for installation of a manufactured / mobile home is denied or
,,
lffiT3J:::*::*:_*:i^b:T1 ll,.:i,inq and sub_mitted to the city crerk or his or her
LTJ,'*.#.j*":lng:::::::t^:l?-.,"'#;il;tJfi l,lT"ffi J,l;":ff ilf ";Hff $.]1Tjili:*'3".1'i:::::;_':'"*;;##'ffi :'":il11fiTl
i"ig?ff:? jl"*"*r*n , and /or others having an interest t, "ir" ,- oliili'i"ll whichimpact fee has been paid.
4) within ninety (90) days of the date of receipt of a request for refund, the city clerk or his orher duly designated agent must provide tt " o*ner,i,ir*i,ing, with a decision on the refundrequest including the reasons toi tne decision. rq" rigrtii; refund exists, trr" ci,y is requiredto send a refund to the owner of record wjthil
"i;";;Aa;;days after it is determined that arefund is due' A refund shall include a refund orint"."siut one-half (%) the legal rateprovided for in Sectio n 2g_22_l 04, Idaho Code.
5) Owner may appeal the determination of the.city clerk, or his or her duly designated agent, to
tllirlt council pursuant to the provisions in Section io "i,ii, ffi#1il:idro. ,nu sn,
16.20.100 Appeats
l) A developer or.fee payer may appeal the written determination of the applicability andamount of the development impact fee, or.refund, or any discretionary;tt* or inaction byor on behalf of the City to the City Council.
2) The developer or fee payer must file a notice of appeal to the city council with the cityClerk within thirty (30) days following the written determination, discretionary action, orinaction' whenfiling an appeal, the fee payer shall submit a letter providinga fullexplanation of the request, the reason foi appeal, as well as all supporting d"ocumentation.
3) The filing of an appeal shall not stay required payment of the impact fee, however, a feepayer can pay a. development impact fee undeipiotest in order to obtain developmentapproval or building permit.
4) upon voluntary agreement by the fee payer and the city, anydisagreement related to theimpact fee for the proposed development may be mediated uy u q,iuined independent party.
a) Mediation may take place at any time during the appeals process and participation inmediation does not preclude the fee payer rr-o. pu.ruing bther r.;;i.r;.ovided for inthis Ordinance.
b) The fee payer and the City shall share mediation costs equally. (ord. g96 g 10, 2003).
16.02.110 Extraordinary impacts
In determining the proportionate share of_the cost of system improvements to be paid by thedeveloper, the city clerk or his or her duly. designarei ug;;irn-urr consider whetlier anyextraordinary costs will be incurred in se.rving tie develJpment based upon an extraordinaryimpact as defined in section I of this ordinanie. This determination shall be made prior toissuance of any permit for development and shall be puia f.io. to any such issuance excepr asmay be provided pursuant to a private agreement betweerrthe parties as authorized by IdahoCode Section 67-8214.
If the city clerk or his or her duly designated agent determines that the development will resultin an extraordinary impact, it shail advi-se the fei payer in writing what the extraordinary impactis, the reason for the extraordinary impact, and thi estimated costs to be incuned as a result ofthe extraordinary impact.
Nothing in this ordinance shall obligate the city to approve any development that results inextraordinary impact.
The fee.payer may appeal the determination of an extraordinary impact or the amount ofextraordinary costs incurred in writing by.filing a notice oiupp"ur to the city council with thecity clerk pursuant to the terms set rorttr in Seition 10, entitLd ,,Appeals.,, When filing anappeal, the fee payer shall submit a letter providing the reason for the upp"ur uiorrg *itl,supporting documentation. The City Council shall-consider the appeal and make a finaldetermination within ninety (90) days of receipt of the written appeal. (ord. gg6 gl l, 2003).
/R
16'0t'023 "Deveroper parking option'o for apartment comprexes:Development code; chapter s,-section 5.5 sub-sec,ion r.z;forr"rqp9r_apdon,,parking ratio,sforapartmentcomplexesmay be80Yoat9'xl6'spaces anaioy"maybe g, x2y,spaces. (SeePedestrian Emphasis Zone (PEZ) for additional 9' x 20' visitor parking requirements.) (ord.1064, g(part) 201l)
f6.02.030 Exemptions
The provisions of this ordinance shall apply uniformly to ail those who benefit from new growthand development except as provided below.
l) The provisions of this ordinance shail not appry to the folrowing:
a) Rebuilding the same amount of floor space of a structure that was destroyed by fire orother catastrophe, providing the structure is rebuilt and ready for occupancy within two(2) years of its destruction;
b) Remodeling or repairing a structure that does not increase the number of service units;
c) Replacing a residential unit' including a modular building or manufactured / mobilehome' with another residential unit oi th; ;;;i";lprovided that the number of serviceunits does not increase;
d) Placing a temporary construction trailer or office on a lot;
e) constructing an addition on a residential structure that does not increase the number ofservice units;
0 Adding uses that are typically accessory to residential uses, such as tennis courts orclubhouse, unless it can be ciearly demtnstrateo tt ai-trre use creates a significant impacton the capacity of system improvements;
g) upon demonstration by fee payer by documentation such as utility bills and tax records,to the installation of a moduiai builiing, .unua.turJ / mobile home or recreationalvehicle on that.same lot or space for ry[i"rr; J;;;-l"p-ent impact fee has been paidpreviously' and as rong as thire is no increase in seiice units.
2) An exemption must be claimed by the fee.payer upgn appfcation for a building permit. Anyexemption not so claimed shall bi deemedwaiu.a' uf if,"'t"" payer. Applications forexemption shall be submitted to and determined uv1it.'citv itert , o. iri, or her dulydesignated agent, within ninety (90) days. Appeals of the iity ct..t,r, o, t i, o,. her durydesignated agent, determination rrturr l;1ry;Jil..irr. prorrisions of Section l0 of thisOrdinance entitled,,Appeals.', (Ord. g96 $2,2003).
- r'
Chris Garr
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Chris,
Here you go.
ehad
Chad Richards fcrichards@headwaterscc.com]wedne_sday, November z{ zotl iii'iii"'Chris Carr'
FW, lt4gglrson Remodet permit Fee Costgetjobid6Z26.pdf
From: Amanda Saurey [mailto:amandas@rexburg.org]
:"nllWednesday, Nwember zs, ioii 1-:r: pMTo: Chad Richards
Subject: Magnuson Remodet permit Fee Cost
Chad,
Attached is ttre final permit cost for the Magnuson remodel.Plcase contact me if you have any q.r*ior.r.
lhanks,
A.rnanda Saurey
The City of Rexburg
Permit Technician
P.O. Box 280
35 North lst East
Rexburg, Id 88440
208-359-3020 exr. 2B4l
;r t r ur r r< l:rs(rDr.cr l rt r rg.org.
Ttre permit will be issued once the fees are paid.
rF 11 00352 r
"*""ffiffig.^^"#;XttJ'.?,'T:,'T].",0"'qL"gtIfCFOTfER ZDlVcsrstaftestrecr, &dFba ,LILIi.rrr^rGovtroa p.O-Box&t72O DirceBoise, Idabo 83720{0!,3
Itme (zO$3SaaEa MAXKLT ^r!s(NFAX#(zr8)33++:pe -G#ffiffi-
PI.AIV REVIEW FOR FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEII,XS
PRotEcr: J,^AG xrescrar .lta.r
tf5o rarefrr e/I?
-szeo FAXNo:ZleffiFE
NIs
ffi g3g^lqs13:reffiS@ ErForrrD narrnorarB srDxlt rED -l!"!fi F ornce,- eio-ry 6oftt;f;8 ffiffiffirar ary raEstoMl|y ron rre ricmrrs rEErrD
Fax 2W-7*nn
CCTO: frla*L{son
- raaho.Surveying&Rating
Ele
TCg}ur<.ffi.fr- D€pln
K AppRo\fD-n,rafunesnca
&oa ac cmeod ad sbjcct o a fieldinryccio.
D[$I489VED - Rcsffi wirh iensqwd
ADDIIIONAL - ffimaim reqocsd
rG2005
4r.olOportu.fuy BryIoya
Hydra utic Calculations
f0ect Name: Magnuson HotelRenovation for
Location: , ,
Drawing Name: l-790 magnuson hotet upper level fire calc 2Design Calcufation Date: 1 0/261201 1
Remote Area Number:OUTSIDE CANOPY#1
Oocupancy Cfassification: Light Hazard
Density:
Area of Appfication:
Coverage per Sprinkfer:
Type of sprinklers calcufated:
No. of sprinkfers calculated:
Type of System;
fn-rack Demand:
Hose Streams:
0.1009pmtfl3
1 500.00ft2 (Actr.rat 8T 1 .44ft1
100.00fi2
Sidewaft
I
Volume of Dry or preAction System:N/A gpm at Node: N/A0.0 gpm at Node: $ Type: Ailowance at Source
Totaf water Required (incruding Hose streams where appticabte):from Suppty at Node: 33 rcT.65 @ Z0.556
Nanne of ContractorGern State Fire protestion
Address:
phone Number:
110S fona Road, , fdaho Fafls, ldaho
Name of designer: Marshalf Gardner
Authority Having Jurisdiction
Name of ContractorGem State Fire protection
Address: 1105 tona Road, , rurf,o Falfs, ldahoPhone Number: Name of designer: Marshatt Gardner
Authority Having Jurisdiction
Notes:
Automatic peaking results Right: N/A
Job Name. Magnuson Hotef Renovation
Remote Area Number: 1 Date: 1Ot2d2O11
r,roo" f
Suppl'
%
lacidrrrl ter Fr^---
y Analysis
Static
(psi)
--'l %Avaitabte g -r"t"ffio-
(ps0 (spml Required Pressure
(psi,
(psil (spm)
1 | 80.000 J4.O00 920.00 79.131 107.68 I 70.556
NodeAnalysis
Node Nurnber Elevation (Foot)Pressure at
Node
(pst)
Dischargre at Nodr(Spnr)
Node Type Notes
1 -6'-11%Supply 70.556 107.68
101 g'.-0 Sprinkler 12.817 15.44
142 9',-0 Sprinkler 12.230 14.69
103 9',-0 Sprinkler 11.494 14.24
104 9',-0 Sprinkler 10.965 13.91
105
106
9',-0 Sprinkler 9.299 12.81
9'-0 Sprinkler 8.865 12.51
107 9',-o Sprinkler 8.708 12.39
108 9',-0 Sprinkler 8.300 12.10
2 -6'.-11%68.923
3 -6',-1131 68.891
4
c
-2'-0 66.598
16'-4 53.046
o
7
16'-4 51.459
16'-4 51.244
I 16'-4 51.548
I f 6'-4 s1-414
10 17',-10 49.967
11 17'-10 49.127
Job Name: Magnuson Hotel RenovationRemote Area Number: 1
Date: 10t26t2011
Node Number Elevation (Foot)Node Type Pressure at
Node
(psi)
Discharge at Node(spm)Notes
13 17',-10 47.447
15 16',-4 48.40A
16 16'.-4 48.397
17 16'-4 47.25A
18 16',-4 47.465
20 16',-4 48.901
22 16'.-4 49.035
26 18'-0 45.170
28 18',-0 47.214
30 18'-6 37.A23
31 18'-0 44.727
32 18'-0 44.674
33 18',-0 44.836
34 18',-0 46.762
35 1g'.-5%46.462
36 9',-0 15.140
Job'Name: Magnuson Hotel RenovationRemote Area Number: 1
Date:10t26t2011
ValueOfc 1OO t3O faO
-tSo_-._-
Muftiplying Factor O]1g 1.16 1.33 l.5t
I Adual Inside Diameter \ 4.87
\ schedule 40 steel pipe Inside Diameter ,l
= Factor
BalV Bail Vatve
C Cross Flow Turn 90.CV Check Valve
E 90" Elbow
EeZ 2ZTz"Elbow
FDC Fire Department Connectirflg Ftangeg Gauge
Ho Hose
Hyd Hydrant
Noz Nozzle
PIV Post lndicating ValvePrV Pressure Relief ValvesCV Swing Check ValveT Tee Flow Turn 90"
AngV Angle Valve
BFP Bacl<flowpreventer
cplg Coupting
DelV Deluge Valve
EE 45" Etbow
f Flow Device
fE 90" Firelock(TM) ElbowFN Floating Node
GloV Globe Vatve
Hose Hose
LtE Long Turn EtbowP1 Pump In
PO Pipe Ouflet
red Reducer/Adapter
Spr Sprinkter
Tr Tee Run
b Bushing
BV Butterfly Valve
Cr Cross Run
DPV Dry Pipe VatveEe1 11%Elbow
fd Ftex Drop
fEE 45'FireLock(TM)Etbow
fT Firelock(TM) TeeGV Gate Valve
HV Hose Valve
mecTMechanical TeeP2 PumpOut
PRV Pressure Reducing ValveS Suppty
St Strainer
U Union
Job trlame: Magnuson Hotef RenovationRemote Area Number: 1
Date:10126t2011Pipelnformffi
Node 1 Elev f
(Foot)li+"cto,F|owadded
this step(q)
Nominal l[Fittings &
D,evices
Equiv.
Length
(Foo0
Length
(Footl
C Factor Tota(Pt)Notes
Fitting/Device (Equivalent
LenqthlFixed Pressure Losses, whentp-plicable, are added direc{y to(Pff and shorvn as a negative
_ value.
Fitting
(Foot)
Pf Fric.tion Loss
Per Unit (psi)Elev(Pe)Node2 Elev 2(Footf'Iotal Ftow (e|Actual lD
Total {Foot)Friction(Pf)
I 16'-4 1 (See
Notes)
1'-0 120 51.414
PO(s'-0)
8 16',-4 7.70 1.0490
5'-0 0.0?2258
6',-0 4134
51.548 Total(R) Route 5
17 16'-4 1 (See
Notes)
1'-0 120 47.250 ..o..ROUtg6.....
PO(s'_0)
to lat ,9.95 1.049A
5'-0 0.035795
6',-0 o.215
18 16'-4 'l (See
Notes)
39'-10 150 47.465
sT(1'-0), T(5'_0)
16 16',-4 9.95 1.1010
10'-0 0.018716
49'-10 0.933
16 16',-4 1%0'-8%120 48.397
15 16',-4 9.95 1.6820 0.003591
o'-8%0.002
15 16'.-4 1 (See
Notes)
128'.-11%150 48.4AA
7
7
16',-4 9.95 1.1010
23L0 0.018716
151',-11%2.844 18T(1'-0), T(5'-0)
16',-4 1 (See
Notes)
1',-o 120 51.244
PO(5'-0)
o 16',-4 9.95 1.0490
5'-0 0.035795
6'-0 0.215
51.459 Total(ft) Route 6
Job fuame: Magnuson Hotel Renovationr<emote Area Number: 1
Date:10t26t2011
Pipe Information
Node 1
Node 2
i Er"*
| (Foot)lK+actor
-lk --
&Lengtl
(FootlthisstepNomtnal lD Fittings
Device
Equiv.
Lengtl
Gooq
C Factor Tota(ft)Notes
Fifting/D,evice (Equivalent
LenqthlFixed pressurelosses, whenrp-plicable, are added directty to
{Pfl and shown as a negative
vatue.
Fitting
(Foot)
Pf Friction Loss
Per Unit (psi)Elev 2
{Foot}
fotal Ftow (e)Actual lD Elev(Pe)
Total (Foot)Friction(Pf)
46.462 Total(ft) Route 2
35 1g',-5%1%(See
Notes)
0'-5%120 46.462 . . . .. ROUtg 3 .. ..1
LtE(2'_s%)
34 18'-0 34.01 1.6820
2'-53/i 0.034865 0.197
z'.-11%
-
12',-11%:
0.103
34 18'-0 1%120 46.762
28 18'-0 34.01 1.6820 0.034865
12',-11%0.452
3LtE(2'-53A)
28 1g'-0 1tt (See
Notes)
20'-3 12A 47.214
20 16',-4 34.01 1.6820
7'-5 0.034865 0.723
27'-8 0.965
20 16',-4 1%(See
Notes)
112'-2 120 48.901
LtE(z',-53A)
I 16'.-4 26.31 1.6820
9'-1F/t 0.021685
122'-03/,2.U7
8 16',-4 7.7A 1tt:(See
Notes)
30|7 120 51.548
Flow (q) from Route 6
LtE(2' - 5%), T (9. _ 1 O%')
5 16',-4 34.01 1.682A
12\4%0.034865 -0.000
42'-11%1.498
44.513 Total(ft) Route 3
32 18',-0 1%(See
Notes)
1'-9 120 44.674 ..... ROUtg 4.. *
LtE(2'_0)
33 18',-0 34.A1 1.6100
z',-A 0.043144
3',-g 0.162
33 18'-0 1%(See
Notes)
42',-43/t I 120 44.836
2LtE(2' - S3A), 2Ee 1 (2, _ S%)
35 1g',-5%34.01 1.6820
9'-10%0.034865 -0.197
52',-3%1.823
44.742 Total(R) Route 4
20
22
16'-4 I (See
Notes)
1',-o 120 48.901 . .. .. ROUtg 5 .. . .1
PO(5'_0)
4.6'_4 7.7A I.V{VU
5',-0 0.022258
6',-0 0.134
22 16',-4 I (See
Notes)
169'-6 150 49.035
25Tr(1'-0),2T(s,-0)
I 16',-4 7.70 1.1010
35'-0 0.011638
244:6 2.380
JobName: Magnuson Hotel Renovation
Remote Area Number: 1 Date:1012612011
Pipe Information
Node 1 Elev 1
(Foot)
K.Factor Flowadded
this step
(q)
Norninal lD Fittings &
Ilevices
Equiv,
Length
(Footl
Lenglh(Footl
C Factor Total(Pt)Notes
Fitting/Device (Equivalent
LengthI
Fixed Ptessure Losses, when
rpplicable, are added directlY to
Fitting
(Foo0
{ Fric-tion Loss
Per Unit {psi}Elev(Pe)
Node 2 Elev 2
(Foo0
fotal Flow{Q}Ac-tual lD
Total (Foot)Fric'tion(PQ (PO and shown as a negatave
value.
6 16',-4 2 (See
Notes)
20'-7 120 51.459
LtE(3'-8%), T (12' -334)
16',-o 0.043376 -0.000
5 16'-4 73.67 2.1570 36'-7 1.587
5 16',-4 34.01 2 (See
Notes)
49'-2e/+120 53.046 Flow (q) from Route 3
4LtE(3'-8%)
14'-9%0"087546 7.948
4 -2',-0 107.68 21574 64'-0 5,604
4 -2'-0 3 (See
Notes)
4'.-1131 120 66.598
2f(-0.000), LtE(6'-8%)
6'-8%0.af7M 2.156
3 -6'-113/t 107.68 3.2600 11'-8%0.137
3 -6',-1'l3A 3 (See
Notes)
2'-9 120 68.891
BFP
0.011714
2 -6'-11%107.68 3.2600 2'-9 0.032
2 -6'-11t/+3 (See
Notes)
103',-83/,120 68.923 Supply,
4.015744
1 -6'-11t/+107.68 3.0680 143:834 1.633
0.00 70.556 Hose Allowance At Source
Total(Pt) Route 11107.68
107 9'-0 4.2 12.39 I
(See
Notes)
11'-0 120 8.708 . .. .. ROUte 2 . . ...
Sprinkler
0.053694
105 9'-0 12.39 1.0490 11',-0 0.591
105 9',-0 4.2 12.81 1 (See
Notes)
11',-o 124 9.299 Sprinkler
0.199581
103 9'-0 25.20 1.0490 11'-0 2.195
103 9'-0 4.2 14.24 1%(See
Notes)
11'-A 120 11.494 Sprinkler
0.124211
101 9'-0 39.M 1.3800 i i'-0 1.322
101 9'-0 4.2 15.04 1Yr.(See
Notes)
6'-6%120 12.817 Sprinkler,
2T(8'-0)
16'-0 0.103135 0.000
50 9'-0 54.48 1.6100 22'.-6%2.323
Job Nama: Magnuson Hotel Renovation
Remote Area Number: 1 Date:10126/24fi
Pipe Information
Node I Elev 1
(Fooq
Flowadded
this step(q)
ittangs &
Devices
Equiv.
Length
(Foot)
l-ength G FaCtOr Tota(Pt)Fitting/Device {EquivalentLemthl
Fixed Pressure Losses, whenFitting
(Foot)
I Friction Los
Per Unit (psi)Elev(Pe)
Node 2 Elev 2
(Fod)
Flow (Q)Ac{ual lD iable, are aooeo qlrecl|y I
and shown as a negativeIotal (Footl Friction(Pf)
108 9'-0 4.2 12.10 I (See
Notes)
11'-0 pa 8.300 . .. o. Route 1
Sprinkler
11'-0
0.051361
0.5651069'-0 12.10 1.0490
106 9'-0 4.2 12.51 1 (See
Notes)
11'-0 120 8.865 Sprinkler
0.1 90929
104 9'-0 24.61 1.0490 11',-o 2.140
104 9'-0 4.2 13.91 1Y1 (See
Notes)
11'-0 124 10.965 Sprinkler
11'-0
0.1 15030
102 9',-o 38.51 1.3800 1.265
102 9',-0 4.2 14.69 1%(See
Notes)
13'-5%120 12.230 Sprinkler,
2r(8'-0)
16'-0 0.098710 0.000
36 9'-0 53.20 1.6100 29',-5%2.910
36 9'-0 54.48 1Y2 (See
Notes)
43'-534 120 15.140 Flow (q) from Route 2
7E(4'-0)
28',-0 0.363786 -4.119
30 18'-6 107.68 1.6100 71',-534 26.002
30 18'-6 z (See
Notes)
23'-0 120 37.023
3T(10'-0), CV(1 f-0), E(5'-0),
GIoV
46'-0 a.107741 a.217
32 18'-0 107.68 2.0674 69'-0 7.434
32 18'-0 2 1'-0 120 44.674
0.053382
31 18'-0 73.67 2.0670 1',-o 0.053
31 18'-0 2 10'-2:A 120 44.727
0.043376
26 18'-0 73.67 2.1570 10'-2%0.443
zo 18'-0 2 (See
Notes)
20'-2%120 45.170
3LtE(3'-8%)
11'-1 0.043376 0.723
17 16'-4 73.67 2.1570 ?'lt-21/^r.Jc/
17 16'-4 2 (See
Notes)
112',-2 120 47.250
4LtE(3',-8%)
14'-9%0.033160
16',-4 63.71 2.1570 126'-11YA 4.209
Pressure - psi
q 96"g-----E-FsA*
I7=sct= E!D< p.
-rCD K
oo
c-
ctz0)3!?
!,(o
3
Qo
Io
o
7o
o
$=io5
7o
3o
o
ootzc
(to:]
oC)Fo
5
in-
b
-o
5p
T
CL'l
EI
Fz=
66'o-!,t'
5
c,
a(t
1'nzx@
76
90:^
Io€
Gl -{
EO3o
A
O
N)o,
No
99r5st\)
g
A'
g
oFo,It=o
Hydraulic Galculat ions
for
Project Name: Magnuson Hotel Renovation
Location: , ,
Drawing Name: l-790 Magnuson Hotel remodel lower floor CALC
Design
Calculation Date: 1 0l26EAfi
Remote Area Number:
Occupancy Classification:
Density:
Area of Application:
Coverage per Sprinkler:
Type of sprinklers calculated:
No. of sprinklers calculated:
Type of System:
In-rack Demand:
Hose Streams:
1st Floor Studio Apt #2
Light Hazard
0.1009pm1ft2
1 500.00ft2 (Actual 216.34ft2)
100.00ft2
Sidewall
2
Volume of Dry or PreAction System:
N/A gpm at Node: N/A
0.0 gpm at Node: 1 Type: Allowance at Source
Total Water Required (including Hose Streams where applicable):
from Supply at Node: 1 98.23 @ S4.BT1
Name of ContractorGem State Fire Protection
Address:
Phone Number:
Authority Having Jurisdiction
Notes:
Automatic peaking results
1105 lona Road, ,ldaho Falls, ldaho
Name of designer: Marshall Gardner
Left: N/A Right: lrl/A
Job Name: Magnuson Hotel Renovation
Remote Area Number: 2 Date: 1012612A11
Supply Analysis
Node Stalic
(psi)
Residual @ Flow
{psi} (Sprn}
Available @
(psi)
I 80.000 34.000 920.00 79.872
Node Analysis
Node Number Elevation (Foot)Node Type Pressure at
Node
(psi)
Discharge at Nr
(spm)
38.23
,t*
19.20
1 -6'-11%Supply 54.871
)n4 7'-6 Sprinkler 20.519
202 7'-6 Sprinkler 20.898
2 -6',-11"/t 54.630
3 -4',-5%53.521
4 -2'-0 52.446
5 7'-6 47.545
o 7'.-6 46.944
11 7',-6 31.625
13 7',-6 37.9s8
14 7'.-6 33.524
15 7',-6 25.647
16 7'-6 21.469
Total tlernand
(spml
cb Name: Magnuson Hotel Renovation
temote Area Number: 2 Date;1012612O11
t Aclual Inside Diameter \ 4.87
( t"n*r'" * steet pipe Inside Diameter )
= Factor
BaIVc
CV
E
Eez
FDC
flg
$l
Ho
Hyd
Noz
PIV
PrV
sCV
T
WirF
Valve
BallValve
Cross Flow Turn 90'
Check Valve
90'Elbow
22/2" Elbow
Fire Department Connectit
Flange
Gauge
Hose
Hydrant
Nozzle
Post lndicating Valve
Pressure Relief Valve
Swing Cheek Valve
Tee Flow Turn 90"
Wirsbo
AngV Angle Valve
BFP Backflow Preventer
cplg Coupling
DelV Deluge Valve
EE 45'Elbow
f Flow Device
fE 90'Firelock(TM)Elbow
FN Floating Node
GloV Globe Valve
Hose Hose
LtE Long Turn Elbow
P1 Pump In
PO Pipe Outlet
red ReducerlAdapter
Spr Sprinkler
Tr Tee Run
WMVWater Meter Valve
Bushing
Butterfly Valve
Cross Run
Dry Pipe Valve
11%" Elbow
Flex Drop
45'FireLock(TM) Elbow
Firelock(TM) Tee
Gate Valve
Hose Valve
mecTMechanical Tee
P2 PumpOut
PRV Pressure Reducing Valve
S Supply
St Strainer
b
B'I
Cr
f rPV
l:e1
fd
fEE
fT
GV
HV
ob Name: Magnuson Hotel Renovation
lemote Area Number: 2
Pipe Informa
Node I Elev I
(Footl
Kfactor Flow added
this step(q)
Norninal lt Fiftings &
Devices
Equiv.
Length
(Foot)
Length
lFootl
PFitting
(Foot)Node 2 Elev 2
(Foo0
fotal Flow (Q)Actual lD
Total (Foog
201 7',-6 4.2 19.03 1 (See
Notes)
3'-0
5'-0
16 7'.-6 19.03 1.0490 8'-0
Date:1012612011
tion
C Factor Tota(ft)Notes
Fitting/Device (Equivalent
Length)Fixed Pressure Losses, whenapplicable, are added directly to(Pf) and shown as a negative
value.
Friction Los
er Unit (psi)
_ 120
c.118643
_ 120
0 081566
c.042648
150
Elev(Pe)
Friction(Pf)
20.519 ....oROUtelcococ
Sprinkler,
T(5'-o)0.949
33.524 Total(ft) Route 2
33.524 .....ROUte$oooro
2EQ'-A)4.434
37.958
4T(5'-0)8.986
32.850 Total(ft) Route 3
31.629 .....ROUte4.r..r
r(s'-0)
E(7',-0)
0.042648
1.896
32.260 Total(Pt) Route 4
14 7'-6 1 (See
Notes)
54',-4%
4'-O
13 7'-6 15.54 't.0490
54',-4%
13 7'-6 1 (See
Notes)
150'-816
20'-0
6 7'-6 15.54 1.1010 21l',-8%
11 7',-6 1 (See
Notes)
32'.-5%
12'-0
14 7',-6 15.54 1.1010 44',-5v2
ob Name: Magnuson Hotel Renovation
iemote Area Number: 2 Da|'e:1A12612011
Pipe Inform:ation
Node I Elev I
(Foot)
Kfactor Flowadded
this step
{q}
tlominal lD Fittings &
Devices
Equiv.
Length
(Foot)
Length C Factor Total(Pt)Notes
Fift ing/Device (Equivalent
Length)
Fired Pressure Losses, when
tpplicable, are added directly to
(P0 and shown as a negative
value-
Fitting
(Foot)
Pf Friction Los
Per Unit (psi)Elev(Pe)
Node 2 Elev 2
{Foo$
Iotal Flow (Q)Actual lD
Iotal (Foot)Friction(Pf|
202 7',-6 4.2 19.20 1 (See
Notes)
4'-831 120 20.898 .....ROUtglorroo
Sprinkler
0.120666
to 4.1 ,)n
lc.zv I . U4+YU 4'-8%4.571
16 7',-6 19.03 4 (See
Notes)
7',-8%120 21.469 Flow (q) from Route 2
E(2'-o)
2',-O t).431347
15 7'-6 38.23 1.0490 9'-8%4.179
15 7'-6 I (See
Notes)
21'-6%150 25.647
r(5'-0)
5',-0 (i.225536
11 7',-6 38.23 1.1010 26'-6Y4 5.981
11 7'-6 1 (See
Notes)
168'.-3 150 31.629
2T(5'-0)
10'-0 0.085921
o 7'-6 22.69 1.1010 178',-3 15.315
6 7'-6 15.54 1%(See
Notes)
3'.-1131 120 46.944
Flow (q) from Route 3
T(g',-10%)
g',-1trL 0.043274
5 7'-6 38.23 1.6820 13',-103/t 0.601
5 I-O 2 (See
Notes)
38'-7 120 47.545
T(17-33A), E(6'.-1%),
LtE(3',-8%)
22'-13/t 4.u2887 4.119
4 -2'-0 38.23 2.1570 60'-9 0.783
4 -2'-0 3 (See
Notes)
2'-5%120 52.446
2f(-0.000)
o.001724 1.071
3 -4'-St/t 38.23 3.2600 2',-53/n 0.004
3 -4',-5%3 (See
Notes)
7'-0 120 53.521
LtE(6',-8%), BFP
6',-8%o.001724 1.085
2 -6'-1134 38.23 3.2600 13',-93/q 4.424
2 -6'-11%3 (See
Notes)
103'-9 124 54.630
Supply,
0.402317
1 -6'.-11%38.23 3.0680 tvJ-v 0.240
0.00 54.871 Hose Allowance At Source
Total(Pt) Route 1138.23
t!o{
(O '\t
!ro3o
Pressu re - psi
I [!C-octz!'3
fq
30,(o3
oo
To
(D
n(D
o
qtr*o5
7o3o
o
dq,
z
3oo
..1
N
oo
r
o.-ot
Fz=
il5'o-otttrp-
s**@#F
d'E g
bEfiN$e
_9_oo
act=ieEE6o< Tt
..r(D'(
oo
g
ll)
P
J
No,No
Hydraulic Calculations
for
Project Name: Magnuson Hotel Renovation
Location: , ,
Drawing Name: l-790 Magnuson Hotel remodel lowerfloor C,ALC
Design
Caf culation Date: 1 O126 l2O1 1
Remote Area Number:
Occupancy Classifi cation:
Density:
Area of Application:
Coverage per Sprinkler:
Type of sprinklens calculated:
No. of sprinklers calculated:
Type of System:
ln-rack Demand:
Hose Streams:
1st Floor Conidor #1
Light Hazard
0.10090m1ft2
1 500.00ft2 (Actual 396.95ft)
120.00ft2
Sidewall
5
Volume of Dry or PreAction System:
N/A gpm at Node: N/A
0.0 gpm at Node: 1 Type: Allowance at Source
Total Water Required (including Hose Streams where appticable):
from Supply at Node: 1 67.87 @ 57.291
Name of ContractorGem State Fire Protection
Address:
Phone Number:
Authority Having Jurisdiction
Notes:
1105 lona Road, , ldaho Falls, ldaho
Name of designer: Marshall Gardner
Automatic peaking results Right:
Job Namb: Magnuson Hotel Renovation
Remote Area Number: 1st Floor Corridor#1 Date: 1012612011
Supplyau*ffi
Node Static
(psi)
Residual @ Flow
(psi) (spm)A'uarrlable @ Total Demand(p.,;i) (spml Required Pressure
(psi)
1 | 80.000 34.000 920.00 79.\'330 67.87 57.291
Node Anallrsis
Node Number Elevation (Foot)Node Type Preesure at
Node
(psi)
Discharg,e at(sptn)Notes
1 -6',-11%Supply 57.291 67.87
141 7',-A Sprinkler s.281 14.S l
102 7',-0 Sprinkler 7.607 13.51
103 7',-0 Sprinkler 7.152 13.',,0
104 7',-0 Sprinkler 7.435 13.36
105 7',-0 Sprinkler 7.000 12 96
2 -6',-11%56.595
3 -4'.-5%55.442
4 -2',-0 54.359
5 7'-6 47.976
o 7',-6 46.238
7 7',-6 9.481
I 7',-6 7.737
9 7'-6 7.263
10 7'-6 7.558
11 7'-6 7.263
12 7'-6 7.104
13 7'-6 22.568
14 7'-6 10.890
ob Name: Ma$nuson HotelRenovation
lemote Area Number: 1st Floor Conidor#1
Fittings Legend
Date:1012612011
\hfue Of C 100 130 14
Mrultiplying Factor 0.719 j.16 1.33
150
1.51
ALV
BalVc
CV
E
Ee2
FDC
4-||g
sHo
Hvd
Noz
PIV
PrV
sCV
T
WirF
Valve
BallValve
Cross Flow Turn 90"
Cheek Valve
90" Elbow
22Vz"Elbow
Fire Department Connectir
rr^--^rrange
Gauge
Hose
Hydrant
Nozzle
Post Indicating Valve
Pressure Relief Valve
Swing Check Valve
Tee Flow Turn 90'
Wirsbo
AngV Angle Valve
BFP BacKlow Preventer
cplg Coupling
DdV Deluge Valve
EE 45" Elbow
f Flow Device
fE 90'Firelock(TM)Elbow
FN Fioating Nocie
GloV Globe Valve
Hose Hose
LtE Long Turn Elbow
P1 Pump In
PO Pipe Outlet
red Reducer/Adapter
Spr Sprinkler
Tr Tee Run
WMVWater Valve
b Bushing
BV Butterfly Valve
Cr Cross Run
DPV Dry Pipe Valve
Ee1 11Tl-'Elbow
fd Flex Drop
fEE 45' Firelock(TM) Etbow
fT FireLock(TM) Tee
GV Gate Valve
HV Hose Valve
mecT Mechanical Tee
P2 PumpOut
PRV Pressure Reducing Valve
S Supply
St Strainer
U Unionz
I Actual lnside Diameter 1 4.97
( s"n"aun 4o steel pipe lnside Diameter )
= Factor
Job Name: MaQnuson Hotel Renovation
lemote Area Number: 1st Floor Conidor#1
Pipe Inforn
Node 1 Elev I
(Foo0
K.Factol Flowadded
this step
(q)
Nominal lD Fiftings &
Ilevices
Equiv.
Length
{Fooq
Length
(Footl
Fifting
(Foot)
Total (Foot)
Node 2 Elev 2
(FootI
fotal Flow (Qf Actual lD
Date:10l26EAf
ration
C Factor Tota(Pt)Notes
Fitting/Device (Equivalent
LengthlFixed Pressure Losses, whenapplicable, are added direcfly to(Pf) and shown as a negative
value,
rf Frictaon Los
Per Unit (psi)Elev(Pe)
Friction(Pf)
9.481 Total(Pt) Route 5
150 7.263 r....ROUtg6.....
0.030080
0.295
7.558 Total(Pt) Route 6
11 7',-6 1 9'-g%
10 7'-6 12.87 1.1010 9'-9%
lob Name: Magnuson Hotel Renovation
lemote Area Number: 1st Floor Conidor#1 Date:1012612011
I,ipe nfomration
Nodel I etevr
I
(Foo0
N.d"rT EI",,,
|
(Foo0
lx+actorl Ftowadded lNomanat Il
| | this step Ill(qll
I fr.t"l Flow (a)l Actuat lD
ttttll
llrimngs r
I Devices
I Equiv.
I Length
I
(Foot)
I Lengrth I cFactor
I (Foot) |
l-;;
-Trt 'iction Los
I tr*tl lPe''unit (Psi)
lr.t"t (F""til
J---f--
Total(ft)Notes
Fitting/Device (Equivalent
Lengthl
Fixed Pressure Losses, whenrpplicable, are added direcUy to(Pf) and shown as a negative
value.
Elev(Pe)
Friction(Pf)
I I l.ttl-
I I a-re'. l-^^-^
| |
vr.er
|
!).u()ou
| (s""
I Notes)
I
I
I ro:'-s I no
l---l--t *.r*i--*'" I -
56.595
Supply,
0.696
I I l ooo ltll
| | 618z I
IlI
t--l-[_i_
57.291 Hose Allowance At Source
Total(Pt) Route 1
103 I "";l-,"I on | ,r,o | ,'
rtl
| | 13.10 lr.o+sorrln I o'-o I no
t---------I-------
I sto I o.{ )sss27
I u'-u I
7.152 .o...ROUtg2.r.r.
Sprinkler,
T(5'-0)
-0.217
0.327
7.263 Total(Pt) Route 2
104 7'-0 4.9 13.36 1 (See
Notes)
0'-6 124 7.435 o..|.ROUte3...o.
Sprinkler,
T(5'-0)
5'-0 0. J61699 -0.217
10 7'.-6 13.36 1.0490 5'-6 0.339
10 7'-6 1 (See
Notes)
22'-8 150 7.558
E(7',-0)
7',-A o 112337
14 7',-6 26.23 1.1010 29'-8 3.332
14 7',-6 1 (See
Notes)
50'4%120 10.890
2a(2',-0)
4'-0 o.214849137',-6 26.23 1.0490 54'-4%11.678
13 7',-6 1 (See
Notes)
190',-8%150 22.568
4T(s'-0)
20'-0 4112337
o 7'.-6 26.23 1.1010 21o',-8%23.670
46.238 Total(ft) Route 3
102 7',-0 4.9 13.51 1 (See
Notes)
0'-6 120 7.647 ..ro.ROUte4.....
Sprinkler,
r(5'-0)
5',-0 0.063015 -0.2't7
8 7',-6 13.51 1.0490 5'-6 0.347
7.737 Total(Pt) Route 4
101 7'-O 4.9 14.93 1 (See
Notes)
0'-6 120 9.281 oroorf,lggfg$ooroo
Sprinkler,
T(s'-0)
5',-0 0.o75745 -0.217
7 7'-6 14.93 '1.0490
5',-6 4.417
a,
Job Name: Magnuson Hotel RenovationRemote Area Number: 1st Floor Conidor#1 Date:10/26t2011
Pipe Informatiorr
Node 1 Elev I
(Foot)
Kfactor Flowadded
this step
{q)
Nominal lD Fittings &
Devices
Equiv.
Length
(Foot)
Length
{Footl
C Fac tor Tota(Frt)Notes
Fitting/Device (Equivalent
Length)Fixed Pressure Losses, whenapplicabte, are added direcfly to
{Pf} and shown as a negative
value.
.....ROUte1.....
Sprinkter,
| (c:u)
Fitting
(Footl
)f Frlctio,n Los
Per Unit, (psif Elev(Pe)Node 2 Elev 2
(Foo0
Iotal Flow {Q)Actual lD
Total (Foo$Friction(Pf)
105 7'-O 4.9 12.96 1 (See
Notes)
0'-6
5'-0
1:20
0.0f .8352
7.000
1')7'-A 't10A
t.u.+YU
-4.217
5'-6 0.321
12 7'-6 1 s',-2yz _ t50
0.(,30510
7.104
11 7'-6 12.96 1.1010 5'-2%0.159
11 7',-6 1
1.1010
(See
Notes)
g',-2 150 7.263
T(5'-0)
I 7'-6 0.'10
5'-0 0 000004
4.-
150
14'-2 0.000
I
8
7',-6 13.10 1 15',-0 7.263
Flow (q) from Route 2r.).0315617'-6 13.2A 1.1010 15',-0 0.473
I 7',-6 13.51 1 15'-0 150
0.1 16266
7.737
Flow (q) from Route 4
7 /-o 26.72 1.1010 15',-0 1.744
7 7',-6 14.93 1 (See
Notes)
12e'-1 | rso 9.481
Flow (q) from Route 5
2T(5'-0)6 7',-6 41.65 1.1010
1U'.U 0.264281
139'-1 36.757
o 7',-6 26.23 1%
1.6820
(See
Notes)
3',-113/t 120 46.238
Flow (q) from Route 3
T(g',-103A\
5 I-O 67.87
9'-1trL o.125171
13',-103/t 1.738
5 7'-6 2 (See
Notes)
38'-7
22|1%
120 47.976
T(12-3%), E(6'-13A\,
LtE(3'-8Y+l
4 -2',-0 67.87 2.1570
0.037276 4.119
60'-9 2.264
4 -2'-0 3 (See
Notes)
2',-53A 120 54.359
2f(-0.000)
0.004988 1.0713-4'-5%87.87 3.2600 ^r Eal1-!-/1 CI.012
3 -4',-5%3
3.2600
(See
Notes)
7',-0 120 55.442
LtE(6'-8%), BFP
2 -6'-11%67.87
6',-g3l 0.004988 1.085
13'.-g3l 0.068
Pressure - psi
Eg Pb
fq6ZdE+dE<7E
:JCqg
--oo-no
EA
OBo<r.gq3
It
:E
CL
"rlql
Fz=
d6'o-qt
1U
;'
oo
.I
oo6c
doo
boo
Fo
TI
It)
J
t)
go)e
o
No)
N'o
-Tl
o€
(o{?o3o
C_3z.- rttsE5!?< g
..r(O i(
oo
Hydraulic Calculi rtions
for
Project Name: Magnuson Hotel Renovation
Location: , ,
Drawing Name: l-790 magnuson hotel upper level fire calc2
Design
Remote Area Number:
Occupancy Classification:
Density;
Area of Application:
Coverage per $prinkler:
Type of sprinklers calculated:
No. of sprinklers calculated:
Type of System:
ln-rack Demand:
Hose Streams:
Address:
Phone Number:
Total water Required (including Hose streams where applicabte)r:
from Supply at Node: 33 60.02 @ 40.484
Name of ContractorGem State Fire protection
Calculation Date: 1 0t26t201 1
LOBBY & COMMON AREA #5
Light Hazard
0.1009pm/ft2
1 500.00ft2 (Actual 482.99n )
100.00ft2
Sidewall
4
Vofume of Dry or PreActir,n $ystem:
N/A gpm at Node: N/A
0.0 gpm at Node: gg Type: Allowance at Source
1105 lona Road, ,ldaho Fatts, ldaho
Name of designer: Ma,rshall Gardner
Authority Having Jurisdiction
Name of Contractor:Gem State Fire protection
Address:
Phone Number:
Authority Having Jurisdiction
Notes:
Automatic neaking results
1105 lona Road, ,ldaho Falls, ldaho
Name of designer: MarshallGardner
Left: N/A Right: N/A
Job Name: Magnuson Hotel Renovation
Remote Area Number: S Date: 10t26t2011
Node Number Elevation {Foot}Node Type Pressure at
Node
(psil
Discharge at
(spln)
18 16'-4 26.724
20 16'-4 24.832
22 16',-4 24.930
zo 't8'-0 25,679
27 18'-5%17.748
28 18',-0 23.403
31 18'-0 25.588
32 18'-0 25.577
33 18'-0 25.513
34 18',-0 23.79A
35 1g',-5%23.680
Job Name; Magnuson Hotel Renovation
Remote Area Number: 5 Date: 1012612011
Supply Arnalysis
Node Static
(psil
Residual @ Flow
(psi) (Spm)
Ariailable @ Total Demand
{p8i}(spml Required Pressure
(psi)
1 80.000 34.000 920.00 7 9.705 60.02 40.484
Node Analysis
Node Number Elevation (Foot)Node Type Pressure at
Node
(psi)
Dlsch arge at
rigpm)Notes
1 -6'.-113/t Supply 44.484 6C.02
501 ,)or E Sprinkler 11.755 14:,.40
502 19',-7%Sprinkler 13.814 15 61
503 22\5 Sprinkler 11.755 14.44
504 19',-7%Sprinkler 13.814 15.61
2 -6',-11%39.930
3 -6',-113/+39.919
4 -z',-0 37.716
5 16'-4 27.868
6 16',-4 27.543
7 16'-4 27.499
I 16',-4 26.771
I 16',-4 26.673
10 17',-10 26.720
11 17'-10 26.548
13 17',-10 26.203
15 16',-4 26.916
16 16'-4 26.915
17 16',-4 26.680
Job Name: Magnuson Hotel Renovation
Remote Area Number: 5 Date:10126t2O11
Value Of C l0O 130 1q
Muftiplying Factor 0J19 1.16 1 .33
150
1.51,
ALV
BalVc
CV
E
Ee2
FDC
flg
sHo
Hyd
Noz
PIV
PTV
sCV
T
WirF
Alarm
BallValve
Cross Flow Turn 90"Check Valve
90'Elbow
22lAElbow
Fire Department Connecti(
Flange
Gauge
Hose
Hydrant
Norzle
Post Indicating Valve
Pressure Relief Valve
Swing Check Valve
Tee Flow Turn 90"
Wirsbo
AngV Angle Valve
BFP Backflow Preventercplg Coupling
DelV Deluge Valve
EE 45" Elbow
f Flow Device
fE 90'Firelock(TM)Etbow
FN Floating Node
GloV Globe Valve
Hose Hose
LtE Long Turn Elbow
Pl Pump ln
PO Pipe Outlet
red Reducer/Adapter
Spr Sprinkler
Tr Tee Run
WMVWater MeterValve
b Bushing
BV Butterfly ValveCr Cross RunDPV Dry Pipe Vatve
Ee1 11Tt" Elbow
fd Flex Drop
fEE 45" Firelock(TM) EtbowfT Firelock(TM) TeeGV Gate Valve
HV Hose Valve
mecT Mechanical TeeP2 PumpOut
PRV Pressure Reducing ValveS Suppty
St Strainer
U Union
I Actual lnside Diameter \ 4.97
f s"n"uut",co steel pipe lnside Diameter )
= Factor