The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMISC DOCS - 06-00627 - BYUI Auditorium/I CenterFrom: Mike G. Shatzer V Fax Date: 11/30/2006 To: From: Mike G. Shatzer Subject: BYU-Idaho Auditorium Permit Application ATTN: JaNell Hansen, 11-30-06 2:56pm p. 1 of 2 Attached you will find the requested application regarding the BYU-Idaho Auditorium Project. Mike Shatzer Project Manager Okland Construction Company, Inc. 1978 South West Temple Salt Lake City, Utah 84115 Phone: 801.486.0144 Fax:801.486.7570 Cell: 801.419.6573 mike.shatzer@okJand.com Bret Stoddard From: Kirk Mountford [kirkm@cve.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2009 6:50 AM To: Bret Stoddard' Cc: jim.williams@okland.com; mike.johnson@okland.com Subject: FW: Inspection for auditorium f Brett, We are requesting electrical rough -in inspection for the following areas, for Wednesd Tune 16, 2009 (P.M. inspection) RE Line Mezzanine Level Wall Rough -in RF Line Mezzanine Level Wall Rough -in If you have any questions, or want to arrange a time to walk thru give me a call, my number is 801-870-7237 Thanks, Kirk Mountford Cache Valley Electric 1 `we Bogue Building Project BYU - Idaho Auditorium 730 Pacific Avenue Salt Lake City UT 84104 p 801.521.6186 Arch Project #: 06047 1801.539.1916 Contractor: Okland Construction w .ffkr.com TRANSMITTAL Date: 3/4/2009 #: 660 To: Quinton Owens City of Rexburg .12 N. Center Rexburg, Idaho 83440 Phone: (208) 359-3020 Fax: Alt: Sent by: Hand Delivered From: Tim Allen Enclosed: Date # of Description copies/pages 04-Mar-09 2 Consoilidated Construction Set - Half Size 04-Mar-09 1 Consolidated Construction Set - Full Size Remarks: cc: Printed: Wednesday, March 04, 2009 Rt HEATH Engineering Company Mechanical I Electrical / Plumbing / Control Consultants October 25, 2010 Mr. Mike Lieshman FFKR ARCHITECTS/PLANNERS 730 Pacific Avenue Salt Lake City, UT 84104 RE: SMOKE EXHAUST SYSTEM SUMMARY BYU-IDAHO AUDITORIUM Dear Mike: Rexburg City requested data showing the design exhaust and make-up air cfm requirements versus the measured exhaust and make-up air cfm quantities. Attached are the tables showing these figures. Should they request further information please let me know. Sincerely, HEATH ENGINEERING COMPANY Larry D. Veigel, P.E. 1A12010 Jobs110104 - BYUI - Romney -Smith Central Fan System Studylwp\Fan System Study.doex 377 West 800 North . Salt Lake City, Utah 84103 . Tel. 801 322 0487 . Fax- 801 322 0490 • Email: heath@heatheng.caw C Lewis',Vilson . Larry U. Veigel . Victor S Willes • Randall T. Veigel . Jeffrey S Anderson . B Bryce Gardne- Nolan r Johnson . Rcber. J Kesler . Andre%v _J Paskett Smoke Exhaust System Summary of Supply and Exhaust CFM, Design VS. Actual Auditorium Exhaust Fan Design CFM Actual CFM SEF-1 50,000 55,354 SEF-2 50,000 55,964 SEF-3 50,000 62,725 SEF-4 50,000 59,505 SEF-5 50,000 57,316 SEF-6 50,000 62,468 Total 300,000 353,332 Make-up Air Fan or Location Design CFM Actual CFM SMAF-1 30,000 41,930 SMAF-2 30,000 41,860 SMAF-3 30,000 41,055 SMAF-4 30,000 44,100 SMAF-5 30,000 33,950 SMAF-6 30,000 32,900 Balcony 55,000 50,199 Mezzanine 30,000 28,426 Main Level 35,000 39,066 Total 300,000 353,486 lobby Exhaust Fan Design CFM Actual CFM SEF-7 38,500 58,865 5EF-8 38,500 55,704 SEF-9 38,500 58,604 SEF-10 38,500 57,960 Tota ( 1 154,000 1 231,133 Make-up Air Fan or Location Design CFM Actual CFM SMAF-7 25,000 23,618 SMAF-8 25,000 23,618 SMAF-9 25,000 25,964 SMAF-10 25,000 25,964 SMAF-11 21,000 23,400 SMAF-12 21,000 22,739 Total 142,000 145,303 7- HEATH Engineering Company ////fMechanical ,' Electrical / Plumbing / Control Consultants October 25, 2010 Mr. Mike Lieshman FFKR ARCHITECTS/PLANNERS 730 Pacific Avenue Salt Lake City, UT 84104 RE: SMOKE EXHAUST SYSTEM SUMMARY BYU-IDAHO AUDITORIUM Dear Mike: Rexburg City requested data showing the design exhaust and make-up air cfm requirements versus the measured exhaust and make-up air cfm quantities. Attached are the tables showing these figures. Should they request further information please let me know. Sincerely, HEATH ENGINEERING COMPANY Larry D. Veigel, P.E. JA2010 Jobs110104 - BYUI - Romney -Smith Central Fan System Study\wp\Fan System Study.docx 377 West 800 North . Salt Lake City Utah 84 103 - Tel: 801 322 0487 - Fax: 801 322 r0490 • Email: heathCc�heatheng.can, e,ro:s 'Alilson - Larry Voigel . Viclar S bVilles • Randall T Veigel . Jeffrey S Anderson . B Bryce Gat er Noian E Johnson - Rober? J Kesler - Andrew J Pasken Smoke Exhaust System Summary of Supply and Exhaust CFM. Design VS. Actual Auditorium Exhaust Fan Design CFM Actual CFM SEF-1 50,000 55,354 SEF-2 50,000 55,964 SEF-3 50,000 62,725 SEF-4 50,000 59,505 SEF-5 50,000 57,316 SEF-6 50,000 62,468 Total 1 00,000 1 353,332 Make-up Air Fan or Location Design CFM Actual CFM SMAF-1 30,000 41,930 SMAF-2 30,000 41,860 SMAF-3 30,000 41,055 SMAF-4 30,000 44,100 SMAF-5 30,000 33,950 SMAF-6 30,000 32,900 Balcony 55,000 50,199 Mezzanine 30,000 28,426 Main Level 35,000 39,066 Total 300,000 353,486 Exhaust Fan Design CFM Actual CFM SEF-7 38,500 58,86S SEF-8 38,500 55,704 SEF-9 38,500 58,604 SEF-10 38,500 57,960 Tota I 154,000 231,133 Make-up Air Fan or Location Design CFM Actual CFM SMAF-7 25,000 23,618 SMAF-8 25,000 23,618 SMAF-9 25,000 25,964 SMAF-10 25,000 25,964 SMAF-11 21,000 23,400 SMAF-12 21,000 22,739 Total 142,000 145,303 Q(o mo CD �L HEATH Engineering Company ////Mechanical ! Electrical / Plumbing / Control Consultants October 25, 2010 Mr. Mike Lieshman FFKR ARCHITECTS/PLANNERS 730 Pacific Avenue Salt Lake City, UT 84104 RE: SMOKE EXHAUST SYSTEM SUMMARY BYU-IDAHO AUDITORIUM Dear Mike: Rexburg City requested data showing the design exhaust and make-up air cfm requirements versus the measured exhaust and make-up air cfm quantities. Attached are the tables showing these figures. Should they request further information please let me know. Sincerely, HEATH ENGINEERING COMPANY Larry D. Veigel, P.E. JA2010 Jobs110104- BYUI - Romney -Smith Central Fan System Study\wp\Fan System Study.docx 377 West F300 North • Salt Lake City. Utah 64103 • Tel. 801 322 0487 . Fax: 801 322 0490 • Email: heath@heatheng.corn C. Le`.vis ',Nilson . Larry 0 Vetyel . Victor S Willes, • Randall T. Veigel . Jefirey S Anderson . B Bryce Gardner Nolan E ;c hr.;;;n . Rco?r J Kesler . Andre:v J Paskett Smoke Exhaust System Summary of Supply and Exhaust CFM. Design VS. Actual Auditorium Exhaust Fan Design CFM Actual CFM SEF-1 50,000 55,354 SEF-2 50,000 55,964 SEF-3 50,000 62,725 SEF-4 50,000 59,505 SEF-5 50,000 57,316 SEF-6 50,000 62,468 Total 300,000 353,332 Make-up Air Fan or Location Design CFM Actual CFM SMAF-1 30,000 41,930 SMAF-2 30,000 41,860 SMAF-3 30,000 41,055 SMAF-4 30,000 44,100 SMAF-5 30,000 33,950 SMAF-6 30,000 32,900 Balcony 55,000 50,199 Mezzanine 30,000 28,426 Main Level 35,000 39,066 Total 300,000 353,486 Lobby Exhaust Fan Design CFM Actual CFM SEF-7 38,500 58,865 SEF-8 38,500 55,704 SEF-9 381500 58,604 SEF-10 38,500 57,960 Tota I 154,000 1 231,133 Make-up Air Fan or Location Design CFM Actual CFM SMAF-7 25,000 23,618 SMAF-8 25,000 23,618 SMAF-9 25,000 25,964 SMAF-10 25,000 25,964 SMAF-11 21,000 23,400 SMAF-12 21,000 22,739 Total 142,000 145,303 January 12, 2010 Val Christensen Rexburg Building Official 35 North Is' East Rexburg, Idaho 83440 Re: BYUI Auditorium Code Review Meeting Val, I have summarized below the main points of the conversation that we had on Tuesday, January 12, 2010 concerning the Auditorium Building at BYUI. We will follow up on items 4, 6, 8, and 9b in the next week so we can close the loose ends of this letter. If there is anything in this letter that needs to be added or modified please let me know and I will issue a revisions. The status of the plan review/building permit was discussed. Val is treating the Auditorium as a special project because of its design -build approach as was originally discussed and agree to. The City has reviewed the drawings and is using coordinated inspections to identify potential issues as the different areas of the building have been issued and construction progressed. It was agreed that the best way to document the review by the inspection team is to add signature lines for the inspectors (three total) to the existing Room Completion Sheets Okland has created for each room in the building (which they are currently using for sub -contractors). Okland will have this book available to inspectors in their trailer. The inspectors will also sign off of all previously inspected rooms in the building to note that they been reviewed. 2. Quinton Owens reports that using Okland's drawings that are up to date with all RFIs and IBs is working for him. He is receiving the RFIs and IBs by email and wants this to continue so he understands what is changing on the project. 3. The Fire Alarm Devise (NFP) and Fire Alarm Panel (Yamas) Submittals have been sent to Brad Johnson for review. Brad also reports that 3D fire has been very proactive in submitting submittals and calling for inspections. No additional submittals were specifically requested to be reviewed at this time. All project submittals are available at Okland's trailer or they can be sent directly to Rexburg City as requested. 4. Yamas will not release their fire alarm panel for production until reviewed by Rexburg City. Brad Johnson will review and issue a written response. 5. It was agreed that the current level of coordination between Rexburg City and the Project Team is appropriate. Additional coordination meetings will be held as required to review specific issues that arise. Written letters will continue to be submitted to summarize discussions and decisions. 6. Quinton Owens confirmed the solution for the fire -rated horizontal joints where the joint opens into a vertical shaft that was issued as part of RFI A-0437. The one outstanding issue is that in some locations the underside 1 of 3 layer of fire sealant cannot be installed due to structural obstructions. He is waiting for documentation from the fire -stop manufacture who are investigating to determine if the fire sealant can be installed only on the top side of the stop. 7. There is a small triangle of area between the pyramid stair guard and the edge guard on the mezzanine level that falls below the minimum guard height of Y-6". During discussion it was determined that this was not a problem because the fall distance from the mezzanine level to the pyramid at this point we below 30" and a guard was not required. 8. The glazing/guard requirements at stairs and landings that are adjacent to exterior glazing were reviewed. The following was decided. FFKR will review drawings and submittals to verify compliance and issue instruction as required. a. Guards will be provided at all stairways and landings that are adjacent glazing and are greater than 30" above the floor or grade below. The exception for Paragraphs 2406.3, 10 & 11 references Section 1013. Paragraph 1013.1 requires "guards along glazed sides of stairways, ramps, and landings that are located more than 30" above the floor or grade below" There is not exception in Paragraph 1013 for this requirement. b. Safety glazing will also be provided in the above noted locations where the glass is not greater than 18" from the railing. 2406.3, 11, Exception 2. 9. The code summary for the bridge (See Letter dated January 4, 2010) that will link the Auditorium and Hart Building was reviewed. a. Paragraph 3101.5 was reviewed. It was found that the text from the IBC 2006 did not match the 2006 IBC Commentary. The text was revised with the 2007 Supplement. The update clarifies which wall cannot contain glass to meet exception 1. In the case of the auditorium, the auditorium wall that the bridge connects into cannot contain glazing that it does not. Because of this we meet the exception that allows elimination of the 2-hour fire barrier between the bridge and the auditorium. b. Brad Johnson asked if this wall was still required to meet the requirements of a smoke barrier. Currently we are assuming that a smoke barrier is not required because section 3104 eliminates the fire protection requirements. Neither the wall nor the door is currently rated. In Section 715, smoke barriers are only required if the door has a 20-minute or greater fire rating. Section 1022 eliminates the fire - rating requirements of openings with the 3104 exceptions, but does not specifically require a smoke barrier. The door is currently scheduled to have magnetic hold opens. If a smoke barrier is needed we will add the rating to the wall and door. c. The egress requirements for the Hart Building were reviewed. The new stair/elevator addition does not increase the occupant load or substantially change the egress components of the Hart Building. The only change to the egress route from the Hart building is that the exterior vestibule at the bottom of the stair (in the Hart Building) is moved outside of the existing building envelope to allow it to serve both the Hart Building Corridor and new stair addition. 2 of 3 d. The door between the bridge and the auditorium has an exit sign and has been set up as a means of egress from the auditorium. But this door was not used in the egress calculation for the auditorium and there are currently no occupants from the auditorium scheduled/required to use this door to meet exiting requirements. e. It was noted that the floor -to -floor heights were tight in the stair/elevator addition and because of this fire sprinkler system would have both wall and ceiling heads to meet coverage requirements and to work around structural obstructions. The bridge plans, sections, and elevations were reviewed. There were no additional comments made. Regards, Michael Leishman, AIA FFKR Architects Office: (801)534-4265 Cell: (801) 910-0230 Email: mleishman(a),ffrk.com 3of3