HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlan Review Correspondence 1982-12-22
"-. .
.
.
SPRINGFIELD
CITY OF SPRING1''l.J!.jLl)
Department of Public Works
,., 0'
,.;' ,
December 22, 1982
.
/
Mr. Emile Mortier, P.E.
PO Box 139
,;Eugene, Oregon ,97440
RE: Truck Storage Building
'.:,. .,:;,; ;.:' Springfield, Oregon
For Springfield Utility Board, 1009 Main Street,';.
"'("
." 'J ,
'. Dear Emi 1 e,
"H" _ ,.:.;
'~.,' ~. .~: -., [
" :' ,A review of plans submitted for the proposed structure at the above location has
......vealed that the following items require correction, clarification, or additional
,':'.:., tailing before they can be approved.. '..',.,'
';,~;'..",,4~''''~'''''' 'r':' '> ,_J ~, .., " ,.,.~..~:,~ '
re-
de-
;1)
. , . , . , .
Since the north and east walls of: the proposed structure are designed to be con-
, structed only three (3) feet from the respective property .lines, both walls shall
be of not less than one-hour fire-resistive construction as required by Table 5-A
State Structural Specialty Code and Fire and Life Safety Code (S.S.C.). .
We received your letter, dated August 27, 1982, requesting that the parapet wall
requirement be waived in favor of an upper wall termination equivalent to that al-
lowed in S.S.C., Section 505 (d-3), Exception 2 for area separation walls which
. terminate at the under side of the roof deck. In a letter from Mike Hudman of the
City Fire Marshal's Office dated September 28, 1982, it was stated that such an
alternative would be accepted if. the required protection was carried back to a
,point where a parapet wall would no longer be required, or in this case to a point
.ten (10) feet from the property line.
On December 15, 1982 Chris Smith brought in two sets of plans for the proposed build-
ing to be reviewed for permit issuance. I made a quick reivew of the submitted plans
at the counter, and noted that the exterior wall as designed did not comply with
the required one-.hour fire-resistive requirement: -
I then received your letter, dated December 16, 1982, indicating that, in your
opinion, the wall assembly as designed will perform equivalent to approved assem-
blies in S.S.C. Table 43b and in the Gypsum Association Fire Resistance Design Man-
ual. Since we know of no assemblies incorporating flat framing members applied in
any manner which have been tested and approved as providing one-hour fire resistance,
we find no acceptable criteria by which we accept the proposed design as being equiva-
lent to that which is required.
Please re-design the north and east exterior walls of, the proposed structure utilizing
a wall assembly which is recognized by the S.S.C., Gypsum Association Fire Resistance
Design Manual or some approved testing agency as meeting the one-hour fire-resistive
requirement. This design shall address the bottom termination of the east wall which,
as shown in detail 2/3, terminates above the existing grade. I recommend that this
225 North 5th Street . Springfield. Oregon 97477 · 503/726.3753
.
.
Mr. Emile Mortier, P.E.
Truck Storage Bui.] ding
1009 Main Street
December 22, 1982
Page 2.
detail be re-designed to be similar to end wall assembly, incorporating a continuous
concrete footing.
/
,
2) Table 10.309 of the 1979 Edition of the Uniform Fire Code, as amended by the City of
Springfield, establishes the maximum allowable floor area in a B-1 building not equip-
ped with an automatic fire sprinkler system throughout as 6000 square feet.
Section 10.309 (e-6) U.F.C. allows a structure to be divided by an area separation
wall, in-lieu-of the required fire sprinkler system, if;
a) each portion of the structure does not exceed the area allowed by Table 10.309
b) the combined floor area of all portions of the structure does not exceed 200
percent of the area allowed by Table 10.309, and
c) the area separation wall shall be installed as specified in Section 505 (d)
S.S.C.
Please submit details for this required two-hour area separation wall, and indicate
where it will be installed.
3) In reviewing your structural calculations, I find nothing addressing the structure
of the south wall for adequacy to resist 15 p.s.f. lateral wind load. Uplift, load
transfer, diagonal bracing, column sizes, etc. have been addressed"but I find nothing.
to substantiate that 2 x 6 flat framing at 24" O.C. applied horizontally spanning 13
feet will withstand 15 p.s.f. lateral wind load. Please submit this calculation if
this type of alternative framing method is intended.
4) The roof sheathing is noted as 1/2" COX plywood. The minimum acceptable plywood
grade in areas where an edge or face are exposed to weather, (such as at the front
eave overhang), is CC exterior grade.
5) Submit door head, jamb and threshold details for the overhead and man doors in the
north end bay.
6) I find no specifications for concrete, wood structural framing, .metal roofing and
siding, doors, etc. Please submit 2 sets of the specifications for this project
to the City Building Division.
The building permit which was issued on this project was for the foundation only. No
additional building permit will be issued until the above items are complied with. In
the interim, a STOP WORK order has been issued and no work is to proceed other than the
.
.
Mr. Emile Mortier, P.E.
Truck Storage Building
1009 Main Street
December 22, 1982
Page 3.
safety items listed in your letter dated December 17, 1982.
If you have questions regarding the above items, please contact me at 726-3669.
/
,
Sincerely,
,~~~p~
. . Lorne. W. Pl eger
Senior Plans Examiner
LWP /l h