Rick you don't seem to be taking anything seriously. I've been in a building fire, have you? It is ridiculous how fast the smoke and burned chemicals from the paint burn up, build up, and overwhelm you. You can't see, you can't breathe.
Fire in an apartment building in my hood last night, one dead. :(
Balkins that black pipe is a sprinkler riser. Maybe the person who said they have the drawings that the new architect did of this mess can confirm that from the drawings. A standpipe has a larger diameter and a hose connection - and in many jurisdictions would be required to be painted some combination of white, red, orange, or yellow. Anyway the code-required standpipes for a stage are to be located directly adjacent to the stage on either side of it, or sometimes slightly behind it.
We're not applying codes for new construction to existing construction. We're applying codes that pertain to a change of use to the change of use, and codes that apply to new construction to the parts of the project that are in fact new construction.
By your logic, if you put a new stage in an existing laundromat you don't have to meet codes for a new stage. You can keep saying it, but it stays wrong. It's the same problem with your logic about the ADA issues. If the cost to fix existing ADA issues that were already present in the laundromat had exceeded 20% of the cost of the renovations, then you wouldn't necessarily have been required to fix those existing issues. But the ADA issues in this theater are not pre-existing. They came with the new construction to turn this into a theater.
I'm not buying your defenses to a lot of these code and ADA issues - you claim that you designed them differently but the theater staff changed them without your knowledge or involvement. That's perfectly plausible for things like filling the box office full of shelving and coat hooks after the fact. It's not plausible for things like door widths, hardware, counter heights, stage access, etc. I know it's not true, because you've been posting photos here for the past several years of you yourself helping to frame door and window openings, build the stage, etc. You yourself have provided photographic evidence that you were there and physically helped to construct these problems. If you were at all concerned about the safety and accessibility issues you would have walked away, and submitted your concerns in writing to the theater, the city, and the state fire marshal. If you were a licensed professional you would have been required to do so, and you certainly would not have helped with the construction of non-compliant items. You keep insisting that you're held to the same standard of care - so why didn't you apply it?
balkins, drawings are our primary instruments of service. its YOUR RESPONSIBILITY to control how drawings are issued, what they are used for, and who uses them.
Balkins, you keep defending yourself but do you even care that these people are in danger? In your mind you believe they're perfectly safe and that this theater is perfectly ok. Isn't that right Rick?
Well now, most homes are built perfectly fine without a licensed architect, and I've seen some licensed architects get thrown in the slammer for negligence. Rick is not representative of most "designers"...he is an extreme case. He is a case of extreme Idiocy.
This seems really inconsistent with your insistence that it's no big deal for everyone to put a hologram on every sheet of every drawing set to alert the building official not to issue a permit unless he can see the 3D kangaroo.
It also seems inconsistent with your insistence in the swimming pool thread that it's the design professional's duty to design for the worst imaginable scenarios of extremely stupid people behavior and highly-unlikely-but-theoretically-possible hydrodynamic phenomena, and that merely meeting codes is irresponsible. Here you're not even meeting codes and you say that putting a "not to exceed 49 people" sign on the wall is going to keep the 50th person from entering the room and flicking the lighter that causes the spark that lands on the wig that starts the fire that causes the stampede that kills the entire cast of Christmas in Astoria.
I think this thread needs to end. Rick, while frustrating, has a responsibility to make sure things are right, and all we are doing is throwing gasoline on a tire fire.
I am still trying to get my head around the fact that they converted a former Laundromat and didn't install restrooms. Was there a water shortage in the Laundromat? A drainage problem? And now they use Porta-potties? And the Astoria health department is quite OK with this arrangement?
You also have a duty to client to not overspend budget by applying every requirement. - Richard Balkins
Hell no you don't. You have a responsibility to apply ever requirement, present it to the client, and explain to them that if they cannot the work required to meet all code requirements then they need to: postpone the project until they can afford it, or; scale back the project to a code-compliant project that they can afford, or; come up with more money, or; don't do the project at all.
You don't have an option to not meet all code requirements. If you're asked to do that you're supposed to document why you can't, and if necessary walk away from the project.
Ahem... Josh, please see my earlier custom meme reproduced again below:
May 2, 16 2:40 pm ·
·
I am still trying to get my head around the fact that they converted a former Laundromat and didn't install restrooms. Was there a water shortage in the Laundromat? A drainage problem? And now they use Porta-potties? And the Astoria health department is quite OK with this arrangement?
That was with conditional approval that the client some how obtained.
In order to add permanent restrooms on site, it would require an addition to be made or possibly a separate structure adjacent to the building with permanent restrooms. I haven't really heavily researched on restrooms in an adjacent structure within qualified means of egress travel path distance. I wouldn't design an addition to the building. An architect is required for designing an addition.
balkins you stupid ignorant shit. the whole thing from the beginning was supposed to be designed by an architect. you're in violation of Oregon State law. You can rattle off whatever code you want to but the fact remains you're in violation.
balkins, i filed an anonymous letter via email with Lisa yesterday afternoon. I will be following up with a phone call to David and Lisa tomorrow. Pending their response I will also be calling the Oregon State Architect Examiners Board. The fire marshall is also a good idea as other members have suggested.
you see this is a serious matter and people are taking actions which will effect you. are you sure you wish to continue blathering on adding more evidence to the case that's been built against you?
Ricardo takes more than our share of lashings. The difference is his are merited.
May 2, 16 3:34 pm ·
·
The City's officially contracted BUILDING OFFICIAL was Steve Winstead (Winstead & Associates and he was and still is also an Oregon registered Architect) and Terre Gift was functioning as the Building Official on his behalf (deputy building official) but his company was contracted to serve that capacity. However, Steve Winstead wasn't completely out of the loop of the permit processes. Not for an project like this.
Terre Gift was an employee of Winstead & Associates that was in business as a company providing contract building official/inspectors services to small communities.
To be fair, the City of Astoria is nearly as idiotic as the designer. I don't know if I believe everything Rick has claimed about the owner using DD drawings without his permission and the city letting them do that despite Rick's protestations - nevertheless it's undeniable that the city allowed a dinner theater to be built with NO bathrooms and to operate that way for almost a decade now, and that they didn't use their right to require the involvement of a licensed professional, and that they gave this a C of O. Maybe some of the half million in grants went to pay off a city official.
May 2, 16 3:57 pm ·
·
balkins, i filed an anonymous letter via email with Lisa yesterday afternoon. I will be following up with a phone call to David and Lisa tomorrow. Pending their response I will also be calling the Oregon State Architect Examiners Board. The fire marshall is also a good idea as other members have suggested.
you see this is a serious matter and people are taking actions which will effect you. are you sure you wish to continue blathering on adding more evidence to the case that's been built against you?
I was at the building department today. The engineers involved with the sprinklers is Interface Engineering, Inc.
Rick how does this place deal with serving food? I understand from the theater's advertising that the food is prepared off-site, but do they bring in temporary warming equipment and coolers and all the other usual catering things? Where do they fit the racks for bringing in food, and the equipment for removing dishes and garbage? Are the caterers included in the occupant counts?
May 2, 16 4:06 pm ·
·
Sponty,
The chief Building Official was Steve Winstead, a registered architect.
There are idiots who are registered architects. He can be added to my idiot list. The city is even more idiotic to pay 60k per year to this architect. His contract only required him to show up twice a month, and he delegated all the inspections and other services to others.
Even Google Earth would confirm the ground area of the building if you plot the lines on the right is 3995-3998 for the structure. Some early stuff including schematics had measurements that were wrong on the ground area because when I wrote down the numbers I had forgot that I was burning a foot on the measuring tape. Add to that, I was running the tape on the ground and by myself.
It would not be a non-exempt building as the proper dimensions are about 40'-0" x 74'-10" + the 22x44 existing addition on the back.
Change of occupancy of buildings under 4000 sq.ft. ground area and under 20-ft. height from top surface of interior floor to highest overhead interior finish is exempt.
wrong, wrong, wrong balkins. you're just plain wrong. the square footage and heights have nothing to do with it. it's a change of use. end of story. change of use requires using a registered architect. you are not a registered architect. therefore, you're being reported to the state.
i will also add to my letter how there are no permanent restrooms. "you realize there's something called plumbing code?"
Astoria code says....'Assembly spaces under 4000ft2 do not require restrooms if there is an Arby's within 200 feet, or if the venue is dedicated solely to kangaroo boxing.'
no_form - Rick is actually correct regarding the exempt status. I would have turned him in years ago for this project, before I even knew enough about it to fear that hundreds will die there, but the way the exemptions are written in Oregon's regulations makes the change of use irrelevant if it's under 4000 square feet and 20 feet high on the interior. This was quite unbelievable to me too - because it allows exactly this sort of nightmare project to happen - but they even have a guide book for code officials and it has several examples in it, and indeed even if the building is a change of use it is an exempt project if it gets in under the 20 foot high and 4000 sf area. They have an example of a 4002 square foot residence that is converted to a coffee house - and that is not exempt, but the examples of 3990 square foot anythings being turned into anything else are exempt. It's crazy. He could be turning car washes into nursing homes, and as long as the car washes are small enough the state says ok. The city does have the option of requiring a professional, as it sees fit - but this city is also a big giant municipals sized idiot.
If I were in Oregon I'd go to that building with a Hilti and get an interior measurement from floor to underside of roof. though. In the drawings by the architect of the proposed addition that dimension exceeds 20 feet by a couple inches. Rick apparently got the building official or his employee to take Rick's own word for it being a couple inches less than 20 feet - which is another example of the idiocy of the city - but all the threads about doing field measurements with surveying equipment and drones don't instill a lot of confidence in me about that measurement.
sounds like all we need to do is go out and field measure. if it's 20'-1/16" in height, I know balkins like to measure to 1/16" of an inch, he's going to be in violation.
regardless however, of exempt status, he's not exempt from following building code, which he clearly didn't do.
sponty- thanks for the clarification though. i feel so heart broken. i thought we had caught him in his own game this time.
May 2, 16 5:42 pm ·
·
Spontaneous,
I never bothered to look into what he was paid during the time. It's not my job. He's the B.O. All projects including this would have had to come before his attention and he would have to check over these projects.
Technically some of the permit matters on the project are still standing and pending to be finalized so I may have to go back in to get some of these issues corrected. I'm going to be speaking with the building official that is contracted now and Plan Reviewer and see why some of these issues haven't been finalized for some reason.
I may just have to have an inspection done and get the fire under their feet:
Check List: (immediate corrections) (Priority to life safety)
--- 1- hr rated door & assembly to be installed between backstage/dressing room and stage if one has not been installed subsequently.
--- Immediate standing order to be made for NO STORAGE under stage. Temporary (less than 12 hour storage of items not consisting of an open or enclosed flame permissible during on-stage play act until stage is inspected for 5/8" type-x gypsum wall board along the front of the stage including under the steps. If determined that gypsum wall board is needed to be added, it shall be added promptly within 6 months of determination. Inspection maybe eliminated if proof of installation is provided such as photographic proof and the type of drywall indicated.
--- While not likely to be an issue, ABSOLUTE ORDER, NO PYROTECHNICS or open or enclosed flame items on stage at anytime. (fake flame items... okay).
--- By July, Sufficient Porta-potties installed with proper clear widths for ADA and compliant hw.
--- Agreement for a monthly inspection for safety compliance.
--- LIMIT with posted occupant load for backstage not to exceed 49 people. Otherwise, develop a plan to add a second exit.
After that,
--- installation of ADA compliant doors on the east side by December. I would allow them time to secure a 42" door and frame and get it installed. ( NOTE: This is only required if they haven't changed the doors out between July 2008 and now which they should have. I mentions my concerns about it then. I let the client finalize some left over stuff in fall of 2008. I wanted that door on the east side to have proper ADA hardware.)
--- implement a wheelchair stair lift to the stage. While it maybe tight, it would be better. It doesn't look like they implemented in a number of photos so I would have to examine it.
--- Get serious about developing a permanent restrooms solution and begin implementation. If it is permissible to implement permanent restrooms for an assembly use through an adjacent structure under common ownership when it comes to Group A occupancy, I'll design it so they have that as an option so they have absolutely no reason they don't have a proper solution. Portable restrooms plans should include provisions to relocate ticket office and office spaces to the structure / addition that would have the permanent restrooms.
May 2, 16 5:50 pm ·
·
no_form,
Construction variance including expansion and contraction rate of materials needs to be taken into account.
balkins, shoots a kangaroo. his logic, technically i didn't pull the trigger. it was the downward pull of the force of gravity acting on the bone mass of the finger which pushed the trigger down. however, it wasn't the trigger that fired the bullet but rather the chemical reaction of the gun powder acting with oxygen. the location of the deceased technically is hypothetically not where the bullet was traveling. you realize that at a quantum level the mass of the body does not even exist and that it's impossible to spatially locate the deceased. you realize the physicists would say there was no corpse and that technically the bullet is still traveling due to the heat generated which is impossible to dissipate in the atmosphere.
K4L
May 2, 16 6:34 pm ·
·
The rafter is a 5:12" and in protracting the angle of the chords of the trusses from the pictures, it means the peak of the trusses is about 8' from the top of the bottom chord. An old garage door on the west side was 9'ft. tall. From the top of the garage bay to the top of the bottom chord is abound 19"-20". So, 10'-7" to 10'-8" plus 8' to the top of truss top chord ridge.... 18'-7" to 18'-8". The ridge boards/purlins are 2x6". There is still room for the floor to slope very shallow to the middle. About 1/2:12 pitch. Even then, that's 9-2/3 inches. It's still just under 20-ft.
Standpipe or no standpipe (also pipe diameter depends on required volume and pressure requirements which is too complicated to explain in a simple few sentences.
which is too complicated to explain in a simple few sentences.
When has that ever stopped you?
May 2, 16 6:45 pm ·
·
Non Sequitur,
Sure it could. Also, since the ridge 'beam' is V-style... the interior finish height is not exactly the height of peak of a triangle formed. That can be a couple inches of difference.
CPBD exam specifications under review by NCBDC.
Rick you don't seem to be taking anything seriously. I've been in a building fire, have you? It is ridiculous how fast the smoke and burned chemicals from the paint burn up, build up, and overwhelm you. You can't see, you can't breathe.
Fire in an apartment building in my hood last night, one dead. :(
Balkins that black pipe is a sprinkler riser. Maybe the person who said they have the drawings that the new architect did of this mess can confirm that from the drawings. A standpipe has a larger diameter and a hose connection - and in many jurisdictions would be required to be painted some combination of white, red, orange, or yellow. Anyway the code-required standpipes for a stage are to be located directly adjacent to the stage on either side of it, or sometimes slightly behind it.
We're not applying codes for new construction to existing construction. We're applying codes that pertain to a change of use to the change of use, and codes that apply to new construction to the parts of the project that are in fact new construction.
By your logic, if you put a new stage in an existing laundromat you don't have to meet codes for a new stage. You can keep saying it, but it stays wrong. It's the same problem with your logic about the ADA issues. If the cost to fix existing ADA issues that were already present in the laundromat had exceeded 20% of the cost of the renovations, then you wouldn't necessarily have been required to fix those existing issues. But the ADA issues in this theater are not pre-existing. They came with the new construction to turn this into a theater.
I'm not buying your defenses to a lot of these code and ADA issues - you claim that you designed them differently but the theater staff changed them without your knowledge or involvement. That's perfectly plausible for things like filling the box office full of shelving and coat hooks after the fact. It's not plausible for things like door widths, hardware, counter heights, stage access, etc. I know it's not true, because you've been posting photos here for the past several years of you yourself helping to frame door and window openings, build the stage, etc. You yourself have provided photographic evidence that you were there and physically helped to construct these problems. If you were at all concerned about the safety and accessibility issues you would have walked away, and submitted your concerns in writing to the theater, the city, and the state fire marshal. If you were a licensed professional you would have been required to do so, and you certainly would not have helped with the construction of non-compliant items. You keep insisting that you're held to the same standard of care - so why didn't you apply it?
balkins, drawings are our primary instruments of service. its YOUR RESPONSIBILITY to control how drawings are issued, what they are used for, and who uses them.
seriously man, this is so basic
This whole mess reminds me of when the Simpsons built without a licensed architect...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFAvOcuJyHY
Here's hoping Rick's situation won't end similarly.
Well now, most homes are built perfectly fine without a licensed architect, and I've seen some licensed architects get thrown in the slammer for negligence. Rick is not representative of most "designers"...he is an extreme case. He is a case of extreme Idiocy.
Most people put a big "not for construction" on their drawings unless the bills have been paid and design is final.....
This seems really inconsistent with your insistence that it's no big deal for everyone to put a hologram on every sheet of every drawing set to alert the building official not to issue a permit unless he can see the 3D kangaroo.
It also seems inconsistent with your insistence in the swimming pool thread that it's the design professional's duty to design for the worst imaginable scenarios of extremely stupid people behavior and highly-unlikely-but-theoretically-possible hydrodynamic phenomena, and that merely meeting codes is irresponsible. Here you're not even meeting codes and you say that putting a "not to exceed 49 people" sign on the wall is going to keep the 50th person from entering the room and flicking the lighter that causes the spark that lands on the wig that starts the fire that causes the stampede that kills the entire cast of Christmas in Astoria.
I think this thread needs to end. Rick, while frustrating, has a responsibility to make sure things are right, and all we are doing is throwing gasoline on a tire fire.
I am still trying to get my head around the fact that they converted a former Laundromat and didn't install restrooms. Was there a water shortage in the Laundromat? A drainage problem? And now they use Porta-potties? And the Astoria health department is quite OK with this arrangement?
You also have a duty to client to not overspend budget by applying every requirement. - Richard Balkins
Hell no you don't. You have a responsibility to apply ever requirement, present it to the client, and explain to them that if they cannot the work required to meet all code requirements then they need to: postpone the project until they can afford it, or; scale back the project to a code-compliant project that they can afford, or; come up with more money, or; don't do the project at all.
You don't have an option to not meet all code requirements. If you're asked to do that you're supposed to document why you can't, and if necessary walk away from the project.
Still beating this horse, eh.
yep.
Nothing like a good ol'fashion horse beat-down.
Ahem,
Kangaroo Beat-down.
Ahem... Josh, please see my earlier custom meme reproduced again below:
I am still trying to get my head around the fact that they converted a former Laundromat and didn't install restrooms. Was there a water shortage in the Laundromat? A drainage problem? And now they use Porta-potties? And the Astoria health department is quite OK with this arrangement?
That was with conditional approval that the client some how obtained.
In order to add permanent restrooms on site, it would require an addition to be made or possibly a separate structure adjacent to the building with permanent restrooms. I haven't really heavily researched on restrooms in an adjacent structure within qualified means of egress travel path distance. I wouldn't design an addition to the building. An architect is required for designing an addition.
balkins you stupid ignorant shit. the whole thing from the beginning was supposed to be designed by an architect. you're in violation of Oregon State law. You can rattle off whatever code you want to but the fact remains you're in violation.
balkins just keeps doubling down.
except michael jackson burns to death because the building designer intentionally designed a non complaint building
jla-x,
true, I should have said "without any architectural knowledge"
On the plus side now I know where not to go next time I visit Astoria.
I haven't really heavily researched on restrooms in an adjacent structure within qualified means of egress travel path distance.
What's to research? Anyone qualified for this profession should be able to knock that out before breakfast.
balkins, i filed an anonymous letter via email with Lisa yesterday afternoon. I will be following up with a phone call to David and Lisa tomorrow. Pending their response I will also be calling the Oregon State Architect Examiners Board. The fire marshall is also a good idea as other members have suggested.
you see this is a serious matter and people are taking actions which will effect you. are you sure you wish to continue blathering on adding more evidence to the case that's been built against you?
I feel deeply ashamed N_S. I've brought failure to the K clan. I'll take my tail lashings now.
None required Josh.
Ricardo takes more than our share of lashings. The difference is his are merited.
The City's officially contracted BUILDING OFFICIAL was Steve Winstead (Winstead & Associates and he was and still is also an Oregon registered Architect) and Terre Gift was functioning as the Building Official on his behalf (deputy building official) but his company was contracted to serve that capacity. However, Steve Winstead wasn't completely out of the loop of the permit processes. Not for an project like this.
Terre Gift was an employee of Winstead & Associates that was in business as a company providing contract building official/inspectors services to small communities.
That was my understanding.
To be fair, the City of Astoria is nearly as idiotic as the designer. I don't know if I believe everything Rick has claimed about the owner using DD drawings without his permission and the city letting them do that despite Rick's protestations - nevertheless it's undeniable that the city allowed a dinner theater to be built with NO bathrooms and to operate that way for almost a decade now, and that they didn't use their right to require the involvement of a licensed professional, and that they gave this a C of O. Maybe some of the half million in grants went to pay off a city official.
balkins, i filed an anonymous letter via email with Lisa yesterday afternoon. I will be following up with a phone call to David and Lisa tomorrow. Pending their response I will also be calling the Oregon State Architect Examiners Board. The fire marshall is also a good idea as other members have suggested.
you see this is a serious matter and people are taking actions which will effect you. are you sure you wish to continue blathering on adding more evidence to the case that's been built against you?
I was at the building department today. The engineers involved with the sprinklers is Interface Engineering, Inc.
Rick how does this place deal with serving food? I understand from the theater's advertising that the food is prepared off-site, but do they bring in temporary warming equipment and coolers and all the other usual catering things? Where do they fit the racks for bringing in food, and the equipment for removing dishes and garbage? Are the caterers included in the occupant counts?
Sponty,
The chief Building Official was Steve Winstead, a registered architect.
Rick, anyone else you'd like to pass blame onto? Your parents, some 6 yr old trying out for his first play, the US Government?
There are idiots who are registered architects. He can be added to my idiot list. The city is even more idiotic to pay 60k per year to this architect. His contract only required him to show up twice a month, and he delegated all the inspections and other services to others.
Sounds like a sweet gig. I should apply.
no_form,
Even Google Earth would confirm the ground area of the building if you plot the lines on the right is 3995-3998 for the structure. Some early stuff including schematics had measurements that were wrong on the ground area because when I wrote down the numbers I had forgot that I was burning a foot on the measuring tape. Add to that, I was running the tape on the ground and by myself.
It would not be a non-exempt building as the proper dimensions are about 40'-0" x 74'-10" + the 22x44 existing addition on the back.
Change of occupancy of buildings under 4000 sq.ft. ground area and under 20-ft. height from top surface of interior floor to highest overhead interior finish is exempt.
That was with conditional approval that the client some how obtained.
approvals made in error don't abscond you of liability.
bitch, how do you not know that?
Rick: seriously, you need to stop. Quit saying you were allowed to do this. What might be legal can be morally and ethically wrong, as you have shown.
wrong, wrong, wrong balkins. you're just plain wrong. the square footage and heights have nothing to do with it. it's a change of use. end of story. change of use requires using a registered architect. you are not a registered architect. therefore, you're being reported to the state.
i will also add to my letter how there are no permanent restrooms. "you realize there's something called plumbing code?"
Astoria code says....'Assembly spaces under 4000ft2 do not require restrooms if there is an Arby's within 200 feet, or if the venue is dedicated solely to kangaroo boxing.'
Big kangaroo boxing scene up there on the Columbia. It's really keeping the town afloat after the whole fur empire thing tanked.
no_form - Rick is actually correct regarding the exempt status. I would have turned him in years ago for this project, before I even knew enough about it to fear that hundreds will die there, but the way the exemptions are written in Oregon's regulations makes the change of use irrelevant if it's under 4000 square feet and 20 feet high on the interior. This was quite unbelievable to me too - because it allows exactly this sort of nightmare project to happen - but they even have a guide book for code officials and it has several examples in it, and indeed even if the building is a change of use it is an exempt project if it gets in under the 20 foot high and 4000 sf area. They have an example of a 4002 square foot residence that is converted to a coffee house - and that is not exempt, but the examples of 3990 square foot anythings being turned into anything else are exempt. It's crazy. He could be turning car washes into nursing homes, and as long as the car washes are small enough the state says ok. The city does have the option of requiring a professional, as it sees fit - but this city is also a big giant municipals sized idiot.
If I were in Oregon I'd go to that building with a Hilti and get an interior measurement from floor to underside of roof. though. In the drawings by the architect of the proposed addition that dimension exceeds 20 feet by a couple inches. Rick apparently got the building official or his employee to take Rick's own word for it being a couple inches less than 20 feet - which is another example of the idiocy of the city - but all the threads about doing field measurements with surveying equipment and drones don't instill a lot of confidence in me about that measurement.
sounds like all we need to do is go out and field measure. if it's 20'-1/16" in height, I know balkins like to measure to 1/16" of an inch, he's going to be in violation.
regardless however, of exempt status, he's not exempt from following building code, which he clearly didn't do.
sponty- thanks for the clarification though. i feel so heart broken. i thought we had caught him in his own game this time.
Spontaneous,
I never bothered to look into what he was paid during the time. It's not my job. He's the B.O. All projects including this would have had to come before his attention and he would have to check over these projects.
Technically some of the permit matters on the project are still standing and pending to be finalized so I may have to go back in to get some of these issues corrected. I'm going to be speaking with the building official that is contracted now and Plan Reviewer and see why some of these issues haven't been finalized for some reason.
I may just have to have an inspection done and get the fire under their feet:
Check List: (immediate corrections) (Priority to life safety)
--- 1- hr rated door & assembly to be installed between backstage/dressing room and stage if one has not been installed subsequently.
--- Immediate standing order to be made for NO STORAGE under stage. Temporary (less than 12 hour storage of items not consisting of an open or enclosed flame permissible during on-stage play act until stage is inspected for 5/8" type-x gypsum wall board along the front of the stage including under the steps. If determined that gypsum wall board is needed to be added, it shall be added promptly within 6 months of determination. Inspection maybe eliminated if proof of installation is provided such as photographic proof and the type of drywall indicated.
--- While not likely to be an issue, ABSOLUTE ORDER, NO PYROTECHNICS or open or enclosed flame items on stage at anytime. (fake flame items... okay).
--- By July, Sufficient Porta-potties installed with proper clear widths for ADA and compliant hw.
--- Agreement for a monthly inspection for safety compliance.
--- LIMIT with posted occupant load for backstage not to exceed 49 people. Otherwise, develop a plan to add a second exit.
After that,
--- installation of ADA compliant doors on the east side by December. I would allow them time to secure a 42" door and frame and get it installed. ( NOTE: This is only required if they haven't changed the doors out between July 2008 and now which they should have. I mentions my concerns about it then. I let the client finalize some left over stuff in fall of 2008. I wanted that door on the east side to have proper ADA hardware.)
--- implement a wheelchair stair lift to the stage. While it maybe tight, it would be better. It doesn't look like they implemented in a number of photos so I would have to examine it.
--- Get serious about developing a permanent restrooms solution and begin implementation. If it is permissible to implement permanent restrooms for an assembly use through an adjacent structure under common ownership when it comes to Group A occupancy, I'll design it so they have that as an option so they have absolutely no reason they don't have a proper solution. Portable restrooms plans should include provisions to relocate ticket office and office spaces to the structure / addition that would have the permanent restrooms.
no_form,
Construction variance including expansion and contraction rate of materials needs to be taken into account.
^ not when calculation building area or height
balkins, shoots a kangaroo. his logic, technically i didn't pull the trigger. it was the downward pull of the force of gravity acting on the bone mass of the finger which pushed the trigger down. however, it wasn't the trigger that fired the bullet but rather the chemical reaction of the gun powder acting with oxygen. the location of the deceased technically is hypothetically not where the bullet was traveling. you realize that at a quantum level the mass of the body does not even exist and that it's impossible to spatially locate the deceased. you realize the physicists would say there was no corpse and that technically the bullet is still traveling due to the heat generated which is impossible to dissipate in the atmosphere.
K4L
The rafter is a 5:12" and in protracting the angle of the chords of the trusses from the pictures, it means the peak of the trusses is about 8' from the top of the bottom chord. An old garage door on the west side was 9'ft. tall. From the top of the garage bay to the top of the bottom chord is abound 19"-20". So, 10'-7" to 10'-8" plus 8' to the top of truss top chord ridge.... 18'-7" to 18'-8". The ridge boards/purlins are 2x6". There is still room for the floor to slope very shallow to the middle. About 1/2:12 pitch. Even then, that's 9-2/3 inches. It's still just under 20-ft.
Standpipe or no standpipe (also pipe diameter depends on required volume and pressure requirements which is too complicated to explain in a simple few sentences.
which is too complicated to explain in a simple few sentences.
When has that ever stopped you?
Non Sequitur,
Sure it could. Also, since the ridge 'beam' is V-style... the interior finish height is not exactly the height of peak of a triangle formed. That can be a couple inches of difference.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.