Laserfiche WebLink
MILLER DUNWIDDIE MEMORANDUM <br /> ARCHITECTURE'rf PRESERVATION <br /> 123 North Third St., Suite 104 Minneapolis,MN 55401-1657 telephone: 612.337.0000 fax: 612.337.0031 www.millerdunwiddie.com <br /> Date: June 4, 2004 <br /> Project: Wayzata Country Club Addition/ Renovation <br /> RE: Document review by Tate Halvorson <br /> To: Paul Egertson <br /> From: Tammy Black <br /> GENERAL COMMENT: It was our understanding from the initial meeting with the City (Sherwin Nelson attended <br /> for McGough), that the City was "OK"with several options. One of the options was to consider the overall building <br /> as a V-B (unrated combustible construction) with an automatic fire extinguishing system (sprinklers) throughout to <br /> gain an additional story and area increases per the IBC. This is how the height and area allowances appear to be <br /> determined on Sheet T102. If this is the case, then we do not understand why the addenda are now calling for all <br /> new lumber and plywood in the addition to be Fire-Retardant Treated Wood (FRT). Even though the majority of <br /> this addition is steel and precast concrete, the addition can still be classified as V-B construction (and should be <br /> since it is not separated from and standard wood should be allowed. <br /> The reason for changing to FRT wood was specifically to help reduce the amount of`combustibles"in concealed <br /> spaces and therefore reduce the number of sprinklers required. This is a concern in the walls and roofs of the <br /> "attic"spaces we are creating. Other areas that don't fall under this category can be constructed with standard <br /> wood. <br /> 1. Sheet T102: We noted that the 2003 IBC is indicated as the code this project was designed under and that <br /> incidental storage rooms greater than 100 square feet are indicated as just needing sprinklers per the State's PR- <br /> 03 memo. Has this code and/or"interpretation" or"equivalency" been approved by the Wayzata Building Official? <br /> Also, we assume that the walls of these storage rooms will need to resist the passage of smoke per IBC <br /> 302.1.1.1. Is this a correct assumption? <br /> Use of the State's PR-03 was mentioned to the local code official. A thorough code review by the city is pending. <br /> MDA will make the changes necessary to wall construction and doors as required to resist the passage of smoke. <br /> 2. Sheet A100: Does the Sump Room SB10 require a rated door and "front"wall as indicated? <br /> No. The door and north wall of the Sump Room do not need to be rated. <br /> 3. Sheet A101: <br /> A. We noted that Doors 020 and 021 are indicated as 45 minute doors and the"front"wall of these <br /> spaces are designated as 1-hour fire-rated construction. Based on the above item 1, can any or all of these <br /> ratings be eliminated? <br /> Yes. Doors 020, 021, and 016 can be standard doors without a rating. The walls can be standard construction <br /> without a rating(similar construction to wall type 4 without insulation). <br /> B. It appears that a gate or barrier and discharge identification is required by IBC Section 1005.3.2.3 in <br /> Stair C. If so, please provide details. <br /> Both the ground floor and sub-basement are considered a level of discharge. Therefore a gate or barrier is not <br /> required. <br />