Boise PDS Online - BLD00-00030

Information based on query as of Thursday, July 18, 2024.

Permit Information

Permit Number	BLD00-00030
Status	Finaled
Name	RIVER PARK LLC
Site Address	1199 W SHORELINE LN
Project Name	FOREST RIVER PLAZA
Customer Number
ePlanReview	No
Description	Within the existing corridor sytems of the first, second & third floor's, to remove & replace portions of the non-rated suspended ceiling grid & tile as indicated on the approved plans. Work to comply with 1997 UBC Standard 25-2. Also re-align spacing of existing sprinkler system for proper code compliance spacing & install new NFPA 13 approved, flush to surface type sprinkler heads within the existing corridors. To provide smoke resistive enclosure at 1st, 2nd & 3rd floors at the Northeast stairway per approval byTim Hogland, Building Official, and Brent Brocksome, building owner. A five year code compliance upgrade agreement for completeing remaining code deficiencies, identified by the architect, Bruce Poe, is on file. PC#00-104/ drs

Contact Information

See Activities list for contact information

Permit Details Project Related Cases Activities Conditions Parcel Fees Valuation Documents Permit Summary Report

Color Key
Current location of plans being reviewed:

Show Inspection Activities Only

Description

Received

Requested

Completed

AM/PM

Disposition

Assigned To

FIRE-Final Inspection

7/5/2000

CANC

Name:	Rick Jackson
Title:	FIRE INSPECTOR
Phone:	794-1981

Rick Jackson

Scheduled by a contractor via Hello! on 07/05/2000 at 10:57:47. Contact: ###-####. Disp set to [CANC] by a contractor via Hello! on 07/05/2000 at 11:21:12.

Letter of compliance

5/25/2000

DONE

Name:
Title:
Phone:

Letter of Compliance #19344 issued 5-25-00.

BLD-Final

5/23/2000

5/24/2000

PASS

Name:
Title:
Phone:

josh ###-#### c/c# 19344 5/25/00 10:40:46 AM

FIRE-Final Inspection

5/23/2000

PASS

Name:	Rick Jackson
Title:	FIRE INSPECTOR
Phone:	794-1981

Rick Jackson

###-#### Josh

BLD-Final

5/18/2000

5/19/2000

FAIL

Name:
Title:
Phone:

Scheduled by a contractor via Hello! on 05/18/2000 at 16:30:00. Contact: ###-####. fire c/n 5/19/00 12:39:00 PM

FIRE-Final Inspection

5/18/2000

FAIL

Name:	Rick Jackson
Title:	FIRE INSPECTOR
Phone:	794-1981

Rick Jackson

Scheduled by a contractor via Hello! on 05/18/2000 at 10:14:32. Contact: ###-####. Exposed combustible surface in central stair require sprinklering or covering with non-combustible surfaces. 5/22/00 9:00:55 AM

BLD-Other

3/16/2000

FAIL

Name:
Title:
Phone:

as I was notified that there was a possible exiting violation at the building, upon arival I observed that there was scaffolding installed in the main stair blocking exiting from the 3rd floor I served a correction notice to the contractor that the building must always have 2 exits from the upper floors during busness hours and that the tenants must be notified of after hours construction and possible exit blocking at these times. the contractor at that time started dismanteling the scaffolding. 03/17/2000 9:04:28 AM

BLD-Conference

3/1/2000

PART

Name:
Title:
Phone:

Josh ###-#### ok to cover corridor to lobby walls 3/2/00 8:20:08 AM

Routing - PLAN CHECK

2/24/2000

PASS

Name:
Title:
Phone:

Organized new plans & copies of modification approval by Tim Hogland and five year upgrade agreement acceptance, signed to acknowledge agreement, by Mr. Brent Brocksome, Building Owner; Dan Stuart, PDS Bulding Dept. Plans Examoner & Bill Alexander, Fire Dept. Fire Code Analyst. Routing to issue permit. Copy of modification & time frame aggreement attached to each set of plans with copy to FD files & plan check files.

Plan assigned to (DRS)

1/5/2000

2/24/2000

PASS

Name:	Dan Stuart
Title:	PLAN REVIEWER II
Phone:	395-7873

Dan Stuart

2/24/2000 09:11:58 DRS - activity updated through activity BLDA022 from case BLD00-00030.

PLANS/APPL TAKEN TO FRONT DESK

2/24/2000

PASS

Name:
Title:
Phone:

Routing to front desk for issuance of permit.

Inspection Record Card- Bld

2/24/2000

DONE

Name:
Title:
Phone:

Print Occupancy Form

2/24/2000

DONE

Name:
Title:
Phone:

Print Occupancy Form

2/24/2000

DONE

Name:
Title:
Phone:

Telephone call

2/24/2000

DONE

Name:
Title:
Phone:

called Doc Schlekeway at ###-####

Issue PAID IN FULL permit

2/24/2000

DONE

Name:
Title:
Phone:

Additional plans submitted

2/24/2000

Name:
Title:
Phone:

Received signed copy of "modifications for individual case" request from Brent Brocksome, Owner, via Bruce Poe, Architect, approved & signed by Brent Brocksome & Tim Hogland. Copy in files. Processing for issuance of permit.

Additional plans submitted

2/23/2000

Name:
Title:
Phone:

Received new letter of agreement concerning five year time frame upgrade with an accompanying plan indicateing the areas were the enclosure upgrade has to be completed in the five year time frame starting at the date of issuance of permit for this project initial phase - separation of three story stair enclosure from remainder of each floor, leaving the existing non-rated exit corridor available for use to exit to the existing 2nd enclosure. Also assuring each tenant has access to the exit corridor w/o going thru the new enclosure. To install the new ceiling grid and update sprinkler system layout to meet current code coverage, etc. such that the sprinkler system can be used in place of the 1-hour rated corridor originally required based on code section 1004.3.4.3, exc. #5, 1997 UBC, as requested by owner through his architect, Bruce Poe.

Plan Reviewer's activity

2/18/2000

Name:
Title:
Phone:

Talked with Bruce Poe on the phone. We discussed that the concept he had presented was good but that a more detailed clarification of what Mr. Brocksome was agreeing to have in compliance with code at the end of five years is. The letter talks about the new wall & door for the enclosure and about upgrading gasketing on existing doors if not there or not in good shape and says that other doors into the enclosure will be made to be 60 minute. I ask him what about the glazing that exist and how it was to be handle, removed and infilled or glazing changed out for a type meeting testing for a 60 minute wall assembly. The request for use of the sprinkler system to satisfy the condition for rated corridor per section 1004.3.4, exception #5 was okay and acceptable if a commitment / comment was made in the agreement that an inspection of the sprinkler system was to be completed by an approved party to verify that the sprinkler sytem was in order with code so it could be used for the proposed purpose. We also discussed the opening within the other stair enclosure for the telephone rooms and that a comment needs to be added to the sentence that bringing thies doors into compliance with enclosure rating is not a part of this project, but will be corrected as part of the five year agreement. Also to make a comment that any other penetrations or openings that are discovered as a part of tenant upgrades or other work will be repaired to meet code in the five year period. I ask him to lok at his letters and at the plan he sent with them and ask himself if he could read his letter comments and descriptions and look at the plan and know specifically what he was commiting to as relates to the sprinkler system & corridor; the stair enclosures (which is which) where work or changes are to be made. To make the scope of five year project clear enough for someone to understand in five years when trying to get it done.

Plan resubmittals received

2/17/2000

DONE

Name:
Title:
Phone:

RECEIVED PLAN RESUBMITTALS FROM BRUCE POE ARCHITECT SHEET A1.0, FORWARDED SAME TO DAN STUART. 2/17/00 DAR

Plan Reviewer's activity

2/17/2000

Name:
Title:
Phone:

Received letter from Bruce Poe in behalf of Mr. Brocksome (signed by him) to requested approval of a modification proposal to Tim Hogland and one to the building fire department concerning the five year time frame for upgrade of code deficiencies.
I had Marlene read the letters to see if they were presented clearly enough that she could determine what was covered by the modification request to Tim Hogland and the five year proposal to complete code deficiencies.
Marlene ask that I request Mr. Poe clarify a bit more in the letters and on a plan the specific area he found that are in need of code upgrade based on code analysis, such that a person reading the agreement and looking at the plan would be able to clearly identify what was to be done.
Bruce called to see if I had received the letters and if Tim had received his. I told him they were here but I had to finish a project I was doing before I could give them my full attention. Probably by tommorrow.
Tim came down to get his letter as Bruce Poe had called him to ask about it after talking with me.
Tim came over to review the letter after he read the proposal. We agreed that there were a couple of items needing clarified concerning the elevator opening protection and clarification of what was to be involved in the five year proposal. Tim will let Bruce Poe know what has to be clarified to satisy him. I will talk to Bruce concerning the other letter.

Plan resubmittals received

2/10/2000

DONE

Name:
Title:
Phone:

RECEIVED PLAN RESUBMITTALS FROM COLE ARCHITECTS, WARD SCHIDNERSHEET A1.0 ONLY.2/10/00 DAR

Telephone call

2/10/2000

DONE

Name:
Title:
Phone:

After having received plans from Bruce Poe, Cole Assoc. for the proposed inclusion of the stair smoke enclosure, I called Bruce concerning the following:
1) The letter asking for alternate means and methods has not been presented to Tim Hogland for review and approval from the owner, Mr. Brocksome.
2) The architectural code analysis for the building has not been presented to the building department with a proposed letter of agreement for acceptance by the fire & building department for the five year upgrade program, for acceptance. The letter should be specific in the proposal, provide a signature and date line for the owner; the fire & building departments for all to sign and date when approved that will be used as the reference guide for completeing the items noted by the architect.
3) The plans did not contain a fire wall assembly listing for the enclosure wall called out on plans; the required resistance to temperature rise rating 450 degrees above ambient after 30 minutes for stair enclosure doors, suggested to be provided now rather than have to change doors out again as part of the five year upgrade(owners option as to now or later); current tenant list to go along with the tenant suite numbers of current tenants; new sprinkler system adds in enclosure and the hold-open/smoke detector activation for automatic door closing will need to be filed verified for UFC compliance and the elevator smoke detector recall will need to be verified by fire inspector. I have discussed the plan with Bill Alexander.

Plan Reviewer's activity

1/31/2000

Name:
Title:
Phone:

I have received three intermittent letter from Bruce Poe, expressing cooments about meetings, reviews and phone conversations. There are some misunderstandings and untruths contained within them. I am taking this opportunity to review the comments made in writting to Bruce. A copy is in the file. Bruce called me back after having received the letter and expressed that he had reviewed on of my comments with Tim Hogland concerning the need to provide a break down of the code deficiencies and which portion was to be completed under permit each year until finished at the end of the fifth year or before.
In our meeting of 1/7/00, I explained to all present that the problem we have experienced in the past with open end proposals without deffinite goals to reach each period, is at the last part of the proposed time frame it is discovered that nothing has been done and the expense of doing it all at once is prohibitive so a further delay is sought or the program is forgotten or ignored and the problem is sold to another person w/o them being awares. I gave a copy of a program used in norther Idaho to record noncompliance of tenants or building with the county so that a problem cannot unknowingly be passed on to another. The owner of the property cannot sell without removing the non-compliance. Tim said he would consider the proposal. A copy was also given to Teresa Sobotka, our legal representative to assess the possibilities.

Meeting

1/7/2000

Name:
Title:
Phone:

The data has been moved to a Word document attached to this case.

Routing - FIRE

1/5/2000

PASS

Name:
Title:
Phone:

Plan Review Completed(1st rev)

1/5/2000

Name:
Title:
Phone:

Application received

1/5/2000

Name:
Title:
Phone:

Meeting

1/5/2000

Name:
Title:
Phone:

Visited with PDS Legal Counsel, Teresa Sobotka, on this project and the letter of committment presented from the architect (unsigned) and the position the city would be put in if the permit for the ceiling replacement was issued and we had not received a committment from the new owner as to specific time by which the non-compliant conditions would be corrected. Teresa suggested I not issue the permit at this date because the letter basically did not provide any commitment. She suggested I ask the fire department, Dave Miller to do or have someone do a field inspection to determine the life safety issues and if it was felt to be an item needing correction ASAP or over a time period and what that might be.

Telephone call

1/5/2000

DONE

Name:
Title:
Phone:

Call to Bruce Poe to let him know that a more agreeable firm commitment was needed for the conditions requiring upgrade and that he had not signed his letter not had the owner so know one was committed to do anything on paper. I told him that PDS Legal had advised I not issue permit until I get convfirmation from the fire dept., Dave Miller of the site and their opinion as to the hazard and time frame requirments.

Plan Reviewer's activity

1/5/2000

Name:
Title:
Phone:

e-mail to Tim Hogland of project and concerns at 1199 Shoreline, Forest River, Bldg. 1.

Meeting

12/22/1999

Name:
Title:
Phone:

Met with Mr. Schlekeway, contractor, and Brent Brocksome, one of the new building owners. The new owners want to install new grid & ceiling tile within the existing corridor systems at each floor. A recent field inspection by George Slane and Perry Paine of the Structural Division of a permitted project under construction, found that the corridor serving this area was not in compliance with code. There was questions on opening protection and wall construction. In a phone conversation with Doc Schlekeway, contractor, I informed him that when work was done in the corridor at the ceiling the condition of the corridor would be exp[osed and if not in conformance with original code requirments, the field inspectors would require the upgrades be made. Doc told me Mr. Brockesome was a new owner and did not have money to put into the building at this time to upgrade the corridor. My research had also revealed that the existing required exit stair enclosures did not meet code as to construction and required separation from other areas of the building.
I informed Mr Brocksome of the concerns found and informed him that an architectural analysis needed to be done of the existing building conditions, a report provided and a request for time frame for items found to be deficient to be corrected. All of this data would be reviewed by the fire department and building dept. jointly and a determination made on acceptance, modification or rejection of the proposal time frame for correction. Mr. Brocksome questioned weather the city had the right to require code upgrades be done on a building that thas been occupied by numerous tenants over a period of years and now is found to be questionable as to original code compliance. I told Mr. Brocksome that this was our procedure policy and that the questioning of this policy would need to be directed or questioned through the Building Director or the city legal department.
Mr. Brocksome stated that he had an appointment with Cole | Associates to review the possibilities of an architectural analysis of the existing structure. He would have representative from Cole|Associates call me.
I told him based on past policy, that when discoveries of noncompliance were found for a project, the requested permit is issued if the proposed project would not create a greater hazard. Installing a new non-rated grid ceiling in place of a same type existing does not appear to increase the hazard. I requested a letter from Mr. Brocksome stating that he had met with the PDS Dept., Plan Check Div. reviewer, Dan Stuart, and had been made aware of our concerns and that he was taking action to provide proposals for bringing the building into compliance with 1979 UBC for the stair enclosure and would review with his architect the possibility of ussing the sprinkler system as a substitute for the rated corridors based on section 1004.3.4.3, exception #5

Routing - PLAN CHECK

1/5/2000

PEND

Name:
Title:
Phone:

1/5/00 - Permit pending based on acceptable commitment from new owner on upgrade of exit stair enclosure, sprinkler system compliance and possible rated corridor compliance per original code, 1979.