Development Team Meeting Notes (96-99)

Home Browse Search

1 assumed dewatering during construction is their responsibility. Dave ind~cated that the ~ plumber would have responsibility for providing underslab drainage if th~ treatment of environmental contamination was not an issue. Structural - Post Tension vs. Conventional Reinforcement 6-27 Prompted by Dan's memo dated June 23rd the team discussed the advant 'ges and disadvantages of post tension construction. Leonard circulated a letter da~ed June 26 in responding to Dan's concern regarding flexibility. The major advantage c~f a PT system is first cost. Mike has recently designed several offices using a post tensibn system. According to Mike, a recently developed device (James "R" Meter) can b~ used to locate tendons. It is a relatively inexpensive ($3,500) device that can be used byl facilities staff prior to core drilling. Mike indicated that with today's building codes and the minimizing of redundant reinforcement, even rebar should be located prio~ to core drilling. In the event that a tendon is severed, Mike explained that the rep~ir is a relatively inexpensive and simple repair using a coupling device. The tear~ discussed options such as marking tendons so their locations are visible after constnajction. Punchouts can also be installed during construction to help in future flexil~ility. Leonard has done some preliminary space planning layouts using the 30-ft grids, ar~d no workstation was left isolated from the conduits running from the columns.', ACTION: Mike Hayford will provide MMDC with a list of owners who have recentlt~ completed PT office buildings. MMDC to contact these owners to gain their insightsj , 6-27 R.G. mentioned that transit would have some fairly heavy stationary files i~ their new ~ space. Mike was not particularly concerned with standard stationary file storage. ACTION: Mike and Leonard will wark to identify areas (125 ps fl for heajvy loading. Signage ' 6-27 MMDC inquired as to building standard signage design responsibility. Lepnard confirmed that signage design would be done in-house. R.G. indicated th~t Transit and Mazion County are developing a logo and design for the project that will p~obably be incorporated to some degree in non-code building signage. ACTION: MMDC will provide some examples of building standard signage. Building Systems 6-27 MMDC indicated that upon review of the mechanical plans completed, By~on Courts had some questions of, and suggestions for, Interface Engineering. ACTION: ~yron to meet with Interface and Leonard to review the current mechanical design. ; 6-27 MMDC inquired whether PGE has been apprised of the electrical needs of 'the project e.g. power requirements and availability of services. Leonard indicated that PC~E has been involved from the beginning and there is no indication of a problem with c~pacity. Architectural Issues ' 6-27 Ron raised the issue of allowable occupancies above the first floor. Specifiically, Ron was concerned that the meeting room requires special conditions due to nur~ber of people ~