Tenant Improvement: site vs interior conflict

Tenant Improvement: site vs interior conflict

Postby skyhook » Tue Sep 24, 2013 8:33 am

Former 7000 sf newspaper distribution warehouse re-purposed in favor of dance studio (student population generally k-12, 6 days a week, 4 sessions/day). Discount lease rate marketing since studio has no street access and is located in delivery alley of large vintage shopping center. Site improvements in alley by Landlord, interior improvements by poor schmuck architect helping a friend out. Site improvement design has not been provided and lease is still in negotiation.

Concern: Moin entrance egress opens directly onto alley drive aisle...door swings encroach into aisle. There are numerous ways to mitigate this (recessed exterior alcove - ample landing area for egress transition etc., stop signs on either of side of drive aisle to frame ped path of travel crossing to separate parking area,,,yada, yada. That said, its not my scope (site, exterior building modifications). "Something' has been promised by leasing agent as part of the marketing of this 'bastard space' best suited for warehousing. I've advised Client not to sign lease until he reviews the site mods, but the appeal of discount lease rate is sucking him in like popcorn to a vacuum.

Contract: My contract is clear (interior only). If and when Landlord produces a design, I will design in response to but if LL goes with the budget plan leaving existing doors in problematic position with no safe ped path, he makes me wander into critique of scope outside my contract. Or does his unsatisfactory design give me an "out clause" trigger which would not bother me either. Despite my counsel, my friend appears to be coming down with case of poor judgment.

Thoughts appreciated.
User avatar
skyhook
 
Posts: 37
Joined: Wed May 23, 2012 3:09 pm

Re: Tenant Improvement: site vs interior conflict

Postby Kurt999 » Tue Sep 24, 2013 2:05 pm

I agree -- kids popping out directly on to an alley is definitely a non-starter. The potential for personal injury seems pretty high, and I doubt you nor your friend want to be part of putting students in a dangerous position.

I'd urge your friend to make safe improvements part of the contract. Otherwise he needs to forget it. The possibility of injured kids sounds very real -- it won't be worth rushing and hoping for the best. So, the specific proposal for the necessary improvements and maintenance of the improvments needs to be part of the lease contract. The improvements probably aren't gonna happen otherwise.

Anway, it sounds like the danger is reasonably avoidable. Maybe a "refuge" space with a few bollards / railings,. etc. Some space to safely "land" in once outside the door where a kid can assess traffic.
Kurt999
 
Posts: 34
Joined: Thu May 24, 2012 8:22 am

Re: Tenant Improvement: site vs interior conflict

Postby Coach » Tue Sep 24, 2013 2:41 pm

Friends don't let friends do stupid things.
Look, you know the site mods matter, so you must insist on adding it to your scope -- at least design development.
Tenant should take lead on design issues because you know damned well that the LL won't do what you need... not necessarily because of cost, but because they're ignorant to your needs.
User avatar
Coach
Site Admin
 
Posts: 13249
Joined: Wed May 23, 2012 2:08 am

Re: Tenant Improvement: site vs interior conflict

Postby skyhook » Thu Sep 26, 2013 8:17 am

Sent this email to Client as a prelude to proceeding or ejecting. The good news is there is ample room on site to bow the delivery drive aisle. The bad news is I am not interested in continuing if the life safety budget is zero.

**********************
I am sure the Landlords professional is considering similar ideas to enhance safety, but here's a sketch showing how one might bow out the delivery drive aisle to create space for a safe zone at entrance. With your anticipated class student count and transitions between classes, one would figure approx. 500 s.f. safe zone with clear site lines to alley traffic.

Also, by providing a planter separating the delivery drive aisle from the remote west parking area, specific and dedicated planter breaks can occur which further separates pedestrian from auto ingress-egress.

Just informal ideas. The Landord will have more detailed site plans and perhaps his own strategies which I would need to see before I can proceed much further on Interior Improvement Plans. We're all in the same boat when designing for life safety and the City will also have an interest.
User avatar
skyhook
 
Posts: 37
Joined: Wed May 23, 2012 3:09 pm

Re: Tenant Improvement: site vs interior conflict

Postby Kurt999 » Thu Sep 26, 2013 6:14 pm

I like the calm tone of the letter.
I may be wrong, but if it were me, I'd address the life safety issue more directly.

Really, Step One is -- does your client actually care enough about the safety issues to require action from the landlord? If no, then you're done.
If yes, then Step two for all involved has got to be written proof of the landlord's committment to the necessary site improvements, and I would state this flatly. If the landlord will not cooperate, then you're done.

I appreciate your willingness to walk away if necessary.
Kurt999
 
Posts: 34
Joined: Thu May 24, 2012 8:22 am

Re: Tenant Improvement: site vs interior conflict

Postby skyhook » Thu Sep 26, 2013 10:18 pm

Kurt999 wrote:I like the calm tone of the letter.


I hear where you're coming from, but unless the NSA has monitored my phone calls with my Client than only he knows that I do take this very seriously. He's my client and our agreement was predicated on LL's site work ( we're just defining what that exactly means). The email and sketch were sent to my Client and made every effort to give LL benefit of doubt...I figure my client would simply forward it. I really strive to stay out of others business dealings, while keeping my eye on the ball. Client knows I have my finger on eject button and he understands and has same concerns.

Client called today and invited me to a meeting tomorrow with the LL and Prop Mgr. to discuss. Maybe I'm an ass, but I told Client I'm unavailable tomorrow. If they really needed me to point out things (above and beyond my email plus sketch) than they are either stupid or conveniently stupid. Either way there is a language to life safety that is basic among professionals and they need to sort out their world with my Client to see if a deal is even at hand. Time for the 'ask' (define exact site improvements they have in mind and who is paying for them ) was my advice to Client as he is very educated on the issues.

Per my contract with Client, I want to see their concepts-solutions, commitment to pursue permit for site and I'll decide from there. The rub for me is the Prop Mgr. is also a City Planning Commissioner (he called the meeting) who should know better.

Perhaps someone will pay me for the site mods in a flash of wisdom. I'd pursue it on a heartbeat...once I'm hired.
User avatar
skyhook
 
Posts: 37
Joined: Wed May 23, 2012 3:09 pm

Re: Tenant Improvement: site vs interior conflict

Postby Kurt999 » Fri Sep 27, 2013 2:24 am

Sounds like you're all over this one..... and maybe a bit clever as well -- you could conceivably end up with two commissions out of what could potentially be just another "no go"... let us know what happens.
Kurt999
 
Posts: 34
Joined: Thu May 24, 2012 8:22 am

Re: Tenant Improvement: site vs interior conflict

Postby skyhook » Mon Oct 07, 2013 8:27 am

During a trip to AHJ last week on another matter, I inquired to their data base regarding the dance studio and specifically, if the existing demising walls had any record of being fire resistive. Since the previous tenant was a newspaper distribution warehouse, I figured the chances were fair.

The tech said they had no record of previous tenant and no record of this 'bastard' space with no street frontage. Nice.

The tech at the counter indicated someone 'ownerlike' had been in 3 weeks earlier asking about the dance studio feasibility off of existing alley. They were given the word - "NO" from the Planning Director. I pushed a little harder and asked if it was a qualified NO, pending site safety measure review ? His reply was 'No one would actually pay for something of that scope." "Perhaps the City should let the Building Owner decide his budget parameters", I said. He agreed and handed me their Pre Design Review application, suggesting we run it past the City. Fair enough.

Of course, I called my Client and informed him of the "NO" finding from a previous inquiry, perhaps from the building owner. Awkward pause and than he said, 'That was me". I said, 'Oh."

Apparently his education on the matter and sharing with others is on a need to know basis; a list I did not make. On the other hand, the client just made my 'Client Mgmt." list with a matter of fact variety of letters in the hopper and to his attention.
User avatar
skyhook
 
Posts: 37
Joined: Wed May 23, 2012 3:09 pm

Re: Tenant Improvement: site vs interior conflict

Postby brudgers » Mon Oct 07, 2013 1:37 pm

Bigger issue than little one's darting into the alley in front of a truck is truck parked and blocking the door.
brudgers
 
Posts: 10
Joined: Wed Oct 02, 2013 10:31 pm

Re: Tenant Improvement: site vs interior conflict

Postby skyhook » Thu Nov 21, 2013 9:15 pm

Well, 8 weeks later LL finally produces his site mod.(which has been MIA for 5 weeks) , approved by City. A bit of striping, a bollard or 2, one exit ramp (need 2) and no separation of pedestrians (tiny dancers) trucks or autos. exit door - truck alley - swap meet style festival parking and call it good. 125 dancers ingress while 125 egress at class changes...fk'n brilliant.

How do you get a site mod permit such as this? You submit only the cartoon for site work 'in preparation for a dance studio", wing it, conveniently ignore my egress plan (don't submit that...the city will ask questions!). Save time...just take a google earth shot, use a flair and diagram some parking and note an 'entrance'. Don't show on your plan the new wall opening in (e) cmu wall for (n) dbl doors...calcs ? seismic modification ? If an architect tried to submit cartoon shite, the city would bounce it faster than a wik b check. And the City, approving it without seeing the floor plan ? Come on! Did I say the Prop Mgr is also a City Planning Commish ? BS, back room wink and nod, walk it through.

And whatever you do, hide this Site Mod drawing for a month and only release it when the TI architect (me) starts spitting nails. I now understand why they hid it. My Client sends me a forwarded email from prop mgr (the real idiot here) paraphrasing, "Look Leasee, whether or not this stuff is required is not the question...your architect is freaking for nothing...if we ask the City or show his drawings, of course the City will agree with him, that's why we do it this way."

Cancelled my first contract today...left the bunch of em holding their arses. Wrote up a close out letter citing reasons why and suggested in strongest terms if they move forward, they hire a professional to prepare the site mod and not their hack handy man with photo shop program.
User avatar
skyhook
 
Posts: 37
Joined: Wed May 23, 2012 3:09 pm

Re: Tenant Improvement: site vs interior conflict

Postby skyhook » Thu Nov 21, 2013 9:22 pm

And yes, the LL called apologetic and asked if I would prepare the Site Mods.
Negative.
User avatar
skyhook
 
Posts: 37
Joined: Wed May 23, 2012 3:09 pm

Re: Tenant Improvement: site vs interior conflict

Postby slhill » Fri Nov 22, 2013 8:54 am

skyhook wrote:And yes, the LL called apologetic and asked if I would prepare the Site Mods.
Negative.


Good for you ... although it's always a bummer when a project turns out that way.
slhill
 
Posts: 16
Joined: Thu May 24, 2012 4:58 pm

Re: Tenant Improvement: site vs interior conflict

Postby skyhook » Fri Nov 22, 2013 12:15 pm

“I can normally tell how intelligent a man is by how stupid he thinks I am.”
― Cormac McCarthy, All the Pretty Horses
User avatar
skyhook
 
Posts: 37
Joined: Wed May 23, 2012 3:09 pm

Re: Tenant Improvement: site vs interior conflict

Postby skyhook » Sun Nov 24, 2013 9:53 am

I'm weighing whether I have a professional obligation to advise the City, discreetly, since I believe they were misled.
The possibility remains for more of the same, now that I am gone.

Thoughts?
User avatar
skyhook
 
Posts: 37
Joined: Wed May 23, 2012 3:09 pm

Re: Tenant Improvement: site vs interior conflict

Postby sbyrktct » Mon Nov 25, 2013 6:45 am

I was told one time, as an example of professional liability, this story:
A registered architect drove past a construction site on his way to work every day. It was not his project. One day he observed workers on a balcony without proper safety barriers or harnesses. He casually mentioned it to someone later in the day. The next day, a worker at that construction site fell and was seriously injured. Someone found out that the architect recognized the safety problem, but did not alert the construction manager or foreman. The passer-by architect was pulled into the lawsuit because, given his expertise, he has an obligation to report such observations, even if it is not his project.

My worry, which is probably yours as well, is how to report it discreetly without the owner knowing it was you... whistle-blowing has an unfortunate stigma.
Still, I think you have an obligation to tell the city.
User avatar
sbyrktct
 
Posts: 1891
Joined: Thu May 24, 2012 9:35 am
Location: http://arehelp.webs.com/

Re: Tenant Improvement: site vs interior conflict

Postby skyhook » Mon Nov 25, 2013 8:47 am

sbyrktct wrote:My worry, which is probably yours as well, is how to report it discreetly without the owner knowing it was you... whistle-blowing has an unfortunate stigma.
Still, I think you have an obligation to tell the city.


Close out letter to Client recapped my effort and recommendations over the last 2 plus months...and my Clients team repeated failure to perform.

While I know the root of this isn't the drawings prepared by the handy man, I focused my findings on his "effort". I am quite sure, he was carrying out exactly what he was told. My letter and Site drawings by others are now part of the record...no where to hide now. That's the gyst of this business; once your drawings are out there, everyone will know whether they are 'working' drawings (if not now, then someday ). I may send his drawings-my letter to CAB.

Yesterday I emailed a favorite plan checker my Egress Floor Plan (I am quite sure she has never seen it) along with a copy of my letter. I asked her to clarify for me if the Site Mod was indeed approved per my Clients assertions. I cc'd no one on my email to plan checker. Professional inquiry was my own and served many purposes.

Leasor and Leasee can find out later and after the fact if they try do an end around; the same road they have put me on since Sept. for a job that was to be a 'slamdunk'.

Tossing the money tables in their temples may have been the result, but professional standard of care forced my hand.
User avatar
skyhook
 
Posts: 37
Joined: Wed May 23, 2012 3:09 pm

Re: Tenant Improvement: site vs interior conflict

Postby sbyrktct » Mon Nov 25, 2013 9:10 am

skyhook wrote:Yesterday I emailed a favorite plan checker my Egress Floor Plan (I am quite sure she has never seen it) along with a copy of my letter. I asked her to clarify for me if the Site Mod was indeed approved per my Clients assertions. I cc'd no one on my email to plan checker. Professional inquiry was my own and served many purposes.


Sounds like you've done your due diligence.

I suppose for anyone that those guys would give a bad reference to, you wouldn't want to work with them anyway.
User avatar
sbyrktct
 
Posts: 1891
Joined: Thu May 24, 2012 9:35 am
Location: http://arehelp.webs.com/

Re: Tenant Improvement: site vs interior conflict

Postby skyhook » Thu Nov 28, 2013 8:28 am

I learned a lesson. I weighed this project on many fronts, but at the end of the day, I figured the City would be the bearer of bad news regarding Site Mod expectations, if no one wanted to listen to me.

The City issued a site mod permit to a shady Planning Commish with a clear conflict of interest. The City accepted cartoons that hid the truth of scope-intent...in my view aiding the Prop Mgr. to avoid spending landlords $$ for improvements and passing the day of reckoning onto my Client. I could truly care less who pays; I'm just sick of the effort to wear me down and badger me into submission.

I am at a total loss how the City could review and approve a change of use in the scenario described without caring a lick about seeing the Mod FP. I'd get laughed out of Building Dept if I submitted such a derelict application.

As for referrals, I'll gladly accept that of my conscience on this one.

Happy Thanksgiving to this Forum.
User avatar
skyhook
 
Posts: 37
Joined: Wed May 23, 2012 3:09 pm


Return to GENERAL DISCUSSION

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: afojeji, digohugofutug, ecaqerekem, egaqazudoc, eseyicumavebr, Miltoncic, ogopunoy, udulicipaka, wocaddjizie and 48 guests

cron