Johnson Band Center 22nd November 2016

THE STUDY AND PRACTICE OF
ARCHITECTURE
JOHNSON BAND CENTER
UNC CHARLOTTE MUSIC ANNEX
AILED MAZAS | JUHEE PORWAL | YAGE CHEN

ARCH 8100 | PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE I
PROFESSOR: KATE SCHWENNSEN
M.ARCH | FALL 2016
CLEMSON UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE
CONTENT
01
ABSTRACT
05
PROJECT COST AND FEE
06
PROJECT MANAGEMENT AND RISKS
07
FUTURE GOALS OF FIRM
BRIEF
SIGNIFICANT LESSON
02
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
FIRM
FIRM HISTORY AND CONTEXT
CASE STUDY
03
PROTOCOLS
08
MEASURE OF SUCCESS AND

LEASONS LEARNT
04
SERVICES AND PROJECT

DELIVERY
09
REFERENCES
Figure 1: Location of the Johnson Band Center in University of North Carolina, Charlotte
ABSTRACT
BRIEF:
SIGNIFICANT LESSON:
The Johnson Band Center is a recent addition to the

University of North Carolinas campus. It caters to the needs
of the marching band, primarily their storage needs and has
added a small practice area with some offices. The building is
located near the entrance of the main campus and becomes
a part of the first impression of the university.
The building was designed by Watson Tate and Savory, an
architecture firm located in Charlotte, North Carolina and
Columbia, South Carolina. The firm specializes in community
and client based design and each principle adds to the
special knowledge required for these complicated projects.
They also form the marketing head and are responsible for
procuring projects for the firm. Michael Watson is the primary
principal involved in this project and is personally interested
in designing institutional buildings for Universities. The firm
had initially conceived their relationship with the university
through renovation projects and had proceeded to new
projects. This project was of critical importance to the firm
as it allowed them to take further their good relations with
the university and hence aim for larger projects.
It is essential to always understand what the client wants

and how it can be made better. Architecture practice is not
always about putting forward the architects vision rather
it could also be about putting forward the clients vision
for the project and providing them with something more
at the end to increase their satisfaction. This strategy
helps the firm to grow and achieve a good reputation
amongst their clientele. Also, smaller project are a good
investment for establishing respectable relations with
a new or relatively new client, as smaller projects offer
lesser complications during the process.
Most firms today try to achieve client satisfaction by
agreeing to all their demands, but WTS did not always do
so.They tried to engage in a back and forth communicating
process, which eventually made it a smooth process for
everyone concluding with a contented client.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
FIRM:
Watson Tate and Savory , is an award winning, medium
sized architecture firm with 14 people in Charlotte office.
This partnership firm aims at designing with profound
respect for their clients and end users as well as the context
in which the architecture is placed. This constitutes as their
philosophy. They have earned high opinion in the society
through their open respectful collaboration and focused
hard work. Their intent is to intertwine these ideologies
with practice by diligently working with the client at various
levels of the project and using simple solutions to clarify
and arrive at thoughtful design solutions. Since 2002, the
firm has received over 25 design awards and have been
featured in nation-wide publications.
teams working simultaneously on several project, which

meet regularly to update the office in the direction they are
pursuing the project. Hence individuals in the office have
a broader and holistic understanding of multiple projects.
Coordination becomes of key importance in such a studio
structure.
The firm specializes in Agency, Museum, Community,
Renovation, Residential and Higher Education related
projects and aims at involving in a long term relationship
with the client.
According to the Sparks Model, the firm can be categorized

as a Full Service-Client Partner and Doing Firm (Type C
firm, which focuses on both strong practice and service)
which emphasizes on getting the projects complete on
time and in budget, which is one of the major criteria for a
client.
The firm follows the Studio Form of Organizational Structure,
but chooses to function as a single studio, where no one
specializes in one particular task. The office is divided into
Figure 2: Types of project practiced by Watson Tate and Savory
Figure 3: Kevin Greens 5 Ps
Figure 4: Firm types as per Sparks Model

WTS: Doing Firm
FIRM HISTORY AND CONTEXT:

The firm is named after its principal architects, who
formed it initially in 1988. Michael Watson, J. Sanders
Tate, Thomas M. Savory are active AIA members, LEED
accredited architects as well as Clemson University,
School of Architecture alumni. Each member contributes
to the strength of the firm as a team. Michael Watson,
former president of AIA South Carolina, adds his
experience of contextual understanding and Green
Building Design by being dynamically involved with the
community and by being a member of the US Green
Building Council. J. Sanders Tate has had significant
understanding of higher education and institutional
buildings and has focused on interior architecture
throughout his career. Thomas M. Savory adds to the firm
with his expertise on historic preservation in conjunction
with, being involved with schools of architecture in North
Figure 5: Principals for WTS
Carolina, South Carolina, Detroit etc. In addition to the

three principals, Regina Floyd is also a principal. She is a
construction specialist as well as a member of the AIA and
oversees the Information Technology systems operations
of the firm. She manages numerous projects through
construction documents and construction administration
and has been the past president of the Construction
Specifications Institute, Columbia Chapter.
Thus, each member of the team is capable of handling
the project at various levels; like reaching out to the
community, managing the design development, managing
specifications and construction stages as well as getting
younger professionals involved through lectures and being
a part of the jury at schools. This strength makes their firm
unique and impactful.
CASE STUDY:
To understand how this firm approaches practical issues
relating to architecture, the Johnson Band Center at UNCC
has been chosen, as the case study.
The University of North Carolina is an urban research center
at Charlotte; a public university with 1000 acre campus;
the university is undergoing many renovations and new
construction. In October of 2013, the Johnson Band Center
became a part of this phase of construction. The project
was envisioned as a new home to the universitys recently
formed marching band. The 6700 square foot project was
decided to be placed in context to Storrs Hall, the College
of Arts and Architecture, which is a modern building in the
north designed by Gwathmey Siegal Kaufman Architects.
The eastern edge of the site has forests and the entrance
to the campus is on the south western end.
The expectation from the project was to provide a
facility that would generate storage space for the bands
instruments, provide them with a secure space to store
their belongings and a place for them to practice. The brief
of the project was developed by the University on the basis
of the 10 criteria from the State Construction Office as well
as their preferences. The 10 criteria included establishing
the component of the Project Budget, Including Owner or
User requirements, Site Evaluation, Space Programming,
Preliminary Project Scheduling, Sustainable and Energy
Efficient Buildings, Cost Analysis, Feasibility Studies etc.
The project was primarily funded by the Vickie & Gene
Johnson and was named in their honour.
Figure 6: View of the Johnson Band Center
PROTOCOL
Before the Johnson Band Center, WTS had some
opportunities to work with UNCC, for a few renovation
projects and hence the university was aware of the firm
and its work ethics. As the project was for the state of
North Carolina, all architecture firms were invited for the
project, in which WTS was also included. The selection
committee involved Donia D. Schauble, the Project
Manager, the end users, who were the chair of the Music
Department and the Senior Associate Dean of Arts
and Architecture Department, the Associate Director
of Capital Projects and the Associate Vice Chancellor
for Facilities at UNCC. WTS along with other firms had
submitted a submittal form that included a description of
the firm and the team that would work on the project,
their qualifications, work experience and expertise and
their brief idea of the project. The Standard Form 330
was used as the cover letter which is a six page legal
document, stating the qualifications of the team members
applying for the project.
WTS, Yates Chreitzberg Hughes Architects and C Design
firms were finalized from the 1st round. These firms
were also preferred for their proximity to the University
as all of them are located near Charlotte. The selection
criteria for choosing from the three firms were based
Figure 8: Cover Letter of Submital Form
10
on qualification of the firm (QBS) and how they had

interpreted the project to be. For the selection process,
the firm was invited for an interview, where they were
able to explain how their experience from previous
projects supplemented the Johnson Band Center and
hence they were finally added on the team with Michael
Watson directing the project. The experience that WTS
had in academic buildings as well as the examples
showed during the presentation of Pre-engineered
buildings convinced UNCC to hire them. Also, since
the University had previously worked with WTS, they
had an added advantage to be selected for the project.
Since WTS has only architects in the firm, consultants
were chosen from their team of consultants on the
basis of the needs of this project.
Heartland Construction also joined the team with
their experience in government buildings and preengineered steel structures. The approach of this
construction agency was to build relationships and
establish an open honest communication as well as
active listening and ongoing dialogue with the client to
meet their expectations. Hence Heartland Construction
and WTS formed a good team for the project, as they
had similar ideologies to work on. Mark H. Fasser, a
graduate from Virginia tech with a degree in architecture
joined as the Project Manager through Heartland
Construction. From the University, Chancellor Philip
L. Dubois and Donia D. Schauble, the Senior Project
Manager and Jennifer L. Price as the Construction
Manager; under the Facilities Management/ Capital
Projects department, was a part of the project. Since
the band director was not employed till then, he was
unable to participate in the design process.
Figure 9: Team composition for Johnson Band Center
SERVICES AND PROJECT DELIVERY

WTS was hired in the project to deliver design services, which
included, schematic design, design development, preparing
construction drawings and specifications along with preparing a
bidding package. The designing process was immediately started
with the signing of the contract in April of 2014 and completed in
September of 2014, with the opening of the bid.
Their strategy of evolving this project was very simple and closely
related to their philosophy. During conceptualization, the architects
started the project with images of precedence, which related to their
idea of the new building, and narrowed it down through the clients
choices. The clients had a preference towards a preengineered
metal building and were not critical of relating precisely to the style of
the campus, and WTS convinced them with some added aspects to
the building, they could make it more aesthetically appealing. They
clearly explained their approach to the context and the relationship
with the existing utilities. The program layout was stated through a
set of simple readable diagrams, which the client could easily grasp.
They also informed the client about the costs and how they would
work in a fixed budget as well as the schedule of the project.
Also, as the architects were asked to review the program, they
introduced the idea that the instrument storage room could also
provide space for small band practice if it was designed appropriately.
The end users appreciated this idea as it made the building more
versatile and allowed for other uses in addition to just storage and
game day preparation. Hence, the scope of the project was modified
and the schedule and budget were reviewed by the entire team
(project manager, architect, and end users) on an ongoing basis and
adjustments were made to keep the project on time and in budget.
Figure 10: Images of various construction stages of the project
12
Conflicting ideas were handled well by measuring the

pros and cons of each and convincing various members
to come to a conclusion during the predesign process.
For example, the budget had created a restraint on
the square footage of the building. During one of the
meetings, with reviews from the band, it was understood
that certain spaces in the building would have needed
more ceiling height due to acoustical reasons. This
created an issue, since the ceiling height needed to
be increased; the square footage of the project had
to be reduced to keep the project under the same
budget, which would mean removing certain areas
from the building. But the architect was able to save
the situation by manipulating spaces such that it would
allow different functions to coexist together. Thus,
such strategies on behalf of the architect to bring all
participants in consensus before the project went into
the design phase and avoided clashes and were a part
of his good management and special knowledge that
avoided the design being affected in a severe manner
in the later stages of the project. At the same time it led
to a major portion of the time being spent on predesign
process.
All meetings, throughout the design process, with
the client were headed by Michael Watson and he
was an active participant in the design as well as
the construction phase of the project. Each meeting
was designed to be first held with a committee of the
Figure 11: Day Render of Johnson Band Center from WTS
members of the school of architecture, school of music and

the facilities department to improve the understanding of
their users and then decide if the work was adequate to then
talk to the Chancellor. These meeting were documented
by maintaining a record of minutes, complied by interns
present at the meetings. They included a summary of topics
discussed and decisions taken during the meeting and
were sent to all members after the meeting. This ensured
that all the members were had the knowledge of how the
project was proceeding even if they were not able to attend
the meeting.
Since the project delivery method for this building was
Design-Bid-Build, the scope of services for WTS was
limited to design. Heartland construction agency was hired
by the client through the lowest bidding process.
The State Construction Manual was referred to during the
construction phase. Energy conservation was an important
aspect of the design process as it was of primary concern
of UNCC. A number of hurdles caused a delay of few
months to the project. Soil contamination and extreme
winter of 2014, caused construction delays. Nevertheless
the project was completed near the expected time with a
little increase in budget. Supplementary or Post Design
services were not requested in the contract by the client
and since its been only two years after the erection of the
building, a walkthrough was done for warranty. Life cycle cost
analysis and inspections on the work of the contractor were
Figure 12: Night Render of Johnson Band Center from WTS
performed before handing the Occupancy certificate.

On enquiring from the architect it was understood that
after handing over the OC, the architect is till liable for
damages caused due to poor or reckless design till 7
years of building life, as per the statutes of Limitations
in North Carolina.
Additional services requested from the university
included
revising previously approved design developement
or working drawings or specifications,
preparing drawings and specifications for alternate
bides for work beyond scope of original contract,
arrange for work to proceed, if contractor is at fault,
provide contract administration and
inspection of construction.

other negotiable services.
Specifications in the Bid set, followed the descriptive
format, wtih each elements detailed out seperately. The
Structure and landscape around the building along with
framing details, interior finishes and their installation
methods have been clearly stated with specific quality
control measures, as a step by step guide. Along with it,
methods of checking on site construction and repairing
any fault have also been specified in the bid. Under
some materials, the bid also allows for proprietary
or performance based specifications, where certain

materials can be acquired from other vendors, till it
maintains quality control.
Designed by Watson Tate Savory, the 6,700-squarefoot Johnson Band Center now features a conference
room, workroom and offices. It also includes restrooms,
a drum storage room and ample space to store musical
instruments, uniforms and guard equipment and is being
used rigorously by the entire marching band. It has won
the 2016 Merit Award, AIA, Charlotte and 2016 AIASC
Design Award Citation.
PROJECT COST AND FEE

The band center was categorized as Capital Projects costing
less than $2,000,000 with total project cost estimated in the
contract as $1,800,000, with contigency marked at 25% of the
total cost, approximately.
Pre-Design services, conducted before hiring the architecture
firm, included program verification, costing and schedule
comparison, survey and geotechnical services, which
amounted for 1%.
Design services made upto 5.7% of the total cost or 8% of
the construction cost with additional services accounting for
0.25%. Payments to the architecture firm were made monthly
which couldnot exceed the maximum percentages mentioned
under the contract, as
Upon approval of Schematic Design Phase.....
15 %
Upon approval of Design Development Phase..
53%
Upon approval of working drawings and specifications... 65%
Upon receipt of bids....
70%
During the Contruction Phase....
95%
Upon the closing of all construction contracts and.... 100%
approval of record drawings and final report
PROJECT MANAGEMENT AND RISK

Donia Schauble, the project manager, formed a link
between the university and the Architect, with Jennifer
Price, the construction Manager, as a link between the
university and the contractor.
Inspite of the project being small, the Johnson Band
Center is an important addition to the campus. With
the recent addition of a football team and stadium,
the addition of a marching band was meant to add
decorum and team spirit which would also have to be
supported by the band building. The project design was
managed collaboratively with the end user, designer,
and Facilities Management and all the campus service
providers were asked to give input. Collaboration was
the center of Project Management philosophy. This
also formed a major issue and risk in the project as the
construction agency was hired after the completion of
the design process and was not included in it. Another
challenge was posed due to dense tree coverage on
site, which the university wanted to preserve. Only very
limited number of trees were allowed to be removed.
Since the electrical, sewage and mechanical systems
of the Band center were connected from Storrs, laying
them underground, with dense vegetation also formed
another challenge.
Figure 13: Donia Schauble, Project Manager for Johnson Band Center
FUTURE GOALS OF THE FIRM

The aspirations of the firm focuses predominantly on
university projects and aiming for larger projects; as
there are a lot of different building types, which offers
them a variety and a continuing client. They also aim
at continuing to practice their philosophy of coming
up with creative ideas that give the client and the end
user better results than they expect. They also intend
to develop and expand the depth of knowledge and
research, focus on education and continue getting
involved with Society for College and University
Planning (SCUP), to train younger minds in the field.
Figure 14: Award information on Johnson Band Center, on WTS website
MEASURES OF SUCCESS AND

LESSONS LEARNT
Clients in all markets seek value from their
architects. A firms distinctive expertise should
match what its ideal client value most.
- Jack Reigle 1
Through this case study, one can understand that the
firm is client and community oriented. The architects
approach of handling the various agents involved in
the process smoothly, also adds to the experience and
the success of the project. Flexibility and collaborative
attitude also becomes their business strategy, as a
good word from the client can fetch them more work.
Thus this case study points out a few important aspects
that would guide younger professionals to practice well.
Firstly, it is important to realize that the clients in the
market are different. In this particular case, the client
is easier to work with, in comparison to some practices
and they valued good architecture. They focus on the
product, people, place and price because of which
they eventually get promotion through a good building.
Thus, the expectation of the client from the architect
is for a simpler affordable solutions; which may not
always be solved by experimentation and designing.
This did not necessarily imply lesser creativity.
Figure 15: Screenshot of Google search, which shows the positive response from
the client towards the project and the firm
1. JACK REIGLE, a veteran of the design industry with more than two decades of strategic planning experience, is President of SPARKS, The Center for Strategic Planning. He assists firms of all sizes in
the development of strategy and positioning plans, allowing them to thrive and succeed in the most challenging environments. The quote is from his book, Positioning for Architecture and Design Firms.
Approaching the project with realistic expectation and

fulfilling them is what clients respected. At the same
time, providing something more to the client in the same
process is a part of the special knowledge that we are
held liable for, which adds to the charm of the project.
Achieving outstandingly performed simple design is also
a definition of success. Clients positive review of the firm
as well as recognition through awards makes the client
take pride in investing in the project and supplements
a good image of the firm. This also implies the trust
they had in the architect which allowed him to design
a successful building which is the reason that WTS is
presently pursing another project with UNCC.
Secondly, Frustrations in the project can arise due to
competing on price, unreasonable client demands,
unreasonable schedules and budgets, not making
deserved profit, poor business design. Thus, listening to
the client and his needs, being available at every meeting
and incorporating the clients comments in the design
makes them feel as a part of the design process, which
furthermore makes them take ownership of the project
as well. The architect should understand to balance
between what the client needs and what he may ask. It
is important to understand this difference because only
then will the architect be able to maintain the integrity
of his own concept and add clients opinions and not
Figure 16: Innauguration Ceremony in the buildings front lawn launching the Pride
of Niner Nation Marching Band
whims. Being honest about expectations, budgets

and keeping the client informed especially regarding
the errors in constructions and the delays in schedule
also fosters trust and healthy relationship.
Thirdly, the client and the contractor along with the
construction agency are a team which have to work
simultaneously and in sync. This was also achieved
in the Johnson Band Center project as the architect
and the construction manager were enthusiastic
and patient in solving problems and errors together
as a team and had similar work ideologies. Hence
composing a team that allows good work is also of
importance, but this may or may not always be in the
hands of the architect.
Fourthly, the choosing the project delivery method
for a project is of critical importance. Every project
has specific needs, and hence a delivery method
which may perform well in a large project doesnot
necessarily mean that it would perform well for
smaller projects also. Since this project was simple,
it didnot require a complicated delivery method
and hence Design-Bid-Build method worked well.
At the same time, simplicity of the project, reduced
the chances of fully exploring the concept of value
engineering.
Finally, looking at the project from the Lens of
architectures purposefulness and social benefit and
aesthetics, the band center has surely been a success
in the university, and with its end users. Jeffery Miller,

the band director, along with the students are thankful
to the university and the donors, for providing them with
an efficient building. The building, also, is aesthetically
composed in relation to Storrs Hall, rather than the neo
classical style of the campus, which for the university, is a
symbol of the campus adapting to the present and moving
towards a positive future.
Thus, as a group, we consider the Johnson Band Center
as an example of exemplary practice achieved through
simple design and successful collaboration between the
client, the contractor and the architect, which has fostered
into a healthy relationship.
REFERNCES
1. Donia D. Schauble (Senior Project Manager) in discussion with Juhee Porwal, September 30th, 2016
2. Mark H. Fasser (Construction Manager) in discussion with Juhee Porwal, September 26th,2016
3. Michael Watson (Architect) in discussion with Juhee Porwal, Yage Chen and Alied Mazas, September 26th 2016
4. NC Administration. n.d. https://ncadmin.nc.gov/businesses/construction (accessed october 1, 2016).
5. (UNC Charlotte, Facilities Management,Division of Business Affairs n.d.)
6. Google. 09 28, 2016. https://www.google.com/search?q=johnson+band+center&oq=johnson+band+center+&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i60.2782j0j1&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 (accessed 09 28, 2016).
7. Heartland Construction. n.d. http://hcivirginia.com/ (accessed 09 28, 2016).
8. Johnson Band Center. Watson Tate and Savory, Charlotte.
9. Pressman, Andrew. Professional practice 101 : business strategies and case studies in architecture. Hoboken, N.J. : John Wiley, 2006.
10. UNC Charlotte, Facilities Management,Division of Business Affairs. n.d. http://facilities.uncc.edu/ (accessed october 1, 2016).
11. University of North Carolina. 2016. https://marchingband.uncc.edu/about-us/johnson-band-center (accessed 09 28, 2016).
12. University of North Carolina. 2016. http://www.uncc.edu/landing/about (accessed 09 28, 2016).
13. Watson Tate and Savory. n.d. http://www.watsontatesavory.com/discover/2014/10/johnson-band-center/ (accessed 08 29, 2016).
(Pressman 2006)
IMAGE REFERENCES:
Figure 1: Location of the Johnson Band Center in University of North Carolina, Charlotte, interpreted by group;
Figure 2: Types of project practiced by Watson Tate and Savory, interpreted by group;
Figure 3: Kevin Greens 5 Ps, interpreted by group;
Figure 4: Figure 4: Firm types as per Sparks Model; WTS: Doing Firm, interpreted by group;
Figure 5: Principals for WTS
Watson Tate and Savory. n.d. http://www.watsontatesavory.com/discover/leadership/ (accessed 09 28, 2016).
UNCC. Google. n.d. https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=johnson%20band%20center%20uncc (accessed September 2016).
UNCC. Google. n.d. https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=johnson%20band%20center%20uncc (accessed September 2016).
Figure 8: Cover Letter of Submital Form
(Savory 2014)
Figure 9: Team composition for Johnson Band Center, interpreted by group;

Figure 10: Images of various construction stages of the project
UNC Charlotte Pride of Niner Nation Marching Band. n.d. https://marchingband.uncc.edu/content/johnson-band-center-construction-0 (accessed october 1, 2016).
Figure 11: Day Render of Johnson Band Center from WTS
(Johnson Band Center 2014)
Figure 12: Night Render of Johnson Band Center from WTS
(Johnson Band Center 2014)
Figure 13: Donia Schauble, Project Manager for Johnson Band Center
PriceCorrespondent, B. M. (n.d.). Renovations to Belk Gym nearly finished. Retrieved November 21, 2016, from http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/local/community/university-city/article33388704.html
Figure 14: Award information on Johnson Band Center, on WTS website
Blog - Watson Tate Savory : Architecture, Interiors, Planning. (n.d.). Retrieved November 21, 2016, from http://www.watsontatesavory.com/discover/blog/
Figure 15: Screenshot of Google search, which shows the positive response from the client towards the project and the firm
https://www.google.com/search?q=johnson+band+center&oq=johnson+band+center+&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i60.2782j0j1&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 (accessed 09 28, 2016).
Figure 16: Innauguration Ceremony in the buildings front lawn launching the Pride of Niner Nation Marching Band
University Dedicates Johnson Band Center. (n.d.). Retrieved November 21, 2016, from https://marchingband.uncc.edu/news/university-dedicates-johnson-band-center
ANNEX:
Figure 17: Code Site Plan, Bid Package, from UNCC
Figure 18: Life Safety Plan, Bid Package, from UNCC
Figure 19: First Floor Plan, Bid Package, from UNCC
Figure 20: Elevations, Bid Package, from UNCC
Figure 21: Building Section, Bid Package, from UNCC
Figure 22: Lighting Schedule, Bid Package, from UNCC
ning
ll
735
734
8
73
G1.2
SITE PLAN
1/16" = 1'-0"
740
Concrete
Retaining
Wall
738
Lin
e
73
6
Mag
Nail
tter
& Gu
Curb
Asphalt
Curb & Gutter
Fire
Siamese
Connector
Fire Post
733
733
Concrete
Flume
733
24" Hickory
8" Hemlock
14" Hickory
5" Hemlock
18" Hickory
4" Hemlock
24" Hickory
732
Asphalt
732
732
Brick
Wall
Mag
Nail
Curb & Gutter
738
ROBINSON HALL
N
7
73
732
Gu
tt
er
&
Cu
rb
8" DIP
Concrete
Tree Line
Headwall
9" Tree
7" Oak
11" Tree
73
5
4
73
ROAD
4
73
CODE SITE PLAN LEGEND
WTS Project Number:
Date:
EXISTING BUILDINGS/
STRUCTURES
BID SET
SCO ID# 14-10834-01A
CHARLOTTE, NC
9" Oak
12" Cedar
10" Hickory
3
73
25" Oak
73
6
Help
Station
Pole
Electric
Box
Electric
Box
10" Tree
0
73
13" Hickory
11" Hickory
13" Oak
9" Oak
1
73
36" Oak
73
7
9" Oak
8" Cedar
13" Maple
Tre
e
ric
k
W
alk
26" Oak
Lin
e
Electric
Box
12" Tree
12" Tree
8" Poplar
12" Hickory
12" Hickory
12" Hickory
9" Tree
11" Sweet Gum
14" Tree
24" Sweet Gum
725
Rim:724.52
I.E. Out:721.42
10" Hickory
10" Sweet Gum
10" Maple
10" Maple
11" Oak
17" Poplar
20" Hickory
13" Hickory
10" Hickory
11" Oak
11" Hickory
25" Oak
11" Tree
8" Tree
9" Hickory
18" Tree
13" Sweet Gum
9" Hickory
8" Tree
9" Sweet Gum
11" Oak
9" Tree
11" Oak
9" Hickory
Brick Walk
Tree Line
26" Oak
13" & 15" Tree
8" Tree
14" Oak
14" Oak
15" Sweet Gum
I.E.:729.47
UNLIMITED OPENINGS ALLOWED
THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHARLOTTE
MUSIC ANNEX
Curb & Gutter
732
Concrete
Asphalt
10" Hemlock
12" Hickory
??
731
730
15" Oak
728
Asphalt
727
726
725
13" Oak
13" Hickory
738
Asphalt
Curb & Gutter

Asphalt
Electric
Box
Mary Alexander Rd.

Asphalt
736
734
73
733
732
Aspha
73
0
72
9
72
8
72
7
726
725
72
These drawings are the property of Watson Tate Savory, Inc. and may not be used in whole or in part without written consent of the architects and any infringement is subject to legal action.
Asphalt
Concrete
Mary Alexander Rd.
Fire Post
13" Maple
5" Maple
7" Oak
Asphalt
38' - 6 7/8"
8" Magnolia
45% EXTERIOR WALL

OPENINGS ALLOWED
31% PROVIDED
Temporary
Bench Mark
Rail Road
Spike In
Maple Tree
Elevation: 740.75
739
Concrete
U
til
ity
23" Magnolia
5" Maple
733
ASSUMED PROPERTY LINE
Fire
Siamese
Connector
Rim:733.71
I.E. Out:731.81
Pin
k
8" Cherry
3" Maple
736
10" PVC
Pa
in
te
d
734
Valve
22' - 7 3/8"
8" & 7" Birch
6" & 6" Birch
Concrete
Concrete
732
UNLIMITED OPENINGS ALLOWED
Brick Walk
Loading Dock
Concrete
Retaining
Wall
6" Cherry
4" Maple
735
CJ
Concrete
8" & 7" Birch
733
Concrete
Concrete
Curb & Gutter
59' - 3 1/8"
Valve
Brick Walk
nted
Pai
4" Maple
Line
lity
Uti
73
7
Brick Walk
6" Maple
STORRS - EXISTING EAST ELEVATION
WV
Electric
Box
7" Magnolia
STORRS HALL
Valve
k
EXISTING
PAVING
Pin
6" Maple
8" Larch
3
73
Irrigation
Box
1" = 10'-0"
6" Maple
6" Maple
7" & 7" Birch
8", 5" & 4" Birch
733
Brick Walk
6" Maple
6" Maple
5" Maple
737
736
Brick Walk
Valve
9" & 6" Birch
1" = 10'-0"
ining
all
733
Brick Walk
Concrete
Brick Pavers
EXISTING TYPE 1B BUILDING B

OCCUPANCY
UGW
NORTH ELEVATION - DIAGRAM OF EXTERIOR WALL OPENINGS

LINE OF CANOPY ABOVE
734
Brick
Wall
39
6.1
G1.2
734
73
3
731
731
Concrete
2
73
STORRS HALL (EXISTING)

EAST ELEVATION = 928 SF TOTAL
WINDOW AREA = 159 SF = 17% OF WALL AREA
4
735
732
x
x
736
249 SF >254 SF
2
30' - 0"
735
WEST ELEVATION = 2582 SF TOTAL

WINDOW AREA = 804 SF = 31% OF WALL AREA
NEW
MUSIC ANNEX
BUILDING
73
6
A9.1
734
804 SF<1162 SF
16' - 9"
735
45% OF 2582 SF ALLOWED = 1162 SF
732
20 SF
73
3
729
50 SF
EXIST. MECH.
73
4
15% OF 1,694 SF ALLOWED = 254 SF

73
3
NORTH ELEVATION = 1,694 SF TOTAL

WINDOW AREA = 249 SF = 14.6% OF WALL AREA
G1.2
73
2
681 SF
729
WEST ELEVATION - DIAGRAM OF EXTERIOR WALL OPENINGS
730
53 SF
731
4
G1.2
73
4
31.5
SF
73
2
1" = 10'-0"
29 SF
15% EXTERIOR WALL
OPENINGS ALLOWED
14.6% PROVIDED
6 SF
1
73
73
G1.2
C
31.5
SF
733
3
11 SF
EXISTING CHILLER/UTILITY BUILDING
736
72
8
1
37 SF
EXISTING FLOOR DRAINS
734
214 SF
Brick Walk
11 SF
72
9
37 SF
EXIST. ELEC.
SITE WALL
737
733
73
0
G1.2
White Line
73
2
B
730
73
5
A
EXIST. STOR.
Tree Line
Line
0
73
Tree
729
728
Tree Line
738
G1.2
727
733
AA
726
734
4
Curb & Gutter
724
73
NEW BRICK WALK
ARCHITECT:
WATSON TATE SAVORY, INC.
1307 W. MOREHEAD ST. SUITE 101
CHARLOTTE, NC 28208
STRUCT./CIVIL:
BULLA SMITH DESIGN ENGINEERING
1347 HARDING PL.
CHARLOTTE, NC 28204
MEP/FP:
OPTIMA ENGINEERING
1927 S. TRYON ST. SUITE 300
CHARLOTTE, NC 28203
ACOUSTICS:
THORBURN ASSOCIATES
2500 GATEWAY CENTRE BLVD SUITE 800
MORRISVILLE, NC 27560
735
Revisions:
AUGUST 14, 2014
1409
GLAZED OPENING AREAS
CODE SITE
PLAN
G1.2
LIFE SAFETY PLAN NOTES
ACCESSIBLE WAY
DATA
108
86 SF
1 OCCUPANTS
26.6"
FIXED STORAGE (BY OWNER)
32"
CORRIDOR SERVES <30 p.

NO RATING REQUIRED PER
TABLE 1018.1
ALL REQUIRED EXITS LEAD TO

ACCESSIBLE WAY.
FIXED STORAGE UNITS AND FURNITURE

SHALL BE BY OWNER AND ARE
INCLUDED FOR REFERENCE ONLY
DOOR EQUIPPED WITH PANIC

HARDWARE
EWC ARE SURFACE MOUNTED BUT

COMPLY WITH ADA
FEC
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
Front
Front
Front
Front
Front
Front
Front
Front
Front
CIRCULATION
Front
Front
43
Front
Front
43
05
Front
05
Front
Front
43
05
Front
05
20
20
1p
13 p
05
11
Front
Front
11
11
Front
Front
11
105
55 SF
1 OCCUPANTS
OFFICE
106
113 SF
2 OCCUPANTS
2p
Front
05
SUPPLY CLOSET
1p
OFFICE
3p
Front
11
2p
104
115 SF
2 OCCUPANTS
Front
Front
43
Front
Front
Front
05
68
'-0
BE
">
TW
62
EE
.5'
N
EX
ITS
11
11
COR 1
228 SF
3 OCCUPANTS
Front
Front
11
CORRIDOR
2p
Front
Front
05
11
G
DIA
OFFICE
Front
05
102
115 SF
2 OCCUPANTS
Front
Front
05
11
0"
5'12
AL
ON
Front
05
20 p
Front
Front
05
05
Front
05
5' - 0 5/8"
05
70'-4"<200' ALLOWABLE (TABLE 1016.1)
Front
43
FEC
Front
117
78 SF
OCCUPANTS
43
TRAVEL DISTANCE = 70' - 4"
Front
1p
ELEC.
11
AED
Front
114
194 SF
2 OCCUPANTS
11
Front
EWC
11
EWC
05
Front
EWC
11
107
190 SF
2 OCCUPANTS
Front
Front
Front
43
115
194 SF
2 OCCUPANTS
DIRECTOR OFFICE
119 p
119 p
WORK AREA
103
223 SF
3 OCCUPANTS
113
52 SF
1 OCCUPANTS
EXIT
66"
EXIT
66"
1p
EXIT
33"
13 p
FAMILY TOILET
MUSIC ANNEX
Front
05
05
Front
20
3
Front
15
COR 2
43
Front
05
15
23.8
2p
ROOF ACCESS
LADDER
WOMEN
MEN
VESTIBULE
Front
33"
109A
2p
15
119 p
SCO ID# 14-10834-01A
15
Front
CHARLOTTE, NC
15
Front
15
Front
15
116
392 SF
2 OCCUPANTS
EXIT
33"
MECH
FAAP
1p
11.9"
2p
66"
PRACTICE AREA
DRUM STORAGE
112
294 SF
1 OCCUPANTS
KB
11.9"
109
1163 SF
234 OCCUPANTS
66"
CONF
101
291 SF
20 OCCUPANTS
HIGH DENSITY MUSIC

STORAGE BY OWNER
UNIFORM STORAGE
ARCHITECT:
CHARLOTTE, NC 28208
118
369 SF
2 OCCUPANTS
STRUCT./CIVIL:
1347 HARDING PL.
CHARLOTTE, NC 28204
MEP/FP:
OPTIMA ENGINEERING
CHARLOTTE, NC 28203
PANTRY
JANITOR CLOSET
110
122 SF
2 OCCUPANTS
111
79 SF
1 OCCUPANTS
ACOUSTICS:
THORBURN ASSOCIATES
CANOPY ABOVE
CODE PLAN LEGEND
ACCESSIBLE WAY
A-3
(CONCENTRATED)
PRACTICE ROOM
(1 OCCUPANT / 5 GSF)
A-3
(UNCONCENTRATED)
CONFERENCE ROOM
(1 OCCUPANT / 15 NSF)
BUSINESS
(1 OCCUPANT/ 100 GSF)
REQUIRED EXIT WIDTH (CLEAR)
10'
PROVIDED EXIT WIDTH (CLEAR)
EXIT
36"
BUILDING DESIGN OCCUPANT LOAD

Stories or
Levels
FIRST
LEVEL
Function of Space
Assembly A-3 (Concentrated)
Assembly A-3 (Unconcentrated)
Floor Area
Gross/Net Sq. Ft.
1,169 gross
5 gross
234
299 gross
15 gross
20
Business
1,618 gross
100 gross
21
Accessory Storage Areas, Mech.
1,335 gross
300 gross
Subtotal Design Occupant Load for This Story:
Total Building Design Occupant Load:
Design Occupant
Load
284
FIRST FLOOR OCCUPANT LOAD: 275

4' - 7"
55"
PROVIDED EXIT WIDTH :

2 Double Doors at 72" =
1 Single Doors at 36" =
15' - 0"
144"
36"
FIRST FLOOR - LIFE SAFETY PLAN

3/16" = 1'-0"
Date:
1409
AUGUST 14, 2014
Revisions:
MAX. ALLOW TRAVEL DISTANCE = 200' - 0"
EXIT SIGN
FIRE EXTINGUISHER CABINET
FEC
AUTOMATED EXTERNAL DEFIBRILLATOR
AED
FIRE ALARM ANNUCIATOR PANEL
FAAP
284
KNOX BOX
20
WTS Project Number:
ONE HOUR FIRE PARTITION PER

SECTION 709 OF NCSBC
REQUIRED EXIT WIDTH:

1884 x 0.2 inches per occupant =
KB
G1.1
EXIT WIDTH
(CLEAR)
APPROX. PATH OF TRAVEL
EGRESS WIDTH
Max. Area allowed per Occupants on this

Occupant (NSF/GSF) Floor for this Function
ACCESSORY STORAGE/MECHANICAL
(1 OCCUPANT/ 300 GSF)
5'
20 MINUTE FIRE RATED OPENING
LIFE SAFETY
PLAN
G1.1
BID SET
6.1
A3.1
A3.2
A4-A
00
A9.1
10' - 11"
A4-B
00
A4-A
00
A9.1
5
2' - 2"
PANTRY
J4
38' - 8"
A3.1
110
EW-02
5' - 4"
M.O.
11' - 4"
15' - 6 3/8"
6 5/8"
15' - 1 7/8"
6"
3' - 8"
M.O.
9' - 8"
6' - 0"
6"
6"
A8.2
10' - 4"
D1-B
00
3' - 8"
72' - 0"
M.O.
28' - 8 5/8"
6' - 0"
3' - 8"
6' - 0"
EW-01
CONF
101
11 5/8"
SF-03
M.O.
A3.1
EW-01
M.O.
MEP/FP:
OPTIMA ENGINEERING
CHARLOTTE, NC 28203
1
A4.9
EW-01
1
A4.4
2' - 8"
5' - 4"
E
F
A3.2
A4.3
8' - 0"
SF-02
ACOUSTICS:
THORBURN ASSOCIATES
A4.1
STRUCT./CIVIL:
1347 HARDING PL.
CHARLOTTE, NC 28204
291 SF
5' - 0"
EW-02
PROVIDE FRP PANEL

ABOVE MOP SINK
ARCHITECT:
CHARLOTTE, NC 28208
SF-09
EW-01
A4-B
S 00
10' - 0"
10' - 11 1/8"
COR1 A
SF-01
25' - 0"
A4-A
S 00
A7.1
EW-02
EW-01
102
115 SF
A4-C
00
CW-01
A3.1
OFFICE
101A
HIGH DENSITY MUSIC

STORAGE BY OWNER
EW-01
SF-04
228 SF
118G
111
A4-A
00
COR 1
118A
111A
JANITOR CLOSET
6"
102A
CORRIDOR
EW-03
20' - 5"
2' - 6"
112A
118F
A4-B
00
A4-B
S 00
16' - 4"
A8.2
EW-03
SF-05
A4-B
S 00
A8.2
4
2
A3.2
3' - 0"
A4-A
S 00
112
8' - 3 3/8"
104
8' - 3 1/2"
PROVIDE BLOCKING IN
WALL AT 54" A.F.F. AND
78" A.F.F.
10' - 3 1/2"
7' - 2 1/4"
DRUM STORAGE
12' - 11 1/2"
26' - 10 3/4"
8 1/4"
8' - 6 1/8"
4' - 0"
D4-B
00
113
A6.1
113A
2' - 0" 2' - 0"
117
FAMILY TOILET
10' - 0"
D4-A
S 00
C4-A
S 00 x
STEEL BRACING, SEE STRUCTURAL
223 SF
A4.2
11 5/8"
115 SF
A8.3
A4-A
00
6"
103
12
A4-B
S 00
OFFICE
WORK AREA
A4.2
103A
118
A8.2
113 SF
ADD ALTERNATE 6: ALUMINUM

CANOPY BY STOREFRONT/CURTAIN
WALL CONTRACTOR
SF-05
104A
UNIFORM
STORAGE
369 SF
A4-A
S 00
106
A4-A
S 00
105A
114A
12' - 0 1/2"
MOP/BROOM HOLDER
105
55 SF
D1-b
00
OFFICE
6"
109
106A
A4-B
S 00
10 7313.A
EW-03
9' - 8"
372 SF
4
A4-C
00
A4-B
S 00
5' - 0 5/8"
86 SF
6"
PRACTICE AREA
9 1/2"
7' - 5"
109B
A6.1
114
ELEC.
A4-A
S 00
FLOOR OUTLET WITH POUR PAN,

SEE ELEC.
A8.3
107A
108
SF-06
190 SF
12' - 9 3/8"
20' - 6 1/8"
9' - 10 3/8"
MEN
A4-B
00
DATA
SUPPLY CLOSET
ADD
ALTERNATE 4
26 5600.K
D4-A
S 00
FEC
24' - 8"
69' - 0"
117A
107
EW-01
A4-B
S 00
A8.2
CIRCULATION
D4-A
S 00
1' - 8 1/4"
115A
A4-B
00
5' - 7 7/8"
6"
7' - 2 5/8"
115
9' - 8 1/8"
33' - 11 1/4"
1
A8.4
2' - 1 1/2"
9' - 3 3/8"
WOMEN
A4-A
S 00
5' - 0 3/4"
EW-01
2
8' - 3 1/2"
118E
1' - 0"
ROOF HATCH
ABOVE
COR1 B
D1-B
00
DIRECTOR
OFFICE
S 01
113 SF
A4-A
S 01
108A
379 SF
116
109C
A8.3
1' - 0 5/8" B4-A
COR 2
9' - 8"
1
A4-C
00
8' - 2 5/8"
8' - 10 7/8"
109A
9' - 9 1/2"
116A
3' - 4"
AA
VESTIBULE
6"
18' - 11 3/4"
M.O.
12' - 4"
CIRCULATION
MECH
A4-A
S 00
05 1200.AD
EW-01
3' - 6 5/8"
5' - 0"
C4-A
S 01 x
42' - 7 3/4"
10 2800.A
4
A8.3
FEC
ROOF LADDER
EXISTING SITE WALL
6
A8.3
COR2 A
LV-02
A3.1
5
A8.3
SCO ID# 14-10834-01A
2
A4.1
CHARLOTTE, NC
1
A4.1
2' - 2"
STEEL BRACING, SEE STRUCTURAL
2' - 2"
05 1200.AD
A4.4

WALL CONTRACTOR
16' - 0"
6 5/8"
EW-01
3' - 4"
MUSIC ANNEX
85' - 4"
A3.2
ROOF LEADER, SEE PLUMBING
10 7313.A
2' - 2"
2' - 2"
15' - 0"
07 7200.B
22 0000.U
104' - 8"
ROOF LEADER, SEE PLUMBING
2' - 2"
22 0000.U
23' - 8"
2' - 4"
17' - 8"
2' - 4"
17' - 8"
2' - 4"
6' - 4"
10' - 4"
4' - 8"
M.O.
35' - 8"
20' - 0"
54' - 0"
20' - 0"
20' - 0"
15' - 0"
20' - 0"
20' - 4"
STORRS
2' - 2"
104' - 8"
WTS Project Number:
2' - 2"
Date:
10 7313.A
FIRST FLOOR PLAN (6568 G.S.F.)

3/16" = 1'-0"
1409
AUGUST 14, 2014
Revisions:
CANOPY ABOVE (DASHED)
A3.1
A1.1

WALL CONTRACTOR
FIRST FLOOR
PLAN
A1.1
BID SET
T.O. PARAPET
24' - 8"
C.J.
4' - 4"
C.J.
6' - 8"
4' - 4"
07 6200.A
6' - 8"
4' - 4"
C.J.
6' - 8"
4' - 4"
9' - 4"
C.J.
10' - 0"
10 7313.A

WALL CONTRACTOR
SF-07
1" RECESSED ROCKFACE BRICK

COURSING
T.O. PARAPET
24' - 8"
C.J.
SF-08
SF-08
SF-08
SF-08
LV-01
LIGHT FIXTURE, SEE ELECTRICAL
22 0000.V
OVERFLOW SCUPPER, SEE

PLUMBING
3/16" = 1'-0"
A3.1
1
A4.3
A4.4
3
A4.1

COURSING
04 2000.AN
FACE BRICK
04 2000.AM

COURSING
SHEET METAL FLASHING
C.J.
22 0000.V
OVERFLOW SCUPPER, SEE

PLUMBING
07 6200.A
METAL COPING CAP

ADD ALTERNATE 5:
03 4500 PRECAST CONC COPING
03 4500.J
PRECAST CONC TRIM WITH WATER

REPELLENT COATING
04 2000.AN
FACE BRICK
T.O. PARAPET
24' - 8"
CW-01
10 1419.A
INDIVIDUALLY MOUNTED
DIMENSIONAL CHARACTERS
04 2000.AM

COURSING
09 9600.B
HIGH-PERFORMANCE COATING AT
EXPOSED STEEL DECK
10 7313.A

WALL CONTRACTOR
08 4113.A
ALUM STOREFRONT GLAZING

SYSTEM
03 4500.K
PRECAST CONC SILL
FACE BRICK
08 4113.A

SYSTEM
03 4500.K
PRECAST CONC SILL
SF-02
SF-01
SF-09
C.J.
NORTH ELEVATION UNDER CANOPY
3/16" = 1'-0"
A3.1
GLAZED ALUM CURTAIN WALL

SYSTEM
10 7313.A

WALL CONTRACTOR
A4.4
07 6200.A
METAL COPING CAP

ADD ALTERNATE 5:
04 2000.AN
FACE BRICK
METAL COPING CAP

ADD ALTERNATE 5:
04 2000.AC

COURSING WITH SOLID BRICK
COURSES ABOVE AND BELOW
T.O. PARAPET
24' - 8"
CJ
23' - 8"
07 6200.A
FACE BRICK
3' - 4"
08 4413.A
08 4113.A

SYSTEM
3/16" = 1'-0"
04 2000.AN
CJ
LEVEL 1
0' - 0"
C.J.
WEST ELEVATION
C
2
PRECAST CONC SILL
C.J.
LEVEL 1
0' - 0"
A3.2

SYSTEM
03 4500.K
6.1
A3.2
07 6200.B
08 4113.A
3/16" = 1'-0"
C.J.
AA

COURSING
EAST ELEVATION
04 2000.AM
SCO ID# 14-10834-01A
HM FRAME
26 5600.H
A3.1
FIXED, EXTRUDED LOUVER
LEVEL 1
0' - 0"
08 1113.B
SOUTH ELEVATION UNDER MAIN CANOPY
04 2000.AN
08 9000.A
1' - 6"
FACE BRICK
LEVEL 1
0' - 0"
04 2000.AM
METAL COPING CAP

ADD ALTERNATE 5:
CHARLOTTE, NC
04 2000.AN
6' - 8"
PRE-FINISHED ALUMINUM FLASHING
LINE OF CANOPY ROOF
04 2000.AM
A4.1
A3.2
4' - 4"
8' - 0"
07 6200.C
2
A4.1
6' - 10 1/2"
A3.1
MUSIC ANNEX
6.1
D
C.J.
08 9000.A
04 2000.AM

COURSING
04 2000.AN
FACE BRICK
C.J.
A4.2
A4.2
C.J.
ARCHITECT:
CHARLOTTE, NC 28208
STRUCT./CIVIL:
1347 HARDING PL.
CHARLOTTE, NC 28204
MEP/FP:
OPTIMA ENGINEERING
CHARLOTTE, NC 28203
ACOUSTICS:
THORBURN ASSOCIATES
AA
T.O. PARAPET
24' - 8"
C.J.
LV-02
EQ
EQ
EQ
LV-02
EQ
EQ
SF-04
26 5600.H
08 4113.A
HM DOOR AND FRAME

08 1113.K
HM DOOR AND FRAME
26 5600.H
26 5600.H

03 4500.K
3
A3.1
6
A3.1

WALL CONTRACTOR
SF-05
SF-05
SF-06
04 2000.AM
8' - 0"
8' - 0"
8' - 0"
LEVEL 1
0' - 0"
08 9000.A

SYSTEM
10 7313.A
WTS Project Number:

Date:
1409
AUGUST 14, 2014
Revisions:
EQ
SF-03
08 1113.K
08 4113.A

COURSING
LEVEL 1
0' - 0"

SYSTEM
03 4500.K
PRECAST CONC SILL
PRECAST CONC SILL
ELEVATIONS
SOUTH ELEVATION
3/16" = 1'-0"
NORTH ELEVATION
3/16" = 1'-0"
LEGEND
NOTE:
FIRST FLOOR ELEVATION = 0'-0"
(REFERENCE ELEVATION = 734.00')
BRICK 1
BRICK 2
PRECAST
CONC.
A3.1
BID SET
AA
07 5423
2
A3.2
ADD ALTERNATE 2:
ACOUSTICAL WALL PANELS
FULL LENGTH OF WALL
RF-01
22 0000.B
T.O. PARAPET
24' - 8"
A9.2
SLOPE
THERMOPLASTIC POLYOLEFIN (TPO)

ROOFING.
ADD ALTERNATE 9:
07 5419 POLYVINYL-CHLORIDE (PVC)
ROOFING
1/4" PER 12"
ROOF DRAIN, SEE PLUMBING
RF-02
EW-01
EW-01
24' - 6"
1
A4.1
PRACTICE AREA
109
EW-01
STRUCTURAL CONCRETE SLAB, SEE

STRUCTURAL
MUSIC ANNEX
03 3000.F
LEVEL 1
0' - 0"
1
A3.2
SCO ID# 14-10834-01A
EW-03
ADD ALTERNATE 1:
SUSPENDED ACOUSTICAL
PANEL SYSTEM
CW-01
CHARLOTTE, NC
A4.3
BUILDING SECTION
1/4" = 1'-0"
ARCHITECT:
CHARLOTTE, NC 28208
6.1
2
4
A4.1
A4.4
STRUCT./CIVIL:
1347 HARDING PL.
CHARLOTTE, NC 28204
MEP/FP:
OPTIMA ENGINEERING
CHARLOTTE, NC 28203
ACOUSTICS:
THORBURN ASSOCIATES
RF-01
T.O. PARAPET
24' - 8"
EW-01
ADD ALTERNATE 2:
FULL LENGTH OF WALL
17' - 3 5/8"
EW-01
ADD ALTERNATE 1:
SUSPENDED ACOUSTICAL
PANEL SYSTEM
10 7313.A
ADD ALTERNATE 2:
FULL LENGTH OF WALL
WTS Project Number:
A0.2
Date:
08 4413.A

WALL CONTRACTOR
1409
AUGUST 14, 2014
Revisions:
GLAZED ALUM CURTAIN WALL
SYSTEM
LEVEL 1
0' - 0"
BUILDING
SECTION
03 3000.E
2
A3.2
STRUCTURAL CONCRETE
SLAB-ON-GRADE, SEE STRUCTURAL
BUILDING SECTION
1/4" = 1'-0"
A3.2
BID SET
SCO ID# 14-10834-01A
CHARLOTTE, NC
MUSIC ANNEX
ARCHITECT:
CHARLOTTE, NC 28208
STRUCT./CIVIL:
1347 HARDING PL.
CHARLOTTE, NC 28204
MEP/FP:
OPTIMA ENGINEERING
CHARLOTTE, NC 28203
ACOUSTICS:
THORBURN ASSOCIATES
1927 South Tryon St., Suite 300, Charlotte NC 28203

333 Fayetteville St., Suite 311, Raleigh NC 27601
Phone: 704-338-1292 www.optimaengineering.com
North Carolina License Number C-0914
8/14/2014
Project Number:
Date:
1409
AUGUST 14, 2014
Revisions:
LIGHTING
SCHEDULE
E6.1
BID SET
THIS DRAWING IS AN INSTRUMENT OF SERVICE. THE DRAWING AND THE INFORMATION THEREON IS THE PROPERTY OF OPTIMA ENGINEERING, P.A. ANY REPRODUCTION, ALTERATION, OR USE FOR OTHER THAN THE INTENDED PROJECT, WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF OPTIMA ENGINEERING, P.A. IS EXPRESSLY FORBIDDEN. COPYRIGHT OPTIMA ENGINEERING P.A. 2014, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
11 OF 11
OPTIMA #: 14-0146

Johnson Band Center 22nd November 2016

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Johnson Band Center 22nd November 2016

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THE STUDY AND PRACTICE OF

AILED MAZAS | JUHEE PORWAL | YAGE CHEN

PROJECT COST AND FEE

PROJECT MANAGEMENT AND RISKS

FUTURE GOALS OF FIRM

MEASURE OF SUCCESS AND

SERVICES AND PROJECT

The Johnson Band Center is a recent addition to the

It is essential to always understand what the client wants

teams working simultaneously on several project, which

According to the Sparks Model, the firm can be categorized

Figure 2: Types of project practiced by Watson Tate and Savory

Figure 3: Kevin Greens 5 Ps

Figure 4: Firm types as per Sparks Model

FIRM HISTORY AND CONTEXT:

Figure 5: Principals for WTS

Carolina, South Carolina, Detroit etc. In addition to the

Figure 6: View of the Johnson Band Center

Figure 7: View of the Johnson Band Center

on qualification of the firm (QBS) and how they had

Figure 9: Team composition for Johnson Band Center

SERVICES AND PROJECT DELIVERY

Figure 10: Images of various construction stages of the project

Conflicting ideas were handled well by measuring the

Figure 11: Day Render of Johnson Band Center from WTS

members of the school of architecture, school of music and

Figure 12: Night Render of Johnson Band Center from WTS

performed before handing the Occupancy certificate.

or performance based specifications, where certain

PROJECT COST AND FEE

PROJECT MANAGEMENT AND RISK

FUTURE GOALS OF THE FIRM

Figure 14: Award information on Johnson Band Center, on WTS website

MEASURES OF SUCCESS AND

Approaching the project with realistic expectation and

whims. Being honest about expectations, budgets

in the university, and with its end users. Jeffery Miller,

Figure 9: Team composition for Johnson Band Center, interpreted by group;

Curb & Gutter

Curb & Gutter

CODE SITE PLAN LEGEND

WTS Project Number:

SCO ID# 14-10834-01A

11" Sweet Gum

24" Sweet Gum

10" Sweet Gum

13" Sweet Gum

9" Sweet Gum

13" & 15" Tree

15" Sweet Gum

UNLIMITED OPENINGS ALLOWED

THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHARLOTTE

Curb & Gutter

Curb & Gutter

Mary Alexander Rd.

Mary Alexander Rd.

45% EXTERIOR WALL

ASSUMED PROPERTY LINE

8" & 7" Birch

6" & 6" Birch

UNLIMITED OPENINGS ALLOWED

8" & 7" Birch

Curb & Gutter

STORRS - EXISTING EAST ELEVATION