HomeMy WebLinkAboutCorrespondenceAndy Schwaller
From: Andy Schwaller
Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2017 4:09 PM
To: 'Olivia Emery'
Subject: RE: CRMS
That is correct. A review of the best option based on the code sections and your knowledge of the property would help
us with our review.
From: Olivia Emery [mailto:oemery@a4arc.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2017 1:40 PM
To: Andy Schwaller <aschwaller@garfield-county.com>
Subject: Re: CRMS
Andy,
Am I correct that you want us to determine under which option we'd like the plans to be reviewed?
Thanks.
Olivia
A4
A4 Architects LLC
Olivia H. Emery, Principal
242 North Seventh Street
Carbondale, CO 81623
tel: 970.963.6760
www.a4arc.com
On May 24, 2017, at 12:19 PM, Andy Schwaller <aschwaller@garfield-county.com> wrote:
Hi Olivia,
I opened the plans on Monday but am just now getting back to them. Chapter 34 Existing Buildings was
dropped from the 2015 IBC. We have adopted the 2015 IEBC. There are 3 options for evaluating an
alteration to an existing building. Option 1 is a prescriptive review of the work based on Chapter 4 of
the IEBC. I am not sure if this option would work due to the need for occupancy separations S-2 to E, A-
2 to R-3, A-2 to 5-2, A-3 to S-2 for a non -sprinkled building. It would appear a sprinkler is also required
for an A-2 occupancy greater than 5000 s.f. It is also hard to determine if the structure meets the code
of the day it was built under. Not even sure what that code was or the history of the building.
Option Two involves the work area review under Chapter 5 of the IEBC. Based on Section 504, it would
appear that the alteration would be a Level 2 which limits the review to Chapters 7 and 8 of the IEBC.
Option Three involves a point system outlined with Chapter 14 of the IEBC. Wow, does that look tedious
and it would kick back to the design professional for review and analysis.
I think option two applies and it appears there are provisions to work around a sprinkler requirement
found in Section 804.2.2. The addition of the 2 hr fire rated wall, enclosure of the staircase, an
enhanced fire protection alarm system, possibly providing for a 2 hr occupancy separation between the
R-3 and A-2 as per 420.6 and 708 of the IBC, plus other provisions that might exist, would meet the code
provisions related to this proposed work.
No doubt improving the structural framing is also something to consider.
The county is asking for a review of the proposed alteration based on the above code provisions for an
existing building. Please let us know if you have any questions or comments.
Thanks,
Andy Schwaller
Building Official
Garfield County
2