HomeMy WebLinkAboutCorrespondenceAndy Schwaller
c' 0 - Ne -r -5 75T
From: Andy Schwaller
Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2018 11:11 AM
To: Matt Provost; Jim Wilson
Subject: FW: Anytime Fitness - Non -separated Occupancy - 7025 CO -82
Attachments: RE: Anytime Fitness - Non -separated Occupancy - 7025 CO -82
Please see attached. This is for the old Habitat project at Hwy 82. There are two permits for this project. The first one is
from last May and shows a 2 hour wall between the Athletic club and the future tenant on the east end of the
building. The second permit is a tenant finish Anytime Fitness and was issued in September. I did the plan review and
required a 2 hour wall between the Anytime and the existing motorcycle shop. In discussions with the architect and
Steve Thomas, the building will be non separated and a fire barrier is not required between the Anytime and the
motorcycle occupancy. A fire barrier is required as shown in the original permit on the east side of the Anytime as per
the plans from last May. That wall is keep the fire areas below the 12,000 sq.ft. requiring a sprinkler system.
Let me know if you have any questions. I will add these emails to the file.
From: Steve Thomas [mailto:sthomas@coloradocode.net]
Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2018 4:08 PM
To: Andy Schwaller <aschwaller@garfield-county.com>
Cc: Dave Argo <dargo@garfield-county.com>
Subject: RE: Anytime Fitness - Non -separated Occupancy - 7025 CO -82
Andy,
This is a great question and I am impressed by the architects response. He is correct in his evaluation. You are
dealing with two different issues hear, the nonseparated occupancy evaluation in Section 508.3 and fire
sprinkler requirements in Chapter 9. We need to look at them separately.
If you evaluate the building as a nonseparated occupancy, he is correct that the A-3 is the most restrictive
occupancy to determine the allowable area of the building. I don't know what the type of construction is. But, I
will assume his area calculations are correct in his response. So, at that point, the building complies with
Section 508.3.2 regarding allowable area.
Now we need to go back to 508.3.1 evaluate the building based on the language stating that "the most
restrictive provisions of Chapter 9 that apply to the nonseparated occupancies shall apply to the total
nonseparated occupancy area". Section 903.2 designates when fire sprinklers are required in a building. In all
three occupancies planned for this building, the threshold for providing fire sprinklers is a 12,000 square foot
fire area. So, if they divide the building into separate fire areas of less than 12,000 square feet, they would then
comply with 508.3.1 as well. Since they need to comply with the most restrictive requirements of Chapter 9, the
Group S-1 governs what the fire barrier rating is. Therefore, the wall must be a 3 -hour fire barrier per Table
703.10 with 3 -hour opening protectives. They mentioned a 2 -hour wall in their response..
The idea of a nonseparated occupancy building is that you could build any of the different occupancy in the
building. So, if you built the building with just one of the occupancies, you could building the fire barrier to
reduce the fire area and not have to sprinkler the building.
It is a little strange, but it is in compliance in my opinion. I may try to incorporate this concept into one my
classes. I think it is good example. Let me know if you need any additional information.
Thanks,
1
Steve Thomas
President
Colorado Code Consulting, LLC
Direct: 303-257-3572
From: Andy Schwaller<aschwaller@garfiield-county.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2018 1:20 PM
To: Steve Thomas <sthomas@coloradocode.net>
Cc: dargo@garfield-county.com
Subject: FW: Anytime Fitness - Non -separated Occupancy - 7025 CO -82
Steve,
Help! If you have time.
Building is a single story 14,000 s.f mixed use tenant spaces equally divided for the most part by a 4600 s.f S-1, A-3, and
M occupancy non sprinklered structure. As per the most restrictive A-3, the Grumpy Old Fart (GOF) B.O. position is the
structure cannot be considered non separated occupancies as per Section 508.3. and chapter 9. A fire rated assembly
per Table 508.4 2015 IBC is required between the 5-1, A-3 tenant finish and M existing occupancy or sprinkler the
building to meet the requirements of 508.3 and call it non separated.
Architect's argument is stated below and centers around providing a fire barrier between the 5-1 and A-3, thus
decreasing the fire area below 12,000 sq.ft for the entire building and calling the building non separated. I can see some
of their logic considering the entire structure A-3 and eliminating the sprinkler, but I think they may be stretching the
code to try to also call the structure non separated occupancies just because they decreased the fire areas less than
12,000 sq.ft. for the structure.
Any thoughts?
Thanks,
Andy Schwaller
Building Official
Garfield County
From: Matt Wilkus [mailto:mmw@wilkusarch.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2018 9:46 AM
To: Andy Schwaller<aschwaller@garfield-county.com>
Cc: Dave Argo <dargo@garfield-county.com>; Leif 0. Hanson <loh@wiikusarch.com>; Brittany Bauer
<bmb@wilkusarch.com>; Lucas R. Gustafson <Irg@wilkusarch.com>
Subject: RE: Anytime Fitness - Non -separated Occupancy - 7025 CO -82
Hello Andy,
I would like to thank you again for taking the time to work through this code study with us, as we have had
some fun debating it around the office. I'm responding on Leif's behalf since he's traveling today.
I have attached a link to a case study we found that we feel properly demonstrates both:
• The original intention of the initial permit approved for the landlord.
2
• Our intent to demonstrate how table 707.3.10 does allow for a non -separated occupancy to be divided
into fire areas with the use of approved fire barriers.
Please see attached case study http:/Jwww.woodworks.org/experttip/expert-tip-may-20161
Essentially, we agree with your analysis that the building would need to be sprinkled due to the 12,000 SF limit,
but we are electing to divide the building into two fire areas via a fire barrier in lieu of a fire suppression
system. The code commentary for section 707.3.10 illustrates this compliance path by stating:
""One of the alternatives available in addressing fire protection systems in many buildings is to divide the
building into separate fire areas (see the definition of "fire areas" in Chapter 2). Since many of the fire
suppression system thresholds (see IBC Section 903.2) are based upon the fire area, separation of a single
occupancy into small fire areas can be an acceptable method for avoiding the use of sprinklers. This is a
classic type of design decision: sprinklers versus compartmentalization."
Thus, as defined by Table 707.3.10, non -separated Occupancies are allowed to divide the building into
separate fire areas to avoid the use of sprinklers while also allowing us to maintain the non -separated
classification. The table requires that we provide a 2 hour fire -rated assembly at the fire -barrier.
For the non -separated use, the most restrictive is our use (A-3) that has a calculated allowable building area of
16,272 when accounting for frontage increases. The overall building is only 14,770, so we comply with the
building area limitations per section 508.3.1 for the most restrictive use.
Please feel free to contact me directly with your interpretation of our final attempt to resolve this matter, and
thanks again for your help!
Best regards,
Matt Wilkus, AIA
WILKUS .L RC'HITEC1 S
15 Ninth Ave N, Hopkins, MN 55343
TI (952) 843-5059 Fl (952) 941-2755
Ei irnnw J. wilkusarch.corni
www.wilkusarch.comiSend Us Files
From: Andy Schwaller <aschwaller@garfield-countv.com>
Sent: Monday, October 8, 2018 4:22 PM
To: Leif O. Hanson <loh@wilkusarch.com>
Cc: Dave Argo <dargo@garfield-county.com>
Subject: RE: Anytime Fitness - Non -separated Occupancy - 7025 CO -82
Lief,
Nonseparated Occupancies 508.3 can be a great tool when it works. I typically have to pull out the Commentary and run
through the examples to determine if a building can use this provision.
Based on the most restrictive A-3 occupancy applied to the entire structure, in order to call the building nonseperated, it
would need to be sprinklered due to the 12,000sf limit in a 14,000sf building. See attached example from the
commentary. Step 3 page 5-35 has a similar situation. That being said, the structure does not need to be sprinklered
only separated per Table 508.4. Sorry to miss that with the 5.19.18 permit. We saw non separated on the plans and
went with it. I pulled out the commentary for the second permit.
Let me know if I am missing anything.
3
Thanks,
Andy Schwaller
Building Official
Garfield County
From: Leif O. Hanson [maiito:loh@wilkusarch.com]
Sent: Monday, October 08, 2018 1:16 PM
To: Andy Schwaller <aschwaller@garlfield-county.com>
Cc: Lucas R. Gustafson <lrg@wilkusarch.com>; Brittany Bauer <bmb@wilkusarch.com>
Subject: Anytime Fitness - Non -separated Occupancy - 7025 CO -82
Hello Andy,
Per our phone conversation, I've attached the following for your review:
• The Tenant Demising Plan set, originally submitted on 5.19.18 —As we discussed, it is our interpretation that the
result of this permit demonstrates that the proposed Anytime Fitness location is within the "NEW TENANT"
area, proposed therein as non -separated. Being that our defined FIRE AREA (903.2.1.3 GROUP A-3) is less than
12,000 SF, we concluded that no sprinkler was required, thus there would be no need for any new fire rated wall
assemblies.
• The Anytime Fitness Permit Set, approved on 9.27.18 - for reference of our code study.
Thank you for taking the time to review this situation.
Feel free to let us know directly, once you come to a final decision.
Best,
-Leif Hanson
WILKUS ARCHITECTS
15 Ninth Ave N, Hopkins, MN 55343
TI (952) 843-5063
F I (952) 941-2755
4