Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCorrespondenceDavid Bartholomew From: Andy Schwaller Sent: Monday, August 13, 2012 3:26 PM To: Fred Jarman Cc: David Bartholomew Subject: Jolly -Potter Ranches SUP and Building Permit BLRE-5-12-2473 Fred, In reviewing the building permit and comparing the use described and designated by the Special Use Permit, the building permit does need to be reviewed as a commercial project. The following areas will need to be addressed and amended in order to review it as a commercial type of structure under the 2009 IBC as amended by the county. The property owner should request the architect of record to amend the plans to reflect the following changes: 1. The structure is a mixed use non separated A-2, R-3, and U occupancy. The design should reference the 2009 IBC. ,/ 2. Separations as per Sec 420, 709.1 and 712.3 are required for the sleeping rooms of the R-3 occupancy. 3. As per the 2009 IFC and NFPA 96, an ansul unit is required for the commercial kitchen. ✓ 4. It appears from the plans submitted, the main floor bathrooms will be accessible. The access to the main floor from the parking area into the building will also need to be accessible as per Chap 11. The sleeping areas on the second floor will not need to be accessible assuming the resort has other sleeping accommodations on an at grade elevation. V 5. The stairs shown on the plans will need to comply with Sec 1009 with a rise of 7 in. max and run of 11 in. min. ✓6. Guardrails will need to comply with Sec 1013. ✓ 7. Fire District Review of the plans and structure is required. Fire district will do_a_final inspection prior to Certificate of Occupancy (C.0.) ✓ 8. Colorado Department of Health will need to do final inspection of the kitchen prior to C.O. contact person is Joanne Sax, CDPHE, 303-692-3624. V 9. An automatic fire sprinkler is suggested but is not required due to an amendment to the code deleting R-3 occupancies from this requirement. This list includes the major changes required. Any further construction should reflect the above. The architect of record should include any other changes required by the code during his review. Andy 1 David Bartholomew From: Fred Jarman Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2012 3:21 PM To: samisbmo7©gmail.com Cc: Carey Gagnon; David Bartholomew; Andy Schwaller Subject: Resort SUP Amendment Attachments: Letter to Sam Potter for SUP Amendment.pdf Dear Mr. and Mrs. Potter, Nice to meet with you on Monday. Please take a look at the letter attached (hard copy in the mail) and call with any questions. Andy Schwaller will be calling you on the building permit issues. Regards, Fred t David Bartholomew From: Andy Schwaller Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2012 5:53 PM To: Fred Jarman Cc: David Bartholomew Subject: Jolly Potter Building Permit Fred, I spoke with Sam Potter about changing the above permit classification from a residential single family type of permit to a commercial permit. The permit was submitted to us as a commercial project. After submittal, the applicant requested that it be converted to a residential type of review and submitted a letter stating that if the building had been available for commercial use in the last several years, it only would have been used 2-3 times per year and only for 3-4 hours per day. The letter did call the structure a Pavilion Meeting Building. I scanned this letter and sent it to you. I allowed the review to done under the residential code based on this letter and the representations made by the applicant. The building permit was issued on 5-29-2012. In checking with the construction to date, they have completed the foundation and have started the framing. With further review of this project, I was in error to allow the project to be classified as residential. The Special Use Permit application from 2005 associated with this parcel for a "Resort" designation clearly indicates the use for a Pavilion Meeting Building to be a commercial structure. The title of Resolution 2005-23 is: "A Resort Allowing the Specific Seasonal and Overnight Uses of Hunting, Fishing, Camping, and Temporary Daily Uses for Weddings, Corporate Retreats, and Company Picnics". I allowed the historic use to cloud my judgment from the actual uses approved with the parcel. Any of the uses included with the resolution either by the present owners or future owners would be consider commercial in nature. The building code requires all structures to match their use. Mr. Potter was not happy with this news. I explained the above to him and gave him a list of changes that his architect would need to address. I said a letter was in the mail to him and agreed to e-mail him a copy as well. I believe we will be discussing this with Mr. Potter some more in the next couple of days. 1 David Bartholomew From: Kevin Whelan [kewhelan@riflefiredept.org] Sent: Sunday, September 16, 2012 6:42 PM To: samisbmo7@gmail.com; wcecsinc@gmail.com; ckouray@yahoo.com; David Bartholomew; Andy Schwaller Cc: 'Mike Morgan'; 'Chad Harris'; orrin.moon@burningmountainsfire.org Subject: summation of Jolly -Potter Ranch meeting on 9/13/12 Folks, The following is a summation of the meeting that was held at Fire Station 41, Colorado River Fire Rescue on September 13, 2012. The purpose of this meeting was to lay out the options for the current and future use of the proposed Pavilion building now under construction as well as to satisfy the fire districts requirements related to Garfield County Resolution 2005-23. All information is based off the current edition of the 2009 IFC. Note: This property is in a remote area of the fire district -45 minute drive from nearest fire station and without year round road access Occupant Load: • County has allowed daily use of the property not to exceed 250 persons and no more than 34 overnight guests. • The current occupant Toad for the pavilion building, assign by the architect and the county, is 24. • A rough estimate of the potential for just the meeting room occupant load, using unconcentrated chairs and tables, is 86. • If the occupant load goes over 100, an A-2 occupancy would then be required to have fire sprinklers. Fire Protection Water supply: • County has a limit of 8 dwelling units and a limited total of 14 structures for the resort • It would be impractical to provide the minimum amount of fire protection water per IFC Appendix B (180,000 gallons) • Applying NFPA 1142, the rough estimate of water needed would be 17,698 gallons • It is estimated that 2,574 gallons of water are available in the 4" line that runs for % of a mile. o This is fed by a minimum of %2 cfm (250 gpm)- year round o Connections are 2" cam locks and there are 3 "hydrants" serving the current buildings, including the one under construction. • The owner is proposing to build a 10,000 gallon pond right next to the pavilion building that is under construction o It appears that access, draft height and adeqaute distance to and from the building is being considered and would be acceptable. o Water from a spring over flow will be used for a water source to keep the pond full o Pond should be engineered as experience has shown that leakage, evaporation and freezing can present problems. • The owners does have other water sources that may be able to be used for fire protection water or shuttle operations Fire Sprinklers ( if required): • It appears fire sprinklers would be impractical for this property • The fire district would be willingly to waive any fire sprinkler requirment in lieu of a local fire alarm system that is installed, tested and maintained per NFPA 72 requirements. The thought is to protect the lives and have the owner accept the risks for property protection. o An insurance company should be consulted before final acceptance by the owner. • FYI- If this building exceeded 7500 sq ft with the type of construction it has (type V), it appears that fire sprinklers would also be required Fire alarm • Local smoke and carbon monoxide(CO) detectors will be required. Fire district recommends combination photoelectric /ionization/C0 detectors. 1 • Installation of fire sprinklers, if required, would require a monitored fire alarm system • Remote monitoring of any fire alarm system would present some challenges Kitchen extinguishing system: • The owner has agreed through the county that there will be no cooking that produces "grease laden vapors". Thus a class 1 hood and kitchen fire extinguishing system will not be required Fire Extinguishers: • Fire extinguisher shall be selected, installed and maintianed per IFC section 906.2 and NFPA 10 BBQ: • Open flame cooking devices are not allowed on combustible balconies or within 10 ft of combustible construction. • LP gas —cooking devices having a container less than 2 1/2 gallons of water capacity are allowed (nominal 1 pound LP -gas capacity) Obviously more information is needed and the above is an attempt to give the owners some options to address some of the issues that are unique to his property. If there are any questions or a need for more clarification , please feel free to contact me by my cell phone. Kevin C. Whelan Fire Marshal- Rifle Area Colorado River Fire Rescue 1850 Railroad Ave Rifle, CO 81650 kewhelan@riflefiredept.org Office- 970-625-1243 ext 12 Fax- 970-625-2963 Cell -970-618-7388 " We are dedicated to protecting life, home, and property through leadership, education and partnerships. Safety is our highest priority." 2 David Bartholomew From: Kevin Whelan [kewhelan@riflefiredept.org] Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2012 4:55 PM To: 'Clint Bartels' Cc: orrin.moon@burningmountainsfire.org; samisbmo7@gmail.com; wcecsinc@gmail.com; ckouray@yahoo.com; David Bartholomew; Andy Schwaller; 'Chad Harris'; 'Mike Morgan'; 'Brit McLin' Subject: RE: summation of Jolly -Potter Ranch meeting on 9/13/12 Clint, Below is the summation of a meeting I had with the Potter Ranch folks. From our conversation it appears that they have chosen to go with a fully compliant local NFPA 72 system for the entire building as a trade off for any fire sprinkler requirements. This specific property would have challenges in providing fire sprinklers or fire alarm monitoring due to its remoteness and lack of year round access. As such, the goal of the fire alarm system is to get all the people out of the building before a fire has a chance to grow. The owner accepts the possibility of a loss of property and has been advised to contact his insurance company. Colorado River Fire Rescue believes this is a reasonable trade off that allows the owner flexibility on the use of his property. If you have any questions or concerns , please let me know Kevin C. Whelan Fire Marshal- Rifle Area Colorado River Fire Rescue 1850 Railroad Ave Rifle, CO 81650 kewhelan@riflefiredept.org Office- 970-625-1243 ext 12 Fax- 970-625-2963 Cell -970-618-7388 " We are dedicated to protecting life, home, and property through leadership, education and partnerships. Safety is our highest priority." From: Kevin Whelan [mailto:kewhelan@riflefiredept.org] Sent: Sunday, September 16, 2012 6:42 PM To: 'samisbmo7@gmail.com'; 'wcecsinc@gmail.com'; 'ckouray@yahoo.com'; David Bartholomew (dbartholomew@garfield-county.com); 'Andy Schwaller' Cc: 'Mike Morgan'; 'Chad Harris'; orrin.moon@burningmountainsfire.org Subject: summation of Jolly -Potter Ranch meeting on 9/13/12 Folks, The following is a summation of the meeting that was held at Fire Station 41, Colorado River Fire Rescue on September 13, 2012. The purpose of this meeting was to lay out the options for the current and future use of the proposed Pavilion building now under construction as well as to satisfy the fire districts requirements related to Garfield County Resolution 2005-23. All information is based off the current edition of the 2009 IFC. Note: This property is in a remote area of the fire district -45 minute drive from nearest fire station and without year round road access Occupant Load: • County has allowed daily use of the property not to exceed 250 persons and no more than 34 overnight guests. • The current occupant load for the pavilion building, assign by the architect and the county, is 24. 1 • A rough estimate of the potential for just the meeting room occupant load, using unconcentrated chairs and tables, is 86. • If the occupant load goes over 100, an A-2 occupancy would then be required to have fire sprinklers. Fire Protection Water supply: • County has a limit of 8 dwelling units and a limited total of 14 structures for the resort • It would be impractical to provide the minimum amount of fire protection water per IFC Appendix B (180,000 gallons) • Applying NFPA 1142, the rough estimate of water needed would be 17,698 gallons • It is estimated that 2,574 gallons of water are available in the 4" line that runs for % of a mile. o This is fed by a minimum of 1/2 cfm (250 gpm)- year round o Connections are 2" cam locks and there are 3 "hydrants" serving the current buildings, including the one under construction. • The owner is proposing to build a 10,000 gallon pond right next to the pavilion building that is under construction o It appears that access, draft height and adeqaute distance to and from the building is being considered and would be acceptable. o Water from a spring over flow will be used for a water source to keep the pond full o Pond should be engineered as experience has shown that leakage, evaporation and freezing can present problems. • The owners does have other water sources that may be able to be used for fire protection water or shuttle operations Fire Sprinklers ( if required): • It appears fire sprinklers would be impractical for this property • The fire district would be willingly to waive any fire sprinkler requirment in lieu of a local fire alarm system that is installed, tested and maintained per NFPA 72 requirements. The thought is to protect the lives and have the owner accept the risks for proper y protection o An insurance company should be consulted before final acceptance by the owner. • FYI- If this building exceeded 7500 sq ft with the type of construction it has (type V), it appears that fire sprinklers would also be required Fire alarm • Local smoke and carbon monoxide(CO) detectors will be required. Fire district recommends combination photoelectric /ionization/CO detectors. • Installation of fire sprinklers, if required, would require a monitored fire alarm system • Remote monitoring of any fire alarm system would present some challenges Kitchen extinguishing system: • The owner has agreed through the county that there will be no cooking that produces "grease laden vapors". Thus a class 1 hood and kitchen fire extinguishing system will not be required Fire Extinguishers: • Fire extinguisher shall be selected, installed and maintianed per IFC section 906.2 and NFPA 10 BBQ: • Open flame cooking devices are not allowed on combustible balconies or within 10 ft of combustible construction. • LP gas —cooking devices having a container less than 2 %] gallons of water capacity are allowed (nominal 1 pound LP -gas capacity) Obviously more information is needed and the above is an attempt to give the owners some options to address some of the issues that are unique to his property. If there are any questions or a need for more clarification , please feel free to contact me by my cell phone. Kevin C. Whelan Fire Marshal- Rifle Area Colorado River Fire Rescue 2 1850 Railroad Ave 'Rifle, CO 81650 kewhelan@riflefiredept.org Office- 970-625-1243 ext 12 Fax- 970-625-2963 Cell -970-618-7388 " We are dedicated to protecting life, home, and property through leadership, education and partnerships. Safety is our highest priority." 3 David Bartholomew From: David Bartholomew Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 3:03 PM To: Kevin Whelan; 'Chris K'; 'Sam Potter' Cc: samuel.potterlll@wpxenergy.com; kpotmac@yahoo.com; 'Sam Potter'; Andy Schwaller; orrin.moon@burningmountainsfire.org; mimorgan@riflefiredept.org; Brit McLin; Matt Provost; Jim Wilson Subject: RE: Occupancy limits/ fire code issues Good Afternoon Everyone, Upon review of the occupant load and fire protection concerns stated below, the Garfield County Building Department offers the following comments: Items # 1, #2. The occupant load calculations in Chris Krabacher's November 9, 2012 correspondence were reviewed and approved as submitted, Items #3, #4. Smoke alarms shall be Listed UL 217 and installed in accordance with 2009 IBC, Section 907.2.11.1 through 907.2.11.4 and NFPA 72 for R 1 occupancies. The building department would appreciate the Rifle Fire Protection District to confirm compliance with NFPA 72. Item #5. A fire alarm system will not be required for R 1 occupancies per 2009 IBC, Section 907.2.8.1, Exception 1. Items #6, #7. Water storage and fire extinguishers will be inspected and approved by the Rifle Fire Protection District. Thank you all for your time and input regarding these concerns. Feel free to forward any questions or comments. Best Regards, David David Bartholomew, Plans Examiner Garfield County Building & Planning 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Office: 970-945-8212 From: Kevin Whelan[mailto:kewhelan@riflefiredept.org] Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 11:59 AM To: 'Chris K'; 'Sam Potter' Cc: samuel.potterlII@wpxenergy.com; kpotmac@yahoo.com; 'Sam Potter'; David Bartholomew; Andy Schwaller; orrin.moon@burningmountainsfire.org; mimorgan@riflefiredept.org; Brit McLin Subject: FW: Occupancy limits/ fire code issues Sam, After speaking to Chris, I have reviewed the attached letter from him and the following are my comments: 1 1. The building official is ultimately responsible for assigning the occupant load limits and interpreting any provisions related to the International Building Code (IBC). As such, my guidance has only been advisory and the final determination will be from Garfield County Building Department. 2. With the reduced occupant load limit presented, no fire sprinklers or NFPA 72 fire alarm system will be required by the fire district. As we have discussed, any increases above the code required occupant load limits will need to be re -addressed as to the need & practicality of installing fire sprinklers and a NFPA 72 fire alarm system. 3. On page 2„ in the second paragraph it states that " the detectors are to be placed where directed by the fire inspector". I will be happy to assist you , but since this will not be a fire code required system , generally the building official determines detector placement. 4. In this same paragraph it states the detectors should be placed "in collusion/agreement with the installer & owner". All detectors need to be installed per manufacturers specifications, code specifications and approved by the Authority Having Jurisdiction (AHJ). As with #3, this will be the building official. 5. Since the fire alarm system will not be an NFPA 72 system, my office will not be involved in requiring any notification ("noise & lights") devices. As with # 4, what you do install will still need to meet manufacturers specifications, code specifications and be approved by the AHJ. 6. The Fire Protection water reservoir does need to be reviewed, inspected and tested by the fire district. Attached are our requirements. Plans to the fire district have not been submitted. Attached is the summary of our 9/13/12 meeting that initially addresses this. It appears the pond size has increased from 10,000 gallons to 48,000 gallons. As we spoke connections for our fire pumpers need to be addressed ( see attached standards) 7. The plans that were submitted to me (Construction Documents dated 4/05/12) do not have fire extinguishers noted on them so more information is needed verify the last paragraphs statemnets regarding fire extinguishers. I hope this continues to help move your project along and if there are any further questions for me please let me know. Also please let me know when we can test the fire protection water supply. With winter approaching this might present some challenges. Kevin C. Whelan Fire -Marshal— Rifie-Are. Colorado River Fire Rescue 1850 Railroad Ave Rifle, CO 81650 kewhelan@riflefiredept.org Office- 970-625-1243 ext 32 Fax- 970-625-2963 Cell -970-618-7388 " We are dedicated to protecting life, home, and property through leadership, education and partnerships. Safety is our highest priority." From: Sam Potter [mailto:samisbmo7@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2012 10:19 AM To: Kevin Whelan Cc: Terri Potter; samuel.potterlll@wpxenergv.com; Thomas W. Stuver; kootmac@vahoo.com; Chris K; Sam Potter samisbmo6@hug hes. net Subject: Occupancy limits/ fire code issues Kevin, Attached please find a letter from our architect Chris Krabacher regarding the occupancy limits of our new pavilion structure. We feel, after family discussions and meeting with our attorney Tom Stuver, that we can operate within these limits and anticipate that a sign would be posted on the premises indicating these limits for management and safety purposes. As I mentioned in a previous email, I think that what Acme Alarm designed 2 Was for the over 100 limit in response to a trade off of not sprinkling which is usually required over at the 100 limit and not needed at these levels. A copy of Mr. Krabacher's letter has also been forwarded to GARCO Building & Planning. We would appreciate your input on any concerns at these levels of occupancy you might have regarding this issue. Best regards, Sam Potter, Manager Jolley -Potter Ranches, LLC 3