Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCorrespondenceDave Argo From: Dave Argo Sent: Tuesday, November 5, 2019 11:05 AM To: ianmusick@msn.com; jsimonson@sgm-inc.com Cc: Andy Schwaller (aschwaller@garfield-county.com) Subject: Silt Farms/Spring Born - Permit #BLCO-10-19-6020 Attachments: Spring Born Fee Estimate.pdf Ian: In response to your phone message last week we have taken a closer look at probable permit and road impact fees for the new greenhouse + processing buildings to be built at 584 County Road 331 in Silt. Please refer to the summary attached to this email for a detailed breakdown of these expected fees which are summarized as follows: • Garfield County's Valuation of Total Building Costs: Greenhouse $5,342,803 Technical Building $3,107,888 Total Building Cost $8,450,691 • Building Permit Fees: Plan Review Fee $18,901.60 Permit Fee $29.079.40 Total Building Permit Fee $47,981.00* * Note: Septic System Permit Fee = $123.00 in addition to Building Permit Fee above. • Road Impact Fees: Greenhouse Building $ 0.00 Technical Building $19,892.30 Total Road Impact Fees $19,892.30 In addition to this preliminary estimate for these associated fees, we also identified the following items that will need to be addressed before we can perform our plan review and issue necessary permits: A. Structural Plans — 1. When do you expect to deliver (2) copies of the finalized structural plans from SGM Engineers and insert them into plan sets? As discussed previously, we can't proceed with our review until this is done. 2. Your Structural Engineer needs to verify that their own foundation plans and the steel building plans as noted below all comply with Garfield County requirements for snow & wind loads — (see items B and C below). B. Greenhouse Steel Building Plans — In reviewing the plans prepared by Nexus (Sheet GH -0.0) the snow load requirements for this structure do not meet Garfield County minimum requirements. Roof snow Toad (Pf) = 40 psf (shown as 20 psf on drawings) and Ground Snow Load (or Pg) = 57 psf (shown as 35 psf). In addition, maximum Wind Load requirements = 115 mph Ultimate Speed (shown as 105 mph). Verify these requirements with Manufacturer and revise plans as necessary. C. Technical Steel Building Plans — 1. Similar to Greenhouse plans, the steel building plans as prepared by Rigid Global Buildings (Sheet C1) indicate Ground Snow Load (Pg) = 35 psf, and as noted above the correct value to meet Garfield County minimum requirements is 57 psf. Verify this requirement with the Manufacturer and revise plans as necessary. 2. It is clearly noted on Rigid's plans (Sheet C1) that the Technical Building is intended to be an independent structure from the Greenhouse and that "no structural tie-in is allowed". Structural Engineering foundation plans prepared by SGM shall provide details as to how that is to be accomplished in accordance with Manufacturer's requirements. D. Architectural Life Safety Plans — 1. Submitted plans do not reflect the layout of interior wall partitions as shown on Mechanical Plans, and interior walls may affect egress requirements — in particular, the walls at kitchen, break room & locker rooms. Please update architectural floor plans to coordinate with Mechanicals, and update egress/exiting calculations as necessary. 2. There are no Life Safety Plans provided for the Greenhouse, and we need to see that egress requirements and other issues have been addressed in this large size building. 3. The Architect has indicated that an unlimited building area is allowed per I.B.C., Section 503.1.1 which may, arguably, be applied to the 160,000 SF Greenhouse, but this allowance for unlimited building size does not also apply to inclusion of the Technical Building of an additional 47,600 SF. Refer to item C-2 above which clearly requires these structures to be independent and separate from one another. Architect should address this issue, including requirements for fire separation between adjacent buildings (Mixed -Use Occupancy vs. Agricultural/U Occupancy). E. Local Fire District Approval — We received a call from Orrin Moon at Colorado River Fire Rescue regarding the submitted plans which he said do not reflect his stated requirements. Please verify these requirements with Orrin and make any necessary revisions to drawings, as local fire District approval is one of our requirements before issuance of a building permit. Please note that these comments are only preliminary in nature as we have not performed an exhaustive review of submitted plans at this time. However, these items need to be addressed at your earliest opportunity so that we can proceed with our plan review once we have received this additional information from you and your consultants. Dave Argo Plans Examiner CGarfield County Community Development Department 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Tel: 970-945-8212 Ext. 1610 Email: dargo@garfield-county.com Web: garfield-county.com 2 49foriv h /siR Fa+r mg v5tiowl-Ae. PAszutt rimtiVmtotot 'Pivot feeg Ib/3J/2om 6,1 [)Aare Ado A. 6YMW► k 94 — a U ` ec6N /60k . -I' N, Ty pc ; 31-S 110)e10 x 4'44.17 1 11412.) 603 t3. Tth. "Id - Coh 5fweifioo ryp • F-2 Occuplimeli 411 275 x `8 103,3. • 5-2 6catemvvi 3/ -no )4 4157.97 a 26, 4446, • B beeht o 41 711000 3 (b&.54, s 95 IP 4 2) &151 T roti ► Goa+ (vittooL400) 277) n 0 . � 400, �t I ,b0 41 ? vrwf Flot5: Krlf MiIIibi 9 Go1mt1V°'olA 49t9About 11 Milliev► : 1115O)£gI 1000.7)4 1 x63.15= Pzv •P�(,L. PI/ch C('4 op Pzunif Itc,) '3107 9fi6. 45) Lo.t.75 423)470.6,5 414014.40 31Q)'o►•GO l t l I3w;I64 k rte+ F4 *ft itirvi %title) �stiwwf�- Pcud �►»� Faa Io/gI/ by Dstvc. �v�o A. eivakiiivose, frig,/No Varvt i w. c f4'3 Ted,k 13(.41 F oidAiloom Ati 9-7 0 3,770 *al 4r4& 444) 445 —d r 4A)40 = DODO = 4.41.445 x45-701.= 417) d5.io Po yez 6444 Oar Sativv u9' 214to Iioc '2.b x °loon. _ 426 .20 TVTAL 59444.1f4, motetl— FRA va 4,(41)84Z.3o 108.8 - 109.6 TABLE 1-A reinspection fee in accordance with Table 1-A or as set forth in the fee schedule adopted by the jurisdiction. In instances where reinspection fees have been assessed, no additional inspection of the work will be performed until the re- quired fees have been paid. SECTION 109 - CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY 109.1 Use and Occupancy. No building -or structure shall be used or occupied, and no change in the existing occupancy classi- fication of a building or structure or portion thereof shall be made until the building official has issued a certificate of occupancy therefor as provided herein. EXCEPTION: Group R, Division 3 and Group U Occupancies. Issuance of a certificate of occupancy shall not be construed as an approval of a violation of the provisions of this code or of other ordinances of the jurisdiction. Certificates presuming to give au- thority to violate or cancel the provisions of this code or other ordi- nances of the jurisdiction shall not be valid. 109.2 Change in Use. Changes in the character or use of a build- ing shall not be made except as specified in Section 3405 of this code. 109.3 Certificate Issued. After the building official inspects the building or structure and finds no Violations of the provisions of this code or other laws that are enforced by the code enforcement agency, the building official shall issue a certificate of occupancy that shall contain the following: 1997 UNIFORM BUILDING CJDE 1. The building permit number. 2. The address of the building. 3. The name and address of the owner. 4. A description of that portion of the building for which the certificate is issued. 5. A statement that the described portion of the building has been inspected for compliance with the requirements of this code for the group and division of occupancy and the use for which the proposed occupancy is classified. 6. The name of the building official. 109.4 Temporary Certificate. If the building official finds that no substantial hazard will result from occupancy of any building or portion thereof before the same is completed, a temporary cer- tificate of occupancy may be issued for the use of a portion or por- tions of a building or structure prior to the completion of the entire building or structure. 109.5 Posting. The certificate of occupancy shall, be posted in a conspicuous place on the premises and shall not be removed ex- cept by [he building official. 109.6 Revocation. The building official may, in writing, sus- pend or revoke a certificate of occupancy issued under the provi- sions of this code whenever the certificate is issued in error, or on the basis of incorrect information supplied, or when it is deter- mined that the building or structure or portion thereof is in viola- tion of any ordinance or regulation or any of the provisions of this code. TABLE 1 -A -BUILDING PERMIT FEES TOTAL VALUATION S 1.00 to 5500.00 $501.00 to $2,000.00 52,001.00 to $25,000.00 525,001.00 to 550,000.00 5- 50,001.00 to 5100,000.00 5100,001.00 tQ.5500,000.00 5500,001.00 to 51,000,000.00 $1,000,001.00 and up O- ther Inspections and Pets: 1. Inspections outside of normal business hours (minimum charge --two hours) 2. Reinspection fees assessed under provisions of Sections 305.8 3. Inspections for which no fee is specifically indicated (minimum charge -one-half hour) 4. Additional plan review required by changes, additions or revisions to plans (minimum charge --one-half hour) 5. For use of outside consultants for plan checking and inspections, or both 10r the total hourly cost to the jurisdiction, whichever is the greatest This cost shall include supervision, overhead, equipment, hourly wages and fringe benefits of the employees involved. 2Actual costs include administrative and overhead costs. 523.50 FEE 523.50 for the first 5500.00 plus 53.05 for each additional 5100.00, or fraction thereof, to and including 52,000.00 569.25 for the first 52,000.00 plus 514.00 for each additional 51,000.00, or fraction thereof, to and including S25,000.00 5391.25 for the first 525,000.00 plus 510.10 for each additional $1,000.00, or fraction thereof, to and including S50,000.00 $643.75 for the first 550,000.00 plus $7.00 for each additional 51,000.00, or fraction thereof, to and including $100,000.00 5993.75 for the fust 5100.000.00 plus 55.60 for each additional $1,000.00, or fraction thereof, to and including 3500.000.00 $3,233.75 for the first 5500,000.00 plus $4.75 for each additional 51,000.00, or fraction thereof, to and including $1,000.000.00 55,608.75 for the first 51,000,000.00 plus 53.15 for each additional $1,000.00, or fraction thereof 547.00 per hours • • 547.00 per hours 547.00 per hour( 547.00 per hours Actual costs2 1-6 r1Qev1 `fief. ►5 657 o1 pey04Lf 4 TABLE i SQUARE FOOT CONSTRUCTION COSTS"' Group 2003 International Building Code A-1 A-2 A-2 A-3 A-4 B E F-1 F-2 H-1 H-2, -3, -4 H-5 I-1 1-2 1-3 1-4 M Assembly, theaters, with stage Assembly, theaters, without stage Assembly, nightclubs Assembly, restaurants, bars, banquet halls Assembly, churches Assembly, general, community halls, libraries, museums Assembly, arenas Business Educational Factory and industrial, moderate hazard Factory and industrial, low hazard High Hazard, explosives High hazard HPM Institutional, supervised environment Institutional, incapacitated Institutional, restrained Institutional, day care facilities Mercantile R-1 R-2 R-3 R-4 Residential, hotels Residential, multiple family Residential, one- and two-family Residential, care/assisted living facilities S-1 Storage, moderate hazard S-2 1 Storage, low hazard U Utility, Miscellaneous Nob- • Garages Lisa,sa:llanepus Note b. lirifir,shca u ' 'r use. 0rwp1 - 615.00 per sq. R Note c N.P = • rmrtted Type of Construction . IA IB IIA IIB IIIA IIIB IV VA VB '160.69 153.29 149.76 143.55 133.59 132.90 138.98 123.75 119.25 148.41 141.02 137.48 131.28 121.31 120.63 126.71 111.47 106.98 118.34 115.03 112.14 107.94 100.98 99.75 104.00 91.98 88.94 117.34 114.03 110.14 106.94 98.98 98.75 103.00 89.98 87.94 149.66 142.27 138.73 132.52 122.51 121.82 127.96 112.67 108.17 119.71 111.78 107.24 102.03 91.08 91.39 97.46 81.24 77.74 117.34 114.03 110.14 106.94 98.98 98.75 103.00 89.98 87.94 119.85 115.54 111.79 106.56 95.15 94.65 102.31 84.79 81.61 128.37 124.05 120.50 115.17 106.24 103.73 111.36 94.92 91.38 74.13 70.68 66.42 64.36 55.62 56.61 61.75 47.42 45.06 73.13 69.68 66.42 63.36 55.62 55.61 60.75 47.42 44.06 69.75 66.29 63.04 59.97 52.43 52.42 57.36 44.23 N.P. a 69.75 6629 63.04 59.97 52.43 52.42 57.36 44.23 40.88 -I 119.85 115.54 111.79 106.56 95.15 94.65 102.31 84.79 81.61 119.19 115.10 112.01 107.47 98.61 98.56 104.22 90.64 87.06 200.36 196.04 192.30 187.07 175.32 N.P. 182.81 164.96 N.P. 137.99 133.67 129.93 124.70 114.47 112.98 120.44 104.12 98.94 119.19 115.10 112.01 107.47 98.61 98.56 10422 90.64 87.06 88.15 84.63 80.95 77.74 70.26 70.02 73.81 61.26 59.22 120.33 11624 113.15 108.61 99.80 99.75 105.41 91.83 88.25 100.33 96.24 93.15 68.61 79.95 79.90 85.56 71.98 68.40 96.19 93.52 91.22 88.71 84.51 84.30 8722 80.46 74.68 119.19 115.10 112.01 107.47 98.61 98.56 104.22 90.64 87.06 68.75 65.29 61.04 58.97 50.43 51.42 56.36 42.23 39.88 67.75 6429 61.04 57.97 50.43 50.42 55.36 4223 38.65 5228 49.43 46.49 44.17 38.31 38.31 41.69 31.50 29,99 Dave Argo From: Dave Argo Sent: Wednesday, November 6, 2019 7:44 AM To: Ian Musick; jsimonson@sgm-inc.com Cc: Andy Schwaller (aschwaller@garfield-county.com) Subject: RE: Silt Farms/Spring Born - Permit #BLCO-10-19-6020 Ian: We need for these corrections to be addressed before we can conduct our comprehensive review of these plans. Most importantly, we need for the "final" Structural plans to be submitted and inserted into the plan sets (either by you or your repro company) prior to our final review. Other items we identified in our preliminary review are provided as a courtesy, but they represent issues which also must be addressed before we can finalize our plan review. I'd suggest that you engage the various parties in crafting responses to these issues at this time, and if you can consolidate these into a comprehensive "Addendum" for submission to our office it will probably be the most straightforward way to respond. Other issues may arise during our final plan review, but please respond to the issues already identified at this time. Also, I will be out of the office for an extended medical leave following surgery beginning next Monday, so in all likelihood it will be Andy Schwaller, our chief Building Official, who will be conducting our plan review of this project. I have discussed this project extensively with Andy and he has been copied on our correspondence to date. Thanks for your attention to this matter. Dave Argo Plans Examiner . Garfield County Community Development Department 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Tel: 970-945-8212 Ext. 1610 Email: dargo@garfield-county.com Web: garfield-county.com From: Ian Musick <ianmusick@msn.com> Sent: Tuesday, November 5, 2019 1:32 PM To: Dave Argo <dargo@garfield-county.com>; jsimonson@sgm-inc.com Cc: Andy Schwaller <aschwaller@garfield-county.com> Subject: RE: [External] Silt Farms/Spring Born - Permit #BLCO-10-19-6020 Dave, Thank you very much for your considerable information below. Do you wish me to send the commentary to the associated parties for correction, or would you recommend waiting for formal redline responses under one effort? Thank you Sir! Best Regards, Ian Musick, Principal MUSICK -BUILT LTD - "A Legacy of Integrity" Dave Argo From: Dave Argo Sent: Monday, December 16, 2019 11:28 AM To: Ian Musick Cc: Andy Schwaller (aschwaller@garfield-county.com) Subject: RE: Silt Farms/Spring Born - Permit #BLCO-10-19-6020 Ian: Thanks for the update on the Spring Born project. In regard to your planned submittal date, all Garfield County offices will be closed on Monday — Wednesday of next week (Dec. 23-25) for the Christmas holidays so you may need to adjust your schedule accordingly. The following week our office will be closed on Wednesday (New Year's Day) and we will have abbreviated hours on Tuesday (New Year's Eve). We will be back up and running full time beginning on Thursday, January 2. We'll look forward to seeing your new plans upon our return from the holiday break. Happy Holidays! Dave Argo Plans Examiner C.-. Garfield County Community Development Department 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Tel: 970-945-8212 Ext. 1610 Email: dargo@garfield-county.com Web: garfield-county.com From: Ian Musick <ianmusick@msn.com> Sent: Monday, December 16, 2019 10:44 AM To: Dave Argo <dargo@garfield-county.com>; jsimonson@sgm-inc.com Cc: Andy Schwaller <aschwaller@garfield-county.com> Subject: RE: [External] Silt Farms/Spring Born - Permit #BLCO-10-19-6020 Hi Dave, I wanted to take a minute to update you on the status of the Spring Born submittal. We performed a pricing exercise for the owner Charles Barr back in early November. The budget was very much higher than the business model would support. As such, we have spent the balance of November removing a lot of scope. We now anticipate design associated with the scope reduction will be complete by the end of this week. I am therefore assigned to submit the revised design to your department immediately following. If it is agreeable, I would like to submit a new plan set in its entirety as the changes range all disciplines and likely affect most sheets you now have. The basic design remains fully intact, but largely reduced. With this in mind, I will have reprographics print two new sets on Monday morning and bring them to your office sometime the afternoon of the 23rd. Please let me know if this is acceptable. My thanks in advance! Best Regards, 1 Ian Musick, Principal MUSICK -BUILT LTD - "A Legacy of Integrity" 720-620-1177 www.musickbuilt.info From: Dave Argo Sent: Tuesday, November 5, 2019 11:06 AM To: ianmusick@msn.com; isimonson@sgm-inc.com Cc: Andy Schwaller Subject: Silt Farms/Spring Born - Permit #BLCO-10-19-6020 lan: In response to your phone message last week we have taken a closer look at probable permit and road impact fees for the new greenhouse + processing buildings to be built at 584 County Road 331 in Silt. Please refer to the summary attached to this email for a detailed breakdown of these expected fees which are summarized as follows: • Garfield County's Valuation of Total Building Costs: Greenhouse $5,342,803 Technical Building 53.107,888 Total Building Cost $8,450,691 • Building Permit Fees: Plan Review Fee $18,901.60 Permit Fee $29,079.40 Total Building Permit Fee $47,981.00* * Note: Septic System Permit Fee = $123.00 in addition to Building Permit Fee above. • Road Impact Fees: Greenhouse Building $ 0.00 Technical Building $19,892.30 Total Road Impact Fees $19,892.30 In addition to this preliminary estimate for these associated fees, we also identified the following items that will need to be addressed before we can perform our plan review and issue necessary permits: A. Structural Plans — 1. When do you expect to deliver (2) copies of the finalized structural plans from SGM Engineers and insert them into plan sets? As discussed previously, we can't proceed with our review until this is done. 2. Your Structural Engineer needs to verify that their own foundation plans and the steel building plans as noted below all comply with Garfield County requirements for snow & wind loads — (see items B and C below). B. Greenhouse Steel Building Plans — In reviewing the plans prepared by Nexus (Sheet GH -0.0) the snow load requirements for this structure do not meet Garfield County minimum requirements. Roof snow load (Pf) = 40 psf (shown as 20 psf on drawings) and Ground Snow Load (or Pg) = 57 psf (shown as 35 psf). In addition, maximum Wind Load requirements = 115 mph Ultimate Speed (shown as 105 mph). Verify these requirements with Manufacturer and revise plans as necessary. C. Technical Steel Building Plans — 1. Similar to Greenhouse plans, the steel building plans as prepared by Rigid Global Buildings (Sheet C1) indicate Ground Snow Load (Pg) = 35 psf, and as noted above the correct value to meet Garfield County minimum requirements is 57 psf. Verify this requirement with the Manufacturer and revise plans as necessary. 2. It is clearly noted on Rigid's plans (Sheet C1) that the Technical Building is intended to be an independent structure from the Greenhouse and that "no structural tie-in is allowed". Structural Engineering foundation plans prepared by SGM shall provide details as to how that is to be accomplished in accordance with Manufacturer's requirements. 2 D. Architectural Life Safety Plans — 1. Submitted plans do not reflect the layout of interior wall partitions as shown on Mechanical Plans, and interior walls may affect egress requirements — in particular, the walls at kitchen, break room & locker rooms. Please update architectural floor plans to coordinate with Mechanicals, and update egress/exiting calculations as necessary. 2. There are no Life Safety Plans provided for the Greenhouse, and we need to see that egress requirements and other issues have been addressed in this large size building. 3. The Architect has indicated that an unlimited building area is allowed per I.B.C., Section 503.1.1 which may, arguably, be applied to the 160,000 SF Greenhouse, but this allowance for unlimited building size does not also apply to inclusion of the Technical Building of an additional 47,600 SF. Refer to item C-2 above which clearly requires these structures to be independent and separate from one another. Architect should address this issue, including requirements for fire separation between adjacent buildings (Mixed -Use Occupancy vs. Agricultural/U Occupancy). E. Local Fire District Approval — We received a call from Orrin Moon at Colorado River Fire Rescue regarding the submitted plans which he said do not reflect his stated requirements. Please verify these requirements with Orrin and make any necessary revisions to drawings, as local Fire District approval is one of our requirements before issuance of a building permit. Please note that these comments are only preliminary in nature as we have not performed an exhaustive review of submitted plans at this time. However, these items need to be addressed at your earliest opportunity so that we can proceed with our plan review once we have received this additional information from you and your consultants. Dave Argo Plans Examiner Garfield County Community Development Department 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Tel: 970-945-8212 Ext. 1610 Email: dargo@garfield-county.com Web: garfield-county.com 3 Dave Argo From: Dave Argo Sent: Friday, December 20, 2019 8:54 AM To: Ian Musick Cc: bwinschell@garfield-county.com; Lindsay Krol; Andy Schwaller (aschwaller@garfield- county.com) Subject: RE: Silt Farms/Spring Born - Permit #BLCO-10-19-6020 Ian: That will work fine, and I will let Brooke & Lindsay at our front desk know to expect this package from you next week. Once we receive these new amended plans from you we should be able to begin our plan review after the first of the New Year. Has ownership change of this property now been completed? If so, please send us a copy of the warranty deed — please copy Brooke & Lindsay on that — and we will reflect the ownership change on our end (from Dixon Water Foundation to the new entity). Thanks & Happy Holidays! Dave Argo Plans Examiner . Garfield County Community Development Department 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Tel: 970-945-8212 Ext. 1610 Email: dargo@garfield-county.com Web: garfield-county.com From: Ian Musick <ianmusick@msn.com> Sent: Friday, December 20, 2019 8:23 AM To: Dave Argo <dargo@garfield-county.com> Subject: RE: [External] Silt Farms/Spring Born Permit #BLCO-10-19-6020 Hi Dave, Is there any possibility that my office could send by overnight currier to your office our new plans for submittal to be received by you on Dec. 27? 1 realize you will not begin review until Jan 02, but that way it is in your possession for that purpose. I was not sure a currier delivery would be acceptable, but given holiday traffic on 1-70 we were hoping to streamline your possession of the new plans. Thank you in advance and Happy Holidays to you! Best Regards, Ian Musick, Principal MUSICK -BUILT LTD - "A Legacy of Integrity" 720-620-1177 www.musickbuilt.info 1 Dave Argo From: lan Musick <ianmusick@msn.com> Sent: Sunday, December 22, 2019 11:42 AM To: Dave Argo Cc: Brooke Winschell; Lindsay Krol; Andy Schwaller Subject: RE: [External] Silt Farms/Spring Born - Permit #BLCO-10-19-6020 Hi Dave, Thanks for the accommodation on the submittal. I will have them printed Monday and shipped to your office. I will select shipping appropriate to having it delivered on the 27th if possible. Have a great holiday and thanks again! Best Regards, Ian Musick, Principal MUSICK -BUILT LTD - "A Legacy of Integrity" 720-620-1177 www.musickbuilt.info From: Dave Argo Sent: Friday, December 20, 2019 8:54 AM To: Ian Musick Cc: Brooke Winschell; Lindsay Krol; Andy Schwaller Subject: RE: Silt Farms/Spring Born - Permit #BLCO-10-19-6020 Ian: That will work fine, and I will let Brooke & Lindsay at our front desk know to expect this package from you next week. Once we receive these new amended plans from you we should be able to begin our plan review after the first of the New Year. Has ownership change of this property now been completed? If so, please send us a copy of the warranty deed — please copy Brooke & Lindsay on that — and we will reflect the ownership change on our end (from Dixon Water Foundation to the new entity). Thanks & Happy Holidays! Dave Argo Plans Examiner CN._. Garfield County Community Development Department 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Tel: 970-945-8212 Ext. 1610 Email: dargo@garfield-county.com Web: garfield-county.com From: Ian Musick <ianmusick@msn.com> Sent: Friday, December 20, 2019 8:23 AM 1 Colorado River Fire Rescue 1850 Railroad Avenue • Rifle, Colorado 81650 Telephone: (970) 625-1243 • Fax: (970) 625-2963 • www.crfr.us Jerry Burgess December 30, 2019 Ref: Spring Born Plan Review Jerry, The following is my plan review comments/requirements based on our meetings and my plan review: 1. Building shall have code compliance address number attached to building that can be seen from CR 331. 2015 IFC, 505.1. 2. All access roads shall be all weather driving surface and build to support the weight of fire apparatus, an access road shall be added to the East side of the building that ties to both access roads shown on plans. A 30' inside turning radius on a 20 -foot access road is required. 2015 IFC, Section 503. 3. Outside access doors for emergencies are requested in green house. Access points will be determined at future meeting. Knox Key Box is required to be installed on building in an approved location. Knox Box shall house keys needed for any and all access points in the building. 2015 IFC, Section 504 and 506. 4. NFPA 704 signage to hazard shall be posted at entrances to building if appropriate. MSDS paperwork shall be kept updated and stored in an approved location. 2015 IFC, Section 407.1-5. 5. A NFPA 13 Fire Sprinkler system is required in Technical Building. Sprinkler system shall be designed to an Ordinary Hazard Group II with 90 minutes of water supply for the sprinkler system. Any storage above 12' in height and or change of commodities will increase the hazard and water supply required for the system. Fire Department Connections (FDC) are require at a location to be determined by my office. Knox FDC caps/plugs are required to be installed on FDC. Any fire pump room or building, along with riser room shall have signage on doors identifying the use of the space. Fire sprinkler system and water supply for sprinkler shall be installed to NFPA 13 and maintained to NFPA 25. 2015 IFC, 903.2, Table A- amended. 6. Sprinkler system shall have a monitored fire alarm system with sprinkler flow notification through the building, IFC, Section 903.4. Fire alarm shall have one white strobe for water flow and one amber strobe for additional alarm activations. Fire alarm panel shall have two cooper phone lines installed for the monitoring of the fire/sprinkler system. Mission Statement: "WE ARE DEDICATED TO PROTECTING LIFE, HOME, AND PROPERTY THROUGH LEADERSHIP EDUCATION AND PARTNERSHIPS." Colorado River Fire Rescue 1850 Railroad Avenue • Rifle, Colorado 81650 Telephone: (970) 625-1243 • Fax: (970) 625-2963 • www.crfr.us 7. Underground Fire Sprinkler piping and shall comply with NFPA 13 chapter 10 and shall be installed by a State approved contractor. Underground sprinkler piping shall be ductile Iron pipe from 5' outside the building to inside the building and then up through the floor to the sprinkler riser. All joints and trust blocking shall meet NFPA 13/24. Underground installation inspection, underground flush, and underground Hydrostatic tests shall be witnessed by this office. Fire Pump shall comply with NFPA 20 and sprinkler water storage tank shall comply with NFPA 22. 8. At completion of plant and green house facility, Spring Born Operations Manager should conduct walkthrough with CRFR personnel for pre -planning information on plant operations. 9. Fire extinguishers shall be installed according to NFPA 10. 2015 IFC Section 906. 10. Required fire suppression water supply, hydrants and storage will be added at a later date as per agreement in meeting with Charles Barr and Jerry Burgess. Any addition to building or green houses can require fire suppression prior to C of 0 of any additions. Please feel free to contact me with any questions or concerns. THANK YOU, 1 RRIN D MOON PREVENTION DiIVISION CHIEF/FIRE MARSHAL COLORADO RN£R FIRE RESCUE 970-625-1243 orrin.moon@crfr.us Mission Statement: "WE ARE DEDICATED TO PROTECTING LIFE, HOME, AND PROPERTY THROUGH LEADERSHIP EDUCATION AND PARTNERSHIPS." Dave Argo From: Orrin Moon <Orrin.Moon@Crfr.us> Sent: Monday, January 27, 2020 1:52 PM To: Dave Argo Subject: [External] Spring Born Production Facility Attachments: Review Comments 12-30-19.docx Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Dave, Here is my Spring Born review comments which they have agreed to. Please feel free to contact with with any questions. THANK YOU, ORRIN D. MOON PREVENTION DIVISION CHIEF/FIRE MARSHAL COLORADO RIVER EIRE RESCUE. 970-625-1243 OITin.moan@crfr.us EST2012 At COLORADO RIVER FINN av , uyb 1 rn� %� Evetpcne'a Dave Argo From: Dave Argo Sent: Thursday, January 2, 2020 4:30 PM To: lan Musick Cc: Andy Schwaller (aschwaller@garfield-county.com) Subject: Silt Farms - Amended Plans Attachments: Architect Seal Reqts.pdf Ian: We received the amended plans for Silt Farms last week and I have taken a quick overview of these plans. We will begin our plan review of this project in the next couple of weeks and should get back to you with our comprehensive plan review comments within the next couple of weeks. In the interim, we do have some questions for you: 1. What should we do with the (2) copies of the original submitted drawings? Do you want these back or should we place them in our paper recycling bin? 2. Shall we continue to process a separate Grading Permit? (as previously submitted in October) ... or should we simply process the Building & Septic System permits? 3. Barrier Free Accessibility does not appear to have been addressed on these plans — particularly as related to restroom fixtures, layout and spacing requirements — as per IBC, Chapter 11 and ICC A117.1 — 2009 Standard. In addition, there does not appear to be any information about interior finishes at restrooms and other interior spaces at the "Tech Building". Please have your Architect provide our office with additional information regarding these issues. 4. Wet Seal for all Architectural Drawings Sheets —The only sheets in the A -Series drawings that have been wet - sealed by a Colorado licensed Architect are the Code Review drawings. As per Colorado state statutes, all commercial buildings must be wet -sealed by a licensed Architect (see attachment). Please have all A -Series drawings wet -sealed and resubmit to our office for compliance with this state statute. As noted above we will be providing a more comprehensive summary of our plan review comments within the next couple of weeks. Thanks and Happy New Year! Dave Argo Plans Examiner Garfield County Community Development Department 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Tel: 970-945-8212 Ext. 1610 Email: dargo@garfield-county.com Web: garfield-county.com Hi Dave, Thanks for the accommodation on the submittal. I will have them printed Monday and shipped to your office. I will select shipping appropriate to having it delivered on the 27th if possible. Have a great holiday and thanks again! Best Regards, 1 Ian Musick, Principal MUSICK -BUILT LTD - "A Legacy of Integrity" 720-620-1177 www.musickbuilt.info From: Dave Argo Sent: Friday, December 20, 2019 8:54 AM To: Ian Musick Cc: Brooke Winschell; Lindsay Krol; Andy Schwaller Subject: RE: Silt Farms/Spring Born - Permit #BLCO-10-19-6020 Ian: That will work fine, and 1 will let Brooke & Lindsay at our front desk know to expect this package from you next week. Once we receive these new amended plans from you we should be able to begin our plan review after the first of the New Year. Has ownership change of this property now been completed? If so, please send us a copy of the warranty deed — please copy Brooke & Lindsay on that — and we will retlect the ownership change on our end (from Dixon Water Foundation to the new entity). Thanks & Happy Holidays! Dave Argo Plans Examiner .. Garfield County Community Development Department 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Tel: 970-945-8212 Ext. 1610 Email: dargo@garfield-county.com Web: garfield-county.com 2 COLORADO Department of Regulatory Agencies ihvi.ion of Professions and Occupations Business and Inspections Branch State Board of Licensure for Architects, Professional Engineers and Professional Land Surveyors Division of Professions and Occupations Local Officials' Guide to Architecture, Engineering & Land Surveying December 2015 SEALING AND SIGNING PROFESSIONAL WORK Licensed architects, professional engineers, and professional land surveyors are, and should be, responsible for their professional services in their respective areas of expertise. The public, as well as local officials, rely on the professional expertise of architects, engineers, and land surveyors. As a result, professional submissions such as construction documents must clearly show the identity of the licensed architect, engineer, or surveyor who prepared them by having affixed a seal and signature and otherwise complying with the requirements of state law. Without proper identification, ultimate responsibility for any deficiencies may not be clear. The law and applicable codes in Colorado require that professional submissions be signed and sealed by the licensed architect, engineer, or surveyor who prepared them or has taken responsible control/charge for them. The following paragraphs reflect the laws and the rules specifying the sealing requirements for architects, engineers, and land surveyors. Architects 7.1.2 Seal Application. A manual or electronic seal must be applied to the final reproduction of all of the following: * (a) Each sheet of architectural drawings. (b) The cover, title page, and table of contents of specifications bound in book form. (c) The title page of details bound in book form and prepared specifically to supplement project drawings. 7.1.3 Signature and Date Required. The manual or electronic signature of the licensee and date of signature shall be affixed to the document. The signature of the licensee and date of signature shall appear through the seal. 7.1.3.1 Signature May Be Required by Public Agencies. A public agency may require a manual or electronic signature of the licensee on reproductions. 7.1.4 Sealing Documents That Are Not Final. When a licensee seals architectural documents that are not final, the status of the architectural documents must be identified as preliminary. Further qualifying descriptors may be added, e.g. "for review," "not for construction," "for bid only." 7.1.5 Limiting Scope of Responsibility. Licensees shall only sign, date, and seal drawings, specifications, reports or other professional work for which they have direct professional knowledge and responsible control. When a licensee seals, signs, and dates a document, it is presumed that responsibility has been assumed for the entire document unless the seal is limited by a statement adjacent to the seal that accurately reflects the licensee's scope of responsibility for the document. Board Rule 7.1 Dave Argo From: Ian Musick <ianmusick@msn.com> Sent: Friday, January 3, 2020 8:44 AM To: Dave Argo Cc: Andy Schwaller; Billy Gargroetzi; Justin Trigg; Ben White; Charles Barr; A Dan Hand Subject: RE: [External] Silt Farms - Amended Plans Hi Dave, Thank you for the confirmation and precursory review. I will send commentary to the design team and await response from them. Also regarding the former submittal, please send them to your paper recycling bin as we have no need of them. Regarding Item No 2. Please process the separate grading permit in the event we could start site work prior to full permit should redlines become any issue. I realize we need to send you Warranty Deed showing new ownership and Storm water permit from CDPHE for the grading permit to become useable. We are processing those currently. Appreciate the correspondence, and let me know if I can be of further assistance. Best Regards, Ian Musick, Principal MUSICK -BUILT LTD - "A Legacy of Integrity" 720-620-1177 www.musickbuilt.info From: Dave Argo Sent: Thursday, January 2, 2020 4:30 PM To: Ian Musick Cc: Andy Schwaller Subject: Silt Farms - Amended Plans Ian: We received the amended plans for Silt Farms last week and I have taken a quick overview of these plans. We will begin our plan review of this project in the next couple of weeks and should get back to you with our comprehensive plan review comments within the next couple of weeks. In the interim, we do have some questions for you: 1. What should we do with the (2) copies of the original submitted drawings? Do you want these back or should we place them in our paper recycling bin? 2. Shall we continue to process a separate Grading Permit? (as previously submitted in October) ... or should we simply process the Building & Septic System permits? 3. Barrier Free Accessibility does not appear to have been addressed on these plans — particularly as related to restroom fixtures, layout and spacing requirements — as per IBC, Chapter 11 and ICC A117.1 — 2009 Standard. In addition, there does not appear to be any information about interior finishes at restrooms and other interior spaces at the "Tech Building". Please have your Architect provide our office with additional information regarding these issues. 4. Wet Seal for all Architectural Drawings Sheets — The only sheets in the A -Series drawings that have been wet - sealed by a Colorado licensed Architect are the Code Review drawings. As per Colorado state statutes, all 1 commercial buildings must be wet -sealed by a licensed Architect (see attachment). Please have all A -Series drawings wet -sealed and resubmit to our office for compliance with this state statute. As noted above we will be providing a more comprehensive summary of our plan review comments within the next couple of weeks. Thanks and Happy New Year! Dave Argo Plans Examiner C\.Garfield County Community Development Department 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Tel: 970-945-8212 Ext. 1610 t mad: dargo(ugarfield-county.com Web: garfield-county.com Hi Dave, Thanks for the accommodation on the submittal. I will have them printed Monday and shipped to your office. I will select shipping appropriate to having it delivered on the 27th if possible. Have a great holiday and thanks again! Best Regards, Ian Musick, Principal MUSICK -BUILT LTD - "A Legacy of Integrity" 720-620-1177 www.musickbuilt.info From: Dave Argo Sent: Friday, December 20, 2019 8:54 AM To: Ian Musick Cc: Brooke Winschell; Lindsay Krol; Andy Schwaller Subject: RE; Silt Farms/Spring Born - Permit #BLCO-10-19-6020 Ian: That will work fine, and I will let Brooke & Lindsay at our front desk know to expect this package from you next week. Once we receive these new amended plans from you we should be able to begin our plan review after the first of the New Year. Has ownership change of this property now been completed? If so, please send us a copy of the warranty deed — please copy Brooke & Lindsay on that — and we will reflect the ownership change on our end (from Dixon Water Foundation to the new entity). Thanks & Happy Holidays! Dave Argo Plans Examiner C. Garfield County 2 Dave Argo From: Dave Argo Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2020 8:44 AM To: Kurt Carruth Cc: Andy Schwaller (aschwaller@garfield-county.com) Subject: RE: Spring Born Farms Kurt: It's interesting that you too got this call from Charles Barr about this project, as I did also on my No Name Architects phone line voicemail ... obviously he doesn't realize that I am also the Plans Examiner who met with him several months ago when he and his contractor first stopped by our office to discuss this project. Evidently he is currently on a "fishing expedition" to find a local Architect to essentially wet seal (and thereby take on professional liability) for the Architectural portion of a very large greenhouse + attached processing/office building that is approx. 160,000 SF in size altogether. I am just now starting my technical review of these plans, but I have previously contacted the contractor telling him that as per Colorado state statutes the Building Dept. requires all Architectural drawing sheets included in the Building Permit drawings to be stamped by a Colorado licensed Architect. This statute applies to all commercial structures when occupancy exceeds 10 people. Although a Crested Butte Architect has already wet -sealed the Building Code/Life Safety drawing sheets, the remaining Architectural drawings — and overall coordination of joining these 2 steel buildings together — requires single -source responsibility and wet -sealing of all Architectural drawing sheets as taken on by a Colorado Architect. I'm not sure if this type of commercial building responsibility is something you are willing to take on, as I don't recall seeing any commercial work from your office over the past 3 % years while in my current role. If you are like most Architects in the Valley who specialize in residential projects, it probably isn't a good fit for you, but that's obviously your decision to make. At this point, it would be premature for me to sit down with you because I really need to complete my technical review before I can really offer you much more information. But let me know if you want me to contact you once I get through my initial review and I'll be back in touch. Dave Argo Plans Examiner e-. - Garfield County Community Development Department 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Tel: 970-945-8212 Ext. 1610 Email: dargo@garfield-caunty.com Web: garfield-county.com Dave Argo From: Kurt Carruth <kurt@hinge-architects.com> Sent: Monday, January 13, 2020 4:18 PM To: Dave Argo Subject: [External] Spring Born Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed Hi Dave: I got a call from a guy, Charles Barr who is working on a project in Silt - Spring Born Farm? He said that he needs some help with some of thee permitting process. Could I come over maybe Wednesday afternoon for a quick meeting on what needs to happen for the permit? He is saying that the commercial building needs a bit of information before permit can be issued? Let me know if Wednesday after 2 or anytime Thursday / Friday works. Thanks - Kurt Carruth, architect hingeARCHITECTS, Ltd. 812 grand avenue, ste. 201 gws, co. 81601 c:970-309-4432 www.hinge-architects.com 1 Dave Argo From: Dave Argo Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2020 2:53 PM To: Charles Barr; Ian Musick Cc: Andy Schwaller (aschwaller@garfield-county.com) Subject: Silt Farms Plan Review Correction Notice Attachments: Silt Farms Plan Review Correction Notice.pdf Charles & Ian: Attached please find our "Plan Review Correction Notice" for the Spring Born/Silt Farms project. This summary and compilation of necessary corrections is based on our technical review of Amended Plans received by our office on Dec. 30, 2019. As discussed in previous email and/or phone correspondence, these plans have deficiencies or omissions (see page 1 of the attached Correction Notice). In addition, there are a number of significant issues that appear to have been either overlooked or perhaps certain assumptions were made without consulting the Garfield County Building Department (see pages 2-5 and the attached redlined plans). The most important of these outstanding issues pertain to apparent oversights or misunderstandings of basic I.B.C. requirements including allowable building size and/or installation of automatic fire sprinkler system. Other key issues include fire resistive construction of the structure and means of egress requirements. In conducting our Technical Plan Review we have tried to leverage our knowledge and understanding of the building code to your advantage, but our results don't allow us to grant this project approval in its current form. In fact, the issues identified in the Correction Notice are substantive and need to be resolved prior to the Building Dept. moving forward with final plan review and issuance of any permits. Normally, the typical timing for addressing some of the "big picture" project scoping of building code issues happens during the preliminary stages of design. And although the bulk of the Engineering work that has been submitted appears to be professionally produced, the portion of the project typically performed by the Architect including fire/life safety issues and basic Building Code requirements does not appear up to par with the remainder of project design. In addition to our Correction Notice, I have also attached a copy of the local Fire District's plan review comments from Orrin Moon, and per my conversation with Charles yesterday I will leave it up to both of you to convey all of this enclosed information to any other members of your team. After you and your design team have looked over this Correction Notice and as you decide how to proceed in addressing your response to our concerns, Andy Schwaller and I would be happy to sit down with you to discuss any questions that you may have moving forward. Dave Argo Plans Examiner Garfield County Community Development Department 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Tel: 970-945-8212 Ext. 1610 1 Garfield County BUILDING DEPARTMENT 108 Eighth Street, Suite 401, Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Tel: (970) 945-8212 Plan Review Correction Notice Project: Spring Born/Silt Farms — Greenhouse + Processing/Office Buildings Address: TBD County Road 331, Silt Building Permit No. BLCO-10-19-6020 Reviewed By: Dave Argo — Plans Examiner Date of Technical Review: 1/15/2020 INCOMPLETE OR MISSING INFORMATION: We have initiated Technical Review of submitted plans for this project and have found the following items to be incomplete or missing from your submittal. We cannot complete our plan review or issue permits until the following items have been adequately addressed and submitted to our office: ARCHITECTURAL PLANS 1. Architect's Wet Seal/Stamp on "A Series" Drawing Sheets — As described more fully in a prior email, Architectural series drawings are to be prepared under direction of a Colorado licensed Architect and all sheets submitted to the Building Dept. shall be wet -sealed as per Colorado state statutes. 2. Upstairs Office Floor Plan Layout — Including all interior partitions, fire -rated assemblies and required egress/fire exiting requirements. Original plans submission included this information, but it wasn't included on the more recently submitted Amended Plans. 3. Building Sections — Provide cross sections illustrating three dimensional relationships between upper and lower levels and identify/reference fire resistive assembly details as more fully described below. 4. Wall Types — All fire resistive wall construction needs to be clearly identified on floor plans and cross sections. Detailed specifications and fire resistive requirements shall be provided by the Architect and identified and referenced as per nationally recognized listing agency (for example, U.L./USGA). 5. Construction Details & Fire -Resistive Assemblies —All fire resistive elements shall be referenced on floor plans and cross sections including wall, floor/ceiling, roof/ceiling, shaft wall assemblies and structural frame. Provide listing agency's fire resistive ID number on each assembly detail as well as detail components and specifications for fire -rated assemblies. 6. Accessibility — Demonstrate compliance with accessibility requirements for all elements of the building and provide standards/details and specifications for egress, plumbing fixtures, etc. 7. Fire Sprinkler System — An automatic fire sprinkler system is required as per Garfield County Ordinance No. 2018-02 (Table A), but the only reference we can find on drawings for this mostly undefined scope of work is on the Cover Sheet under the heading "Project Data". Additional descriptive specifications — including specific location(s) of the fire sprinkler system within the structure and in compliance with Section 903.3.1.1 shall be submitted to our office for review. STRUCTURAL PLANS 1. Foundation at Common Wall between Greenhouse and Technical Buildings — No foundation details are provided by Structural Engineer along the common wall located between the (2) separate steel buildings. Of greater concern is a note prominently located on cover sheet of Rigid Global Buildings' steel building plans which clearly states that Greenhouse (Phase 1/Phase 2) shall be structurally independent from the RGB building and flatly stating: "No Structural Tie -In is Allowed"—see Sheet C1 of RGB steel building plans. Our office has concerns that there has not been a fully coordinated effort between the (2) independent steel building suppliers on this particular issue, and furthermore, the foundation design provided by SGM Engineers does not clearly address the joining together of these (2) structures including foundation detailing at this common wall. Provide our office with response and follow-up to address these concerns.... *NOTE: If adjoining wall between buildings incorporates Fire Wall separation, structural design shall also account for this (see Plan Review Summary on the following pages for additional information). Plan Review Summary & Correctives Permit No. BLCO-10-19-6020 Project: Spring Born/Silt Farms Greenhouse Location: County Road 331, Silt Code Review By: Dave Argo — Plans Examiner, Garfield County Bldg. Dept. Date: January 15, 2020 Overall Building Summary & Description (Current + Future Uses) Current building permit application includes 2 separate manufactured steel structures — each building supplied by a different Steel Building Manufacturer — with a common/adjoining partition wall located between the 2 buildings as illustrated and summarized below: PHASE 1 SUMMARY: Construction Type: II -B Building A: Greenhouse (single story) 120,960 SF • Occupancy Group U Building B: Technical Building (2 -stories) • Occ Group F-2 Processing + Accessory Spaces 38,630 SF • Occ Group S-2 Storage 2,785 SF • Occ Group B: Office (2nd Floor) 2,885 SF 44,300 SF TOTAL BUILDING SIZE (Current Application) 165,260 SF OczofrokoNLI 01.E e,41430 1k Mhih L.wA-i Stovvv.e )745 S-3 pds„PM'7 tApp f LAW O ayy -2144 '15. 0.060y/4.47 Future Addition — Drawings indicate an additional Greenhouse (approximately same size as Building A) will be added onto Building B at opposite side from Building A at some future date. If/when that occurs, updated building area calculations will be as follows: PHASE 2 SUMMARY: Construction Type: II -B Building A: Greenhouse #1 (single -story) 120,960 SF • Occupancy Group U Building B: Technical Building (2 -stories) • Occ Group F-2 Processing + Accessory Spaces 38,630 SF • Occ Group S-2 Storage 2,785 SF • Occ Group B: Office (2"d Floor) 2,885 SF 44,300 SF Building C: Greenhouse #2 (single -story) 120,960 SF • Occupancy Group U TOTAL BUILD -OUT SIZE (Current + Future) 286,220 SF Plan Review Summary & Correctives Spring Born/Silt Farms Page 2 Allowable Building Size: As depicted in plans, these (2) steel structures represent a total building area of over 165,000 SF, which exceeds allowable building size per Chapter 5. The future build -out including Building C — Greenhouse Addition represents a total of 286,220 SF. The following options represent alternative scenarios for possible Building Code compliance in accordance with allowable area requirements: • Scenario #1: Industrial Use Exemption —Architect indicates on drawings that building qualifies for exemption from area limitations per Sec. 503.1.1 which states: "Buildings & structures designed to house special industrial processes that require large areas and unusual building heights to accommodate crane -ways or special machinery and equipment ... shall be exempt from building area limitations specified in Sections 504 and 506." Bldg. Dept. interpretation: Based on the narrow and specific applicable industrial uses as described in Building Code Commentary, this exemption does not apply to Agricultural products. • Scenario #2: Occupancy Group "U" Agricultural Buildings — Appendix C provides an exemption for one-story Group "U" Ag buildings surrounded/adjoined by public ways or open space that is 60 feet minimum in width. Bldg. Dept. Interpretation: Per Appendix C, Section C103.1 this exemption does not apply to Mixed -Use Occupancies which "shall be protected in accordance with Sec. 508". However, if a "Fire Wall" is built between Buildings A and B (as per Section 706 & Table 706.4) to create 2 separate buildings, then this exemption may apply to the Greenhouse (Building A) — see illustration below. MAih LWtil rJfc%It 211,611 Degoel 1 f] +vc Asi.lii-11111 t51-011 6 .�° bee.vrAmaio 1'1-1e,c4 Or i OS IAppoi LAW D fli(,09 .2460, *la" 04.44)014i .04 A 44144 17µ•c 13p1•IGa •V. OealPoWl 2 -Moi wr aFvwW;i# (Asa .9113m44z, ah#1. 64dos 4[4;4 v pmt;v4+ g;4.4 60-40o[. (9) r yoikahf- tiro- "pi.s.stovq • Scenario #3: Unlimited Area Buildings — As per Section 507, all "Unlimited Area Buildings" must meet all of the following requirements: • The building is equipped throughout with an automatic sprinkler system • The building is surrounded by increased open space, usually at least 60 feet • The buildings are limited to one or two stories above grade plane • The building only houses low -hazard or moderate -hazard occupancies Section 507.5 Two -Story Buildings. The area of a Group B, F, M or S building no more than two stories above grade plane shall not be limited where the building is equipped throughout with an automatic sprinkler system in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1 and is surrounded and adjoined by public ways or yards not less than 60 feet. Bldg. Dept. Interpretation: These requirements clearly state that "an automatic sprinkler system shall be installed throughout the entirety of the building" — including the Greenhouse — unless, as noted above, the common wall between Buildings A and B is constructed as a "Fire Wall" to create two separate buildings: (1) Building A — not sprinklered, and (2) Building B — fully sprinklered. Plan Review Summary & Correctives Spring Born/Silt Farms Page 3 Allowable Building Size ... continued Action Required: As currently submitted, overall building size exceeds allowable area requirements as described above, and a future Greenhouse Addition (Building C) will eventually add another 121,000 SF. The Architect of Record needs to clearly indicate on drawings how the proposed buildings will be built in compliance with the Building Code and according to one of the following options: 1. Buildings A and 8 regulated as separate buildings with a "Fire Wall" at the common adjoining wall between buildings. Building B requires installation of an automatic fire sprinkler system, but Greenhouse (Building A) can utilize Scenario #2 (above) for unlimited building size without a fire - sprinkler system, but the local Fire District must provide a waiver of the fire sprinkler system requirements at the Greenhouse. 2. Buildings A and 8 regulated as portions of one singular building as per Scenario #3 (above). This option requires installation of an automatic fire sprinkler system throughout the entirety of the building, including the Greenhouse. If the Fire Wall option (item #1) is employed, drawings must clearly illustrate Fire Wall location and otherwise include appropriate detailing and specifications in compliance with fire resistive requirements as described in next section below. If the building includes an automatic fire sprinkler system throughout (as per item #2) then performance specifications shall be revised with appropriate description of proposed fire sprinkler system. Fire Resistive Requirements: Action Required: The following items must be clearly identified on floor plans, building cross sections and/or construction details to fully describe design intent and construction assemblies. For all fire -rated assemblies provide fire assembly listing numbers and details from a nationally recognized listing agency (U.L. or USGA). "Fire Wall" is required between Building A and Building B • A Fire Wall (Section 706 and Table 706.4) is required to demonstrate compliance with allowable building area requirements (Chapter 5) and to provide separation of non-sprinklered single -story U occupancy (Building A) with fully fire-sprinklered 2 -story Building B. • Horizontal Continuity required at Fire Wall (Section 706.5) • Vertical Continuity required at Fire Wall (Section 706.6) and Stepped Buildings (Section 707.6.1) • Openings in Fire Wall (Section 706.8) Fire -Rated Stair Enclosure is required at Interior Exit Stairway from Upstairs Office • Provide 1 -Hour Fire -Rated Stair Enclosure (Section 1023.2) — 100 -foot maximum Exit Access Travel distance is exceeded if interior exit stairway is not enclosed by 1 -hour rated assemblies. See Table 1006.3.2(2) — Footnote (b). • Interior exit stairway shall terminate at an exterior exit from the building. (Section 1023.3) • Horizontal Passageway may be required (Section 1024) • The required egress path may not pass through kitchens, storage rooms or spaces used for similar purposes (Section 1016.2.5) • Openings at interior exit stairway shall be protected (Section 716 and Table 716.5) Fire separation required at "Incidental Uses" as per Table 509 • 1 -Hour fire -rated "Fire Barrier Walls" and horizontal floor/ceiling assembly shall be utilized between Mech. Room/Generator Room and adjoining areas including upstairs Offices. • Shaft enclosure between Mech. Room and Upstairs Offices (Building B) must be 1 -hour fire - rated assembly (Section 713). Plan Review Summary & Correctives Spring Born/Silt Farms Page 4 Means of Egress Requirements: Buildinj A — Greenhouse: • Number of Exits — In accordance with "Appendix C — Group U Agricultural Buildings" one exit is required for each 15,000 SF of floor area. This calculates into a minimum number of 8 exits at the Greenhouse. • In addition, (2) exits as currently shown on plans incorrectly exit Greenhouse (Building A) through an intervening space (Building B). These doors do not qualify as exits, because Buildings A and B are not "accessory use" to one or the other. All egress doors must provide direct access to building exterior. Action Required: Revise plans as noted above to comply with egress requirements. Building B — Upstairs Office: • A Fire -Rated Stair Enclosure is required at Interior Exit Stairway — "Exit Access Travel Distance" as calculated from the upper level's most remote point to upper stair landing is at 100 feet maximum distance allowed as per Table 1006.3.2(2) — Footnote (b). Action Required: One-hour fire -rated stair enclosure is required to insure safe egress for occupants of upper level offices. Interior exit stairway must provide egress from upper level Offices directly to an exterior exit door at the main level (Exit Discharge) — as per Section 1023.3. If necessary, a horizontal Exit Passageway (Section 1024) may be required to connect exit stairway to the building exterior. Since a required egress path may not pass through kitchens, storage rooms or spaces used for similar purposes (Section 1016.2.5) the exit stairway needs to be reconfigured to resolve these specific problems which do not currently comply with building code requirements. Fire Sprinkler Requirements: Per Garfield County Building Resolution and Ordinance No. 2018-02 (Table A) an automatic fire sprinkler system is required throughout, because building size exceeds the maximum allowable area for Type II -B Construction (9,000 SF). This requirement is equally applicable to both Building A (Greenhouse) and Building B, unless a specific waiver is granted by the Fire District. Action Required: The only reference on drawings we can find for "Fire Sprinkler System" scope of work is a generic note on the Cover Sheet under "Project Data". Provide additional descriptive performance specifications — including specific location(s) —for review and approval by the local Fire District. As noted above under "Allowable Building Size" fire sprinkler requirements are closely tied with other applicable Building Code requirements and need to be properly coordinated with all design aspects of this project. Occupant Load Calculations: Architect's calculations for Occupant Loads as shown on drawings do not accurately Load Factors as contained in Table 1004.1.2. Occupant Load calculations performed are summarized as follows: BUILDING A Ag Greenhouse BUILDING B Occupancy Group Bldg. Area Load Factor No U 120,960 5F 300 reflect Occupant in our plan review . of Occupants 404 Main Level: Processing Facility Refrigerated Storage F-2 S-2 Accessory (Lockers/Restrooms) F-2 32,930 SF 2,785 SF 2,250 SF 300 500 100 110 6 23 Sub -Total Main Level: Upper Level: Offices B 2,885 100 139 29 Sub -Total Upper Level: 29 TOTAL Number of Occupants for Building B: 168 02 A3A0 TECHNICAL BUILDING OVERALL WIDTH: 110'-0" • GREENHOUS OVERALL WIDTH: 3 TECHNICAL BUILDING [INA' IGI; 13 I r C% izz OA' kiwoi laii y 1s A4 17> dnyaryprlimee Lvi #h all%11.A2i6 *Mt ripite3. GREENHOUSE E SEE SHEETS GI GH -4.: ObtklivIAAI 0 r3 111•••••••1. wr (01 Ma will � 1514igs I'�N I 621 PIwVN NNo L r►vL wtiVl r iv provi k $chmiscii 4314:41A910 A4 t, ;v1 t4,141.1 AlIowa* aria 11 1 SEE TECHNICAL BUILDING PAdAit 4 9 la+Nl.�i+t� 4 • Mi ih i4Agsi ?Ioi1 I ' 010 GESS THROUGH INTERVENING SPACE PER SECTION 10162, NOTE 2, EXCEPTION (9te4,611 5o8.V4) 0 Aeije=w' 1c.A5 amAG 140i - {y o+ry 'Fa GK. 0v iht 0 i f ... ,I / ,) VL 44W /K I S 40',` fly -of- f�t r`� f. -A- '.- .."`- J\ i r►vL wtiVl r iv provi k $chmiscii 4314:41A910 A4 t, ;v1 t4,141.1 AlIowa* aria 11 1 SEE TECHNICAL BUILDING PAdAit 4 9 la+Nl.�i+t� 4 • Mi ih i4Agsi ?Ioi1 I ' 010 GESS THROUGH INTERVENING SPACE PER SECTION 10162, NOTE 2, EXCEPTION (9te4,611 5o8.V4) 0 Aeije=w' 1c.A5 amAG 140i - {y o+ry 'Fa GK. 0v iht 0 i f ... ,I / ,) VL 44W /K I S 40',` fly -of- f�t r`� f. -A- '.- .."`- J\ i SECTION 903 2 4 GROUP F-2 AUTOMATIC FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM NOT REQUIRED BY 2015 IBC BUT REQUIRED BY GARFIELD COUNTY AMENDMENTS TO THE 2015 IFC SECTION 903 2, TABLE A SECTION 505.1 -PORTABLE FINE EA I INbUISHER6-REQUIRED IN ALL OCCUPANCIES WITHIN 75 FEET OF TRAVEL NOT REQURON II BLIT • AT OU+ WeR•EHGL9 RECOMMENDED. TIRE ALARM IS JABLE1591 12-OCCUPANC'LOADS REFERENCE LIFE SAFETY PLANS SECOND FLOOR= 27 OCCUPANTS 1-1551 FLUOR a 99 UUUUPAN I0 TOTAL PROPOSED BUILDING LOAD = 126 OCCUPANTS SECTION 1007-1 ACCESSIBLE MEMS 06 EGRESS - ALL ACCESSIBLE SPACES ARE SERVED BY AT LEAST ONE ACCESSIBLE MEANS OF EGRESS. 1695E 1017.5 .9007 TRAVEL 090l6J F-2 OCCUPANCIES - 400 FT (SPRINKLED) B OCCUPANCIES - 300 FT (SPRINKLED) 0-2 OCCUPANCIES - 150 FT (NEPA GOVERNS) U OCCUPANCY - 300 SF (NOT SPRINKLED) I TO 25 PARKING SPACES = I ADA ACCESSIBLE B -ACE 26 TO 50 PARKING SPACES = 2AfAACCESSIBLE . ACES -164 TED NCLRATED AOOM ,044( 01ER ... .EO7URE PERI. ' 4F1'4371 17+ 1•'• "'� .•." -+-'7mrx Exit os.a1P- y/ 1'A 17i d� tafdd» f' • xa 16W-11‘,74 A.,4 ?ir'}+!rrt'tir . 145 FTTRAVSL • 1-HUUN HAI EU -- CEILING ABOVE MECH ROOM TRAVEL — DISTANCE _ — 60 FT ACCESSORY o:,•yti�. N� OCCUPANCY k' ti\ � �. (2,250 SF) \\ ti 4 1 OCC PER 100 SF: t• "+'" OCCUPANTS t_: ti THROUGH,'�. ti11MERNENING SPACE PER: Fi0N 701E 2, NOTEts\ EXCWTION...:i � 1,12LE 2907 1 PLUMBING FtxTIETEE F-2 OCCUPANCY = 60 OCCUPANTS (1 TLT PER 100, 1 LAV PER 100) B OCCUPANCY = 50 OCCUPANTS (1 TLT PER 25, FIRST 50, 1 LAV PER 40 FORFWST 0-2 OCCUPANT = 6 OCCUPANTS (1 TLT PER 100, 1 LAV PER 100) U OCCUPANCY - B OCCUPANTS (NONE REQUIRED) NUMBER OF TOILETS - 6 (4 REQUIRED) NUMBER OF URINALS - 2 NUMBER OF LAVATORIES - 6 (4 REQUIRED) NUMBER OF SERVICE SINKS -1 NUMBER OF DRINKING FOUNTAINS - 1 Life Safety Legend ■ EXIT DISCHARGE 6.1 ACCESSIBLE FEATURE MINIMUM EGRESS WIDTH (1571 IPANI'.Y I OAO AT FRIT FIRE EXTINGUISHER CABINET ® 75' RADIUS ILLUMINATED EXIT SIGN WITH EMERGENCY LIGHTS ■ FIRE DEPARTMENT KNOX-BOX MAIN ENTRANCE PROVIDE NO LESS THAN (1) ADA ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACE 1440110 !LATE! ,CONSTRUGT7. MRS PER I GT ESS THROLyt+ RVENINO SPACE 1 ION 151 ;NUTS -4 . , .'. '•�y. Ly,. IAii 7 IN O'F44iIr- p.i F _ vrr+•f ORESS, REF GREENHOUSE LIFfFE SAFETY F-2 MAX TRAVEL DISTANCE • 101715 SPRINIU ER + 400 F T .. M0.% TRAVEL OIS T ANCE • 400 TELVFI a •; ti ` 917• . *Pir. WAIL"re>1uit4+-B- 1r, {was 9triva ktt laulwccw euitAi' is !11 41Tyd1,11YG(. .1 IiDW•t►'k aw. + Kee=3 •0.1 S2O CaCCUPANC RIGERATOR 42,785 SF , 1 OCC PER 500 OCCUPANTS NOT HASITABL `F•20CUPANCY• ti .DE GN OCCUPANCY' CCUPANTS` I�� I�r.ti�� �'qg'( g,. \WAN% .. \ \ a *� � µn,,,,„„L015TAHCE.4., _,,,.„,v,-. 4< • d 1 �. =y. .per 1 � t` � �i2 FT TRAYEl.; � ,s`�:� \. ..\\ \ .,....,,. \\\, ‘ \ to '� a: KO a rim mill "o(u 6- %vs S'l 00,0.4,104. u nbj[04,40- 'n CA -0 1 1/16" = 1'-0" U OCCUPANCY GREENHOUSE (120,960 SF) 'NOT HABITABLE EG17ES0 REF GREENHOUSE cu G SAFETYV ti "101 Ocereot4 of 1414 ICI?. FIRST FL IFE SAFE' I > (44[ %/ WWAI( ) iJJ/. VI 1:', .;6�' 1006223 REFRIGERA1 ROOMS+1,01 SHALL HAVE EXITS WITHII •^ MAX TRAVEL DISTANCE ,wGpysc. 1/141.14y,qf AItobueg Irnlwf' 4srit 4041 iv 6uidt.1 V A h 4 .t v4 (7 of'2) Life Safety Notes BUILDING CODE REVIEW SPRING BORN TECHNICAL BUILDING SPRING BORN, INC. DRY HOLLOW RD, ADDRESS TBD CILT, 00 01062 GOVERNING CODES AS AMENDED BY GARFIELD COUNTY 2015 INTERNATIONAL BOLDING CODE (IBC) 2012 INTERNATIONAL CNCRG'7 C0113EILVATION CODE (IEC1.) 2015 INTERNATIONAL MECHAHIGL COOS {WC) 2015 INTERNATIONAL FIRE CODE (IFC) 2015 INTERNATIONAL PLUMBING CODE (IPC) 2017 NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE (NEC) 2015 INTERNATIONAL FUEL GAS CODE (IFG) 2010 ADA STANDARDS FOR ACCESSIBILE DESIGN 0ilac COQ€ RV9I ENO7U- TECNNICAL VOILOINO S•LPACT GLASSIF ICAI IQNS. F-2 FACTORY INDUSTRIAL, LOW HAZARD B BUSINESS S-2 LOW HAZARD STORAGE TYPE OF WIPER/GTO{ CONSTRUCTION - TYPE IIB REFERENCE G6t6EEh61ffSLISE LIFE SAFE1V NOTES SABLE SOO ALLOWABLE HEIONT F ANO B OCCUPANCY. SPRINKLED. TYPE 1113 = 55 FT TABLE B04.4 ALLO WAEILE.,$EDQAS F-2 OCCUp+WCY, SPRINKLED, TYPE 11E = 3 STORIES 4p5 jiI L A{(L A1tEg7 GT F-2 W' IPANCT- 4INN2ED-T E RI0R.R 69,000 SF `tp$jiEEl9CJf7F, CUPANCTALLOWADLE AREA P. PERIMETER = 970 FT F, FRONTAGE = 516 FT W, CALCULATED PUBLIC WAY = 60 FT If, AREA FACTOR INCREASE = 1.389 Aa. ALLOWABLE AREA = 100,939 SF MAX Aa, TOTAL ALLOWABLE AREA = 201,878 of PROPOSE TOTAI ARFA = a5,560 SF TARE Pe 4- REO(/MEC SEPARATIDI( E-2 AFR LIEI Y A R RI swops . 1 HOUR F-2 ASSEMBLY 8 S-2 STORAGE . NONE F-2 ASSEMBLY B U GREENHOUSE = NONE /ME 1. RAT PRIMARY STRUCTURAL. FRAME O 5 BEARING WALLS. INTERIOR 0 HOURS BEAKING WALLS, 6516010H 0 HOURS NON.BEARING WALLS. EXTERIOR 0 HOURS NON-BEARING WALLS, INTERIOR 0 HOURS FLOOR CONSTRUCTION 0 HOURS ROOF CONSTRUCTION 0 HOURS O0TToSFT. 1 H 5TAHCE talaRO1 EXTERIOR WALLS f1e1G.�+4�� �. -713.4 COLIMONTRAVFI INSTANCE • 75 FT 1d P-FC0 ON PATH MAX 9RG471 -HR RATED WALL 1 -HR RATED OCCiJPA d app 2.609'SF'G:4• 1OCCPER 1pOS r 7 OCCUPANTS s :° i EAI ACCESSTRAVEL DISTAL( MO TRAVEL OIOTAt1DE • MO ' •1 WA/ tai 4ii bit'sol' ' - 4a r- - 45 MIN FIRE RESISTANCE RATB0 GLAZING OR FIRE SPRIFINLER WATER CURTAIN PER SECTION 709..2, PROTECTEO'OPEHNOS. Y 1 1 .0e(eVseki TABLE 100E..UM STORIES 110111 ONE EIVT -9 OGCVP_N MAR OOCUPNICY MAX COIAIPON PAT /W 4 AOpREOATE AREA LESS THAN $.ODD SF, NOT A FoQUIRED ACCESSIELE AREA �1�u1 f 61/ti 0011.h 4)I- . rrpC 'R1401114;,WP St1+00.1+ 'IP600 V1 4W-4 Quos fs .1 Vivi IFCi,x) ,T.V1n 0 ' u`oioAw Ilwd I upr�r, 1,; bFF P SEI 1/16"= Life Safety Notes BUILDING CODE REVIEW SPRING BORN TECHNICAL BUILDING SPRING BORN, INC DRY HOLLOW RD, ADDRESS TBD SILT, CO 81652 GOVERNING CODES AS AMENDED BY GARFIELD COUNTY 2015 INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE (IBC) 2015 INTERNATIONAL ENERGY CONSERVATION CODE (IECC) 2015 INTERNATIONAL MECHANICAL CODE (IMC) 2015 INTERNATIONAL FIRE CODE (IFC) 2015 INTERNATIONAL PLUMBING CODE (IPC) 2017 NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE (NEC) 2015 INTERNATIONAL FUEL GAS CODE (IFG) 2010 ADA STANDARDS FOR ACCESSIBILE DESIGN 2015 IBC CODE REVIEW NOTES 2 AP1 F-2 FACTORY INlFDU"+.0MAL. LOW HAZARD B BUSINESS 0-2 LOW HAZARD STORAGE LAiSrallag% sithumumg;itiggirspootat1r11.0.trfaAND PROCESSES THAT REQUIRE LARGE AREAS SHALL BE EXEMPT FROM BUILDING AREA LIMITATIONS. TABLE S0-_9LILLQWA9LE F12G+T F AND 9 OCCUPANCY, NON -SPRINKLED, TYPE IIB = 55 FT TABLE 506 b ALLOWAffiE BTDRB:S F-2 OCCUPANCY, SPRINKLED, TYPE IIB = 3 STORIES TASLE 8082 ALLOWASLE AREA FtCTQR F-2 OCCUPANCY, SPRINKLED, TYPE IIB = 23,000 SF '4X1,2 3 SINGLE -OCCUPANCY ALLO WABLEo3EA Aa, ALLOWABLE AREA = 25912 SF W, CALCULATED PUBLIC WAY = 30 FT If, AREA FACTOR INCREASE = 127 0-375 L.BLQ,4�ESS• noH F-2 A$SE LlAra . 83.2 HOUR F-2 ASSEMBLY 8 5-2 STORAGE = NONE TABLED . FIRE RESISTANCE RATING TYPE 118 PRIMARY STRUCTURAL FRAME 0 HOURS BEARING WALLS, INTERIOR 0 HOURS BEARING WALLS, EXTERIOR 0 HOURS NON-BEARING WALLS. EXTERIOR 0 HOURS NON-BEARING WALLS, INTERIOR 0 HOURS FLOOR CONSTRUCTION 0 HOURS ROOF CONSTRUCTION 0 HOURS Ate: Mite 1,479149kdNh oh trig i fro w * Dv i9 roll 9ubnlibt I oleos, I- Ow ItI2-b1040 4.44 4,iceAs (sa. 'im.4 :.AIR RAT_O VALL \ 1 -HIT PA 4ffiLC tA.yDGd pian w if hG p do of ivAii 3 n* ih .61.1,11 9,A0;41-41 pig. COMMON TRAVEL DISTANCE 16 FTCOIMION PATNMAX 1 •HR RATED WALL 48 MW FIRS RESISTANCE RATED GLAZING OR FGRE SPRINKLER WATER CURTAIN PER SECTION 705.9 2, PROTECTED OPENINGS TABLE 1906 92(2) STORIES ONE EXIT -B°CCU MAX OCCUPANCY 49 MAXCOMMON PA 11044 AGGREGATE AREA IS LESS THAN 5000 SF. NOTA- . REQUIRED ACCESSIBLE AREA •' E,.%IYT ACCESS TRAVEL DISTANCE- 170 FT T&91 TRAVEL DISTANCE • 300 FT - .#y. Fire -WO- cdf 91;uv 61494* i{1At i * 4" ioletit A9dw,3e Par (it FISm,F)r.1.0?" TABLE 002 - FIRE RESISTANCE BATING FREMMQ82811.25 0 TO 5 FT= 2 HOUR 5FTTO10FT=1 HOUR 10 FT TO 30 FT = 0 HOURS THE ENTIRE PERIMETER OF THE BUILDING IS BEYOND 30 FT TO THE NEAREST ADJACENT BUILDING ENVELOPE NO FIRE RATING l7 r44:1.4io, year/ livt, I 9uLll.+ j/,6= ILO 1? Ai U ;Ao.tl 1I Dave Argo From: Dave Argo Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2020 2:57 PM To: Charles Barr; lan Musick Cc: Andy Schwaller (aschwaller@garfield-county.com) Subject: Silt Farms - CRFD Plan Review Comments Attachments: CRFD Review Comments.pdf Sorry, but forgot to attach these to my recent email ... Dave Argo Plans Examiner . Garfield County Community Development Department 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Tel: 970-945-8212 Ext. 1610 Email: dargo@garfield-county.com Web: garfield-county.com Colorado River Fire Rescue 1850 Railroad Avenue • Rifle, Colorado 81650 Telephone: (970) 625-1243 • Fax: (970) 625-2963 • www.crfr.us Jerry Burgess December 30, 2019 Ref: Spring Born Plan Review Jerry, The following is my plan review comments/requirements based on our meetings and my plan review: 1. Building shall have code compliance address number attached to building that can be seen from CR 331. 2015 IFC, 505.1. 2. All access roads shall be all weather driving surface and build to support the weight of fire apparatus, an access road shall be added to the East side of the building that ties to both access roads shown on plans. A 30' inside turning radius on a 20 -foot access road is required. 2015 IFC, Section 503. 3. Outside access doors for emergencies are requested in green house. Access points will be determined at future meeting. Knox Key Box is required to be installed on building in an approved location. Knox Box shall house keys needed for any and all access points in the building. 2015 IFC, Section 504 and 506. 4. NFPA 704 signage to hazard shall be posted at entrances to building if appropriate. MSDS paperwork shall be kept updated and stored in an approved location. 2015 IFC, Section 407.1-5. 5. A NFPA 13 Fire Sprinkler system is required in Technical Building. Sprinkler system shall be designed to an Ordinary Hazard Group II with 90 minutes of water supply for the sprinkler system. Any storage above 12' in height and or change of commodities will increase the hazard and water supply required for the system. Fire Department Connections (FDC) are require at a location to be determined by my office. Knox FDC caps/plugs are required to be installed on FDC. Any fire pump room or building, along with riser room shall have signage on doors identifying the use of the space. Fire sprinkler system and water supply for sprinkler shall be installed to NFPA 13 and maintained to NFPA 25. 2015 IFC, 903.2, Table A- amended. 6. Sprinkler system shall have a monitored fire alarm system with sprinkler flow notification through the building, IFC, Section 903.4. Fire alarm shall have one white strobe for water flow and one amber strobe for additional alarm activations. Fire alarm panel shall have two cooper phone lines installed for the monitoring of the fire/sprinkler system. Mission Statement: "WE ARE DEDICATED TO PROTECTING LIFE, HOME, AND PROPERTY THROUGH LEADERSHIP EDUCATION AND PARTNERSHIPS." Colorado River Fire Rescue 1850 Railroad Avenue • Rifle, Colorado 81650 Telephone: (970) 625-1243 • Fax: (970) 625-2963 • www.crfr.us 7. Underground Fire Sprinkler piping and shall comply with NFPA 13 chapter 10 and shall be installed by a State approved contractor. Underground sprinkler piping shall be ductile Iron pipe from 5' outside the building to inside the building and then up through the floor to the sprinkler riser. All joints and trust blocking shall meet NFPA 13/24. Underground installation inspection, underground flush, and underground Hydrostatic tests shall be witnessed by this office. Fire Pump shall comply with NFPA 20 and sprinkler water storage tank shall comply with NFPA 22. 8. At completion of plant and green house facility, Spring Born Operations Manager should conduct walkthrough with CRFR personnel for pre -planning information on plant operations. 9. Fire extinguishers shall be installed according to NFPA 10. 2015 IFC Section 906. 10. Required fire suppression water supply, hydrants and storage will be added at a later date as per agreement In meeting with Charles Barr and Jerry Burgess. Any addition to building or green houses can require fire suppression prior to C of 0 of any additions. Please feel free to contact me with any questions or concerns. THANK You, OR f IN D. MOON PREVENTION DIVISION CHIEF/FIRE MARSHAL COLORADO RIVER FIRE RESCUE 970-625-1243 orrin.moon@crir.us Mission Statement: "WE. ARE DEfICATED TO PROTECTING LIFE, HOME; AND PROPERTY THROUGH LEADERSHIP EDUCATION AND PARTNERSHIPS." Dave Argo From: Dave Argo Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2020 9:19 AM To: jerryb@sgm-inc.com Cc: Andy Schwaller (aschwaller@garfield-county.com) Subject: Silt Farms Grading Permit Jerry: Following our phone conversation yesterday I spoke with Andy Schwaller, our chief building official, about issuance of a grading permit for Silt Farms. He reminded me that outstanding items which need to be submitted to our office prior to issuance of a grading permit include: A. Driveway Permit — As issued by Garfield County's Road & Bridge Dept. B. Stormwater Discharge Permit — As issued by State of Colorado Although it's not unusual for us to issue Grading Permits ahead of the actual Building Permit, it's important to point out that any excavation & site work done before issuance of the Building Permit is taken at the express risk of the property owner that a final Building Permit will be issued for the project. Hope that clarifies this issue for you. Dave Argo Plans Examiner Garfield County Community Development Department 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Tel: 970-945-8212 Ext. 1610 Email: dargo@garfield-county.com Web: garfield-county.com 1 Dave Argo From: Jerry Burgess <JerryB@sgm-inc.com> Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2020 9:37 AM To: Dave Argo Cc: Charles Barr Subject: RE: [External] Silt Farms Plan Review Correction Notice Dave, Thank you for the thorough review and comments. I have forwarded these to both architects that created the sheets. The structural detail question has been forwarded to our structural PE in Glenwood. To help move this project forward we will touch base with a few more architects to see if they want to be part of the team. As we discussed yesterday, we felt our team was covered from an professional architect stand point with the team of a Colorado licensed architect and the California based team. This appears to have fallen apart, although both were sent your review comments, and now we have an issue. Ideally, these professionals will step up, work together and resolve the concerns and wet seal the drawings. In the meantime, we will revise the drawings and if we have to consult with a code review consultant, most likely the Colorado Code Consulting, LLC., we may do this. A lot of design teams will use Code Consulting firms, what has your experience been in working with firms like this? Thank you again, Jerry Burgess, PE Senior Engineer / Principal SSGM 103 W Tomichi Ave, Suite A Gunnison, Co 81230 970.707.8152 / 970.275.9381 cell www, sg m -i nc, coni From: Dave Argo <dargo@garfield-county.com> Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2020 4:05 PM To: Jerry Burgess <JerryB@sgm-inc.com> Subject: FW: Silt Farms Plan Review Correction Notice Jerry: I enjoyed our conversation ... here's the email sent earlier today to Charles & Ian. Dave Argo Plans Examiner C.\- . Garfield County 1 Dave Argo From: Jerry Burgess <JerryB@sgm-inc.com> Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2020 9:40 AM To: Dave Argo Cc: Andy Schwaller Subject: RE: [External] Silt Farms Grading Permit Dave, Thank you for this follow up. We do have the Stormwater Permit. I will try and coerce Jeff Simonson into meeting with the Road and Bridge and getting their review and applying for a permit. Once we have both, I will make sure that the Contractor has that information so he can apply for a grading permit. If/when the time ever comes. Jerry Burgess, PE Senior Engineer / Principal SGM 103 W Tomichi Ave, Suite A Gunnison, CO 81230 970.707.8152 / 970.275.9381 call www,sgrn•inc.com From: Dave Argo <dargo@garfield-county.com> Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2020 9:19 AM To: Jerry Burgess <JerryB@sgm-inc.com> Cc: Andy Schwaller <aschwaller@garfield-county.com> Subject: Silt Farms Grading Permit Jerry: Following our phone conversation yesterday I spoke with Andy Schwaller, our chief building official, about issuance of a grading permit for Silt Farms. He reminded me that outstanding items which need to be submitted to our office prior to issuance of a grading permit include: A. Driveway Permit — As issued by Garfield County's Road & Bridge Dept. B. Stormwater Discharge Permit — As issued by State of Colorado Although it's not unusual for us to issue Grading Permits ahead of the actual Building Permit, it's important to point out that any excavation & site work done before issuance of the Building Permit is taken at the express risk of the property owner that a final Building Permit will be issued for the project. Hope that clarifies this issue for you. Dave Argo Plans Examiner C'Z:. (r ui fwl d County Community Development Department 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Tel: 970-945-8212 Ext. 1610 Email: dargo@garfield-county.com Web: garfield-county.com 2 Dave Argo From: Charles Barr <charles@charlesbarr.net> Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2020 11:44 AM To: Dave Argo Cc: lan Musick Subject: Re: [External] Silt Farms Plan Review Correction Notice Dave, Thank you for the thorough review and comments. The team has begun the required modifications and we will try to provide corrections in a very timely manner. Your perspective that the architectural set is substantially deficient is alarming and I will focus on primarily on that area. Sprinklers are included in the technical building and I'll include more detail for that system in the next set. Charles 415-377-7600 On Jan 29, 2020, at 1:53 PM, Dave Argo <dargo@garfield-countv.com> wrote: Charles & Ian: Attached please find our "Plan Review Correction Notice" for the Spring Born/Silt Farms project. This summary and compilation of necessary corrections is based on our technical review of Amended Plans received by our office on Dec. 30, 2019. As discussed in previous email and/or phone correspondence, these plans have deficiencies or omissions (see page 1 of the attached Correction Notice). In addition, there are a number of significant issues that appear to have been either overlooked or perhaps certain assumptions were made without consulting the Garfield County Building Department (see pages 2-5 and the attached redlined plans). The most important of these outstanding issues pertain to apparent oversights or misunderstandings of basic I.B.C. requirements including allowable building size and/or installation of automatic fire sprinkler system. Other key issues include fire resistive construction of the structure and means of egress requirements. In conducting our Technical Plan Review we have tried to leverage our knowledge and understanding of the building code to your advantage, but our results don't allow us to grant this project approval in its current form. In fact, the issues identified in the Correction Notice are substantive and need to be resolved prior to the Building Dept. moving forward with final plan review and issuance of any permits. Normally, the typical timing for addressing some of the "big picture" project scoping of building code issues happens during the preliminary stages of design. And although the bulk of the Engineering work that has been submitted appears to be professionally produced, the portion of the project typically performed by the Architect including fire/life safety issues and basic Building Code requirements does not appear up to par with the remainder of project design. 1 In addition to our Correction Notice, I have also attached a copy of the local Fire District's plan review comments from Orrin Moon, and per my conversation with Charles yesterday I will leave it up to both of you to convey all of this enclosed information to any other members of your team. After you and your design team have looked over this Correction Notice and as you decide how to proceed in addressing your response to our concerns, Andy Schwaller and I would be happy to sit down with you to discuss any questions that you may have moving forward. Dave Argo Plans Examiner <imageooi.png> Community Development Department 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Tel: 970-945-8212 Ext. 1610 Email: dargo@garfield-county.com Web: Qorfield-countv.com <Silt Farms Plan Review Correction Notice.pdf> 2 Dave Argo From: Dave Argo Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2020 2:25 PM To: Jerry Burgess Cc: Charles Barr; Andy Schwaller (aschwaller@garfield-county.com) Subject: RE: Silt Farms Plan Review Correction Notice Jerry: We are very familiar with Colorado Code Consulting, as Steve Thomas and many of his colleagues at CCC are nationally recognized building code consultants and regularly give presentations at the regional ICC conference which those of us in our Building Dept. attend every year. If your Architect(s) require assistance with the range of building code issues identified in our Correction Notice they would definitely be a really good consulting group for you to engage. However, CCC is a code consulting service — but they are not themselves Architects. They can certainly assist the Architectural designers with code interpretations, detailing, etc. — but the design documents, cross-sections and construction detailing identified in our Correction Notice still needs to be prepared and wet -sealed by a Colorado licensed Architect. Dave Argo Plans Examiner . Garfield County Community Development Department 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Tel: 970-945-8212 Ext. 1610 Email: dargo@garfield-county.com Web: garfield-county.com From: Jerry Burgess <JerryB@sgm-inc.com> Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2020 9:37 AM To: Dave Argo <dargo@garfield-county.com> Cc: Charles Barr <charles@charlesbarr.net> Subject: RE: [External] Silt Farms Plan Review Correction Notice Dave, Thank you for the thorough review and comments. I have forwarded these to both architects that created the sheets. The structural detail question has been forwarded to our structural PE in Glenwood. To help move this project forward we will touch base with a few more architects to see if they want to be part of the team. As we discussed yesterday, we felt our team was covered from an professional architect stand point with the team of a Colorado licensed architect and the California based team. This appears to have fallen apart, although both were sent your review comments, and now we have an issue. Ideally, these professionals will step up, work together and resolve the concerns and wet seal the drawings. 1 In the meantime, we will revise the drawings and if we have to consult with a code review consultant, most likely the Colorado Code Consulting, LLC., we may do this. A lot of design teams will use Code Consulting firms, what has your experience been in working with firms like this? Thank you again, Jerry Burgess, PE Senior Engineer / Principal bSGM 103 W Tomichi Ave, Suite A Gunnison, CO 81230 970.707.8152 / 970.275,9381 cell www.sgm inc.corn From: Dave Argo <darRo@garfield county.com> Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2020 4:05 PM To: Jerry Burgess <Jeri.vB@sgm-inc.com> Subject: FW: Silt Farms Plan Review Correction Notice Jerry: I enjoyed our conversation ... here's the email sent earlier today to Charles & Ian. Dave Argo Plans Examiner CGarfield County Community Development Department 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Tel: 970-945-8212 Ext. 1610 Email: dargo@garfield-county.com Web: garfield-county.com From: Dave Argo Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2020 2:53 PM To: Charles Barr <charles@charlesbarr.net>; Ian Musick <ianmusick@msn.com> Cc: Andy Schwaller (aschwaller@garfield-county.com) <aschwaller@garfield-county.com> Subject: Silt Farms Plan Review Correction Notice Charles & Ian: Attached please find our "Plan Review Correction Notice" for the Spring Born/Silt Farms project. This summary and compilation of necessary corrections is based on our technical review of Amended Plans received by our office on Dec. 30, 2019. As discussed in previous email and/or phone correspondence, these plans have deficiencies or omissions (see page 1 of the attached Correction Notice). In addition, there are a number of significant issues that appear to have been either overlooked or perhaps certain assumptions were made without consulting the Garfield County Building Department (see pages 2-5 and the attached redlined plans). 2 The most important of these outstanding issues pertain to apparent oversights or misunderstandings of basic I.B.C. requirements including allowable building size and/or installation of automatic fire sprinkler system. Other key issues include fire resistive construction of the structure and means of egress requirements. In conducting our Technical Plan Review we have tried to leverage our knowledge and understanding of the building code to your advantage, but our results don't allow us to grant this project approval in its current form. In fact, the issues identified in the Correction Notice are substantive and need to be resolved prior to the Building Dept. moving forward with final plan review and issuance of any permits. Normally, the typical timing for addressing some of the "big picture" project scoping of building code issues happens during the preliminary stages of design. And although the bulk of the Engineering work that has been submitted appears to be professionally produced, the portion of the project typically performed by the Architect including fire/life safety issues and basic Building Code requirements does not appear up to par with the remainder of project design. In addition to our Correction Notice, I have also attached a copy of the local Fire District's plan review comments from Orrin Moon, and per my conversation with Charles yesterday I will leave it up to both of you to convey all of this enclosed information to any other members of your team. After you and your design team have looked over this Correction Notice and as you decide how to proceed in addressing your response to our concerns, Andy Schwaller and I would be happy to sit down with you to discuss any questions that you may have moving forward. Dave Argo Plans Examiner Garfield County Community Development Department 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Tel: 970-945-8212 Ext. 1610 Email: dargo@garfield-county.com Web: garfield-county.com 3 Dave Argo From: Dave Argo Sent: Wednesday, February 5, 2020 8:27 AM To: Ian Musick; Charles Barr Cc: Andy Schwaller; Orrin Moon (Orrin.Moon@Crfr.us) Subject: RE: Silt Farms Plan Review Correction Notice lan: We don't require that you submit design/build fire sprinkler shop drawings to our office ... that information should be provided to Orrin Moon as per his direction. What we require is a relatively simple — but clear — description of the basic performance specification (for example, "fire sprinkler system design shall comply with NFPA 13 and IBC, Section 903.3.1.1"). In addition, we also need to know specifically where the fire sprinkler system will be installed. This information is not dearly identified on the set of drawings previously submitted to our office. Dave Argo Plans Examiner CGarfield County 1 Community Development Department 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Tel: 970-945-8212 Ext. 1610 Email: dargo@garfield-county.com Web: garfield-county.com From: Ian Musick <ianmusick@msn.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 4, 2020 6:59 PM To: Dave Argo <dargo@garfield-county.com>; Charles Barr <charles@charlesbarr.net> Cc: Andy Schwaller <aschwaller@garfield-county.com> Subject: RE: [External] Silt Farms Plan Review Correction Notice Hello Dave, I thank you for your diligent review and associated advise on best approaches for approval. Our design team is underway. I have one specific item which I would like to clarify regarding automatic fire sprinkler design. Per your notes under Architectural; Paragraph 07 your office is indicating a lack of information in general, noting one reference on the cover sheet about the system. In order to best resolve the item, I need to understand if you are requesting full sprinkler design at this level or a simpler but more robust description on the plans wherin an indication of future design build by contactor would be accommodated? To clarify; Do we need to engage contractors engineer to submit a full design to your office for this approval? I am under the directive from Orrin Moon that we can design build that system once underway. Please clarify and we are happy to comply. Best Regards, Ian Musick, Principal MUSICK -BUILT LTD - "A Legacy of Integrity" 720-620-1177 www.musickbuilt.info From: Dave Argo Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2020 2:53 PM To: Charles Barr; Ian Musick Cc: Andy Schwaller Subject: Silt Farms Plan Review Correction Notice Charles & Ian: Attached please find our "Plan Review Correction Notice" for the Spring Born/Silt Farms project. This summary and compilation of necessary corrections is based on our technical review of Amended Plans received by our office on Dec. 30, 2019. As discussed in previous email and/or phone correspondence, these plans have deficiencies or omissions (see page 1 of the attached Correction Notice). In addition, there are a number of significant issues that appear to have been either overlooked or perhaps certain assumptions were made without consulting the Garfield County Building Department (see pages 2-5 and the attached redlined plans). The most important of these outstanding issues pertain to apparent oversights or misunderstandings of basic I.B.C. requirements including allowable building size and/or installation of automatic fire sprinkler system. Other key issues include fire resistive construction of the structure and means of egress requirements. In conducting our Technical Plan Review we have tried to leverage our knowledge and understanding of the building code to your advantage, but our results don't allow us to grant this project approval in its current form. In fact, the issues identified in the Correction Notice are substantive and need to be resolved prior to the Building Dept. moving forward with final plan review and issuance of any permits. Normally, the typical timing for addressing some of the "big picture" project scoping of building code issues happens during the preliminary stages of design. And although the bulk of the Engineering work that has been submitted appears to be professionally produced, the portion of the project typically performed by the Architect including fire/life safety issues and basic Building Code requirements does not appear up to par with the remainder of project design. In addition to our Correction Notice, I have also attached a copy of the local Fire District's plan review comments from Orrin Moon, and per my conversation with Charles yesterday I will leave it up to both of you to convey all of this enclosed information to any other members of your team. After you and your design team have looked over this Correction Notice and as you decide how to proceed in addressing your response to our concerns, Andy Schwaller and I would be happy to sit down with you to discuss any questions that you may have moving forward. Dave Argo Plans Examiner CGarfield County Community Development Department 2 Dave Argo From: Andy Schwaller Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2020 12:31 PM To: Ian Musick Cc: Charles Barr; Jerry Burgess; Dave Argo Subject: RE: Grading Permit We can issue the grading permit with the items submitted, should go out today. All grading is at the owner's risk pending a formal review of the building permit. Check in with the road and bridge department on the exact location of the driveway access and required dimensions prior to any work being done. All stormwater BMP's should be in place before doing other dirt work. The civil engineer of record can help with this. Thanks, Andy From: Ian Musick <ianmusick@msn.com> Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2020 11:54 AM To: Andy Schwaller <aschwaller@garfield-county.com> Subject: [External] RE: Grading Permit Hi Andy, I know it has been a long while. Is the email you sent back in October still a valid concept? If it is, please see the attached Storm water permit from CDPHE and the Road/ Bridge permit from Garfield County. We were contemplating some grading to allow delivery of containers for the project. These containers are on a scheduled delivery that contain building equipment and need a home soon. Let me know what you think and we will go from there. Thank you Sir! Best Regards, Ian Musick, Principal MUSICK -BUILT LTD - "A Legacy of Integrity" 720-620-1177 www.musickbuilt.info From: Andy Schwaller Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2019 2:17 PM To: lanmusick@msn.com Subject: Grading Permit Ian, I reviewed your civil drawings for the proposed development Spring Born Inc. and need the following before we can issue the grading permit: 1. Storm water discharge permit from the State. They will typically send you a letter confirming the permit has been applied for. We do not need the entire permit application. 1 2. Driveway permit from Garfield County Read and Bridge. They can be reached at 9/O-625-8601. I he permit is for any work done in the county ROW. Typically, this is just where the driveway ties into the ROW but may be also include any utilities into or across the ROW. 3. Not critical right now, but contact Steve Anthony Garfield County Vegetation Manager for a seed mixture to be used for future revegetation. Once we receive the above items, we will be able to issue the grading permit. Please call if you have any questions. Thanks, Andy Schwaller Building Official Garfield County 2 Dave Argo From: Eric Kraai <eric@kraaidesign.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 3, 2020 11:53 AM To: Dave Argo Subject: [External] Spring Born- Life Safety Attachments: ESR-2397.pdf; TFP620_08_2018.pdf Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Hello Dave, I hope you are doing well. I wanted to run something by you that I have done in the past and wanted to propose this in the firewall for Spring Born so they have visual control over the greenhouse. I am proposing the attached Window Sprinklers by Tyco (attached). I ended up using them in an exit stairway enclosure where the Owner wanted to keep the stairway as open as possible, but the cost of fire glass is so expensive. This window sprinkler provides a 2 -hour rating with typical glass as long as you don't have horizontal mullions and you aren't running it down to where there can be combustibles next to it. What are your thoughts? Thanks. Eric Kraai, AIA eric @Wraa idesig n.c am 417 Monument Suite 7 Grand Junction, CO 81507 T: 970.712.5045 1 kraaidesign.com 1 ES ICC EVALU[FION SERVICE ICC -ES Evaluation Report ESR -2397 Reissued February 2020 This report is subject to renewal February 2022. www.icc-es.orq 1 (800) 423-6587 1 (562) 699-0543 A Subsidiary of the International Code Council® DIVISION: 21 00 00—FIRE SUPPRESSION Section: 21 13 13—Wet-Pipe Sprinkler Systems REPORT HOLDER: TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT EVALUATION SUBJECT: MODEL WSTm-5.6 K -FACTOR SPECIFIC APPLICATION WINDOW SPRINKLERS, HORIZONTAL SIDEWALL AND PENDENT VERTICAL SIDEWALL MODEL CWSTM-5.6 K -FACTOR SPECIFIC APPLICATION WINDOW SPRINKLERS, CONCEALED PENDENT VERTICAL SIDEWALL 1.0 EVALUATION SCOPE Compliance i 2018, 201!1--41011)i � Building Cede"� (IBf J,, In 2013 Abu. X F(zz. �!/•I� °.� fh IBc)t tThe ADIBC is b//�(rt. eferenced N in this report are ��''JJ���� • 1 Property ev. Alternative to 2.0 USES The automatic special-purpose sprinkler system incorporating the Model WSTM and Model CWSTM sprinkler is used in conjunction with a fixed glazed wall assembly to provide an alternative to a Iwo -hour fire -resistance -rated nonload-bearing interior fire barrier assemb,-y prescribed in IBC Section 707, fire partition assembly prescribed in IBC Section 708 or exterior wa I assembly prescribed in IBC Section 705. The Model WSTM and Model CWSTM sprinklers are recognized as a means to achieve a fire - resistance rating on fixed glazed wall assemblies in exterior fire -resistance -rated walls only when the horizontal fire separation distance is 5 feet (1525 mm) or greater. 3.0 DESCRIPTION 3.1 General: The Model WSTM and Model CWSTM window sprinklers are used as part of a wet -pipe fire suppression system to provide a two-hour fire -resistance rating to an interior nonload-bearing fire barrier, fire partition or exterior wall assembly consisting of fixed glazing as described in this report. When activated, the sprinklers are designed to wet the entire surface of the affected side of the fixed glazed openings in the fire barrier and exterior wall assembly in order to achieve the fire -resistance rating of the wall. For exterior glazed assemblies that are permitted to be rated only from the interior, the sprinklers must be located on the interior side of the glazing. For interior glazed assemblies, the sprinklers must be located on both sides of the assembly. The primary components of the fire -resistance - rated assembly are as described in Sections 3.2 and 3.3. 3.2 Model WSTM Window Sprinklers: The Model WSTM window sprinklers described in this report are quick -response sprinklers that are available in models that activate to release water flow when they reach an ambient temperature of either 155°F or 200°F (68°C or 93°C). The sprinklers have an orifice and thread size of 1/2 inch (12.7 mm). The sprinklers are manufactured for two orientations. The horizontal sidewall type (product number TY3388), as shown in Figure 1, is designed to face the glazing of the fire barrier assembly in a horizontal orientation. The pendent vertical sidewall type (product number TY3488), as shown in Figure 2, is designed to face the glazing of the fire barrier assembly in a vertical orientation 3.3 Model CWSTM Window Sprinklers: The Model CWSTM window sprinklers described in this report are quick -response sprinklers that are available in models that activate by first releasing a thermo-sensitive drop -away cover plate and then activate to release water flow when they reach an ambient temperature of either 160°F or 212°F (71°C or 100°C) The sprinklers have an orifice and thread size of inch (12.7 mm) The sprinklers are manufactured in one orientation; the pendent vertical sidewall type (product number TY3498) as shown in Figure 3, is designed to be installed within the ceiling assembly and oriented to face the glazing of the fire barrier assembly in a vertical orientation. 3.4 Glazed Fire Barrier Assembly: The glazing used in the fire barrier must be nominally 1/4 -inch -thick heat -strengthened or tempered glass complying with ASTM C1048 or Federal Specification DD -G -1403B, installed as a single pane or dual pane. The exposed glass component of the wall assembly must not exceed 13 feet (4 m) in height. There is no exposed width restriction for the horizontal span, except where necessary to comply with the requirements of IBC Sections 2403 and 2404. All interfaces between the fixed glazed wall assembly and adjacent wall assemblies must include termination of the glazing within a window frame as described in this /CC-ESEvaluation Reports are not to be construed as representing aesthetics or any other attributes not specifically addressed, nor are they to be construed as an endorsement of the subject of the report or a recommendation for its use There is no warranty by ICC Evaluation Service, LLC, express or implied, as to any finding or other matter in this report, or as to any product covered by the report Copyright © 2020 ICC Evaluation Service, LLC. All rights reserved �1CC IS CZ IMP Page 1 of 4 ESR -2397 I Most Widely Accepted and Trusted section. The glazing is held in place by a metallic frame with an elastomeric seal allowing for thermally initiated contraction and expansion. Unframed vertical joints between glazing panels are permitted provided that such joints are sealed with silicone sealant. Intermediate horizontal mullions are not permitted as part of the fixed glazed wall assembly. The interface details and mounting method must be approved by the code official. 4.0 INSTALLATION 4.1 Sprinkler Orientation: For the Model WSTM horizontal sidewall sprinkler, the deflector of the sprinkler must be placed from 1/2 inch to 4 inches (12.7 to 102 mm) away from the glass and 1 to 3 inches (25 to 76.2 mm) down from the top of the noncombustible frame as shown in Figure 4. The Model WSTM pendent vertical sidewall sprinkler must be located 4 to 12 inches (102 to 305 mm) from the face of the glass and 2 to 4 inches (51 to 102 mm) down from the top of the noncombustible frame as shown in Figure 5. The Model CWS TM concealed pendent vertical sidewall sprinkler must be located 6 to 12 inches (152 mm to 305 mm) from the face of the glass and from 2 inches +/- 2 inches (51 mm +/- 51 mm) above the top of the exposed glass as shown in Figure 6. Intermediate horizontal mullions are not permitted as part of the glass wall assembly. All combustible materials must be kept a minimum distance of 2 inches (51 mm) from the face of the glass. This can be accomplished by a 36 -inch - high (914 mm) "pony wall" as shown in Figures 3 and 4. This "pony wall" is constructed using construction methods and materials as recognized in the applicable codes based on the building's type of construction. The "pony wall" must be constructed in a manner which meets the minimum required fire -resistance rating which is sought for the fixed glazed wall assembly. This "pony wall" construction must be approved by the code official. The evaluation of alternative methods other than the "pony wall" to maintain a minimum 2 -inch (51 mm) clearance of combustibles from the face of the assembly is outside the scope of this report. The maximum distance between window sprinklers is 8 feet (2440 mm) on center and the minimum distance is 6 feet (1830 mm) on center, except where the sprinklers are separated by a noncombustible vertical mullion located between sprinklers. In this case, the maximum distance maintained between the sprinkler and the mullion must not exceed one-half of the distance required between sprinklers. The automatic water supply must have the capability to supply water to the assembly for a time not less than the rating of the assembly. The maximum fire -resistance rating recognized in this report is two hours. 4.2 Hydraulic Requirements: The code official must be consulted to determine the hydraulic requirements for each installation. Hydraulic calculations must show a maximum pressure of 175 psi (1207 kPa) on the vertical sidewall sprinklers and horizontal sidewall sprinklers separated by a noncombustible vertical mullion. Hydraulic calculations must show a maximum pressure of 70 psi (483 kPa) for horizontal sidewall sprinklers that are not separated by a noncombustible vertical mullion between sprinklers. Interior Protection—Sprinklered Building: The compartmented area that has the most hydraulically Page 2 of 4 demanding window sprinklers must be identified. The most demanding 46.5 linear feet (14.2 m) of Model WSTM and CWSTM Window Sprinklers is calculated based on L=1.2 JA, where A is system area of operation, and when A equals 1,500 square feet (139.4 m2), in accordance with NFPA 13 Light/Ordinary Hazard density curves. If an area reduction for quick -response sprinklers is being utilized, the linear length of the calculated window sprinklers may be reduced, to 36 linear feet (11 m) or greater, based on L=1.2 1A, where A is a minimum of 900 square feet (83.6 m2). If a single fire can be expected to cause operation of the Model WSTM and CWSTM window sprinklers and sprinklers within the design area of a hydraulically calculated system, the water flow demand of the window sprinklers must be added to the water demand of the hydraulic calculations and must be balanced to the calculated area demand. If the window sprinklers are located in an area other than the hydraulic design area, the demand of the window sprinklers is not required to be added to the demand of the remote hydraulic design area; however, it is necessary to hydraulically prove that proper simultaneous operation of the Model WSTM and CWSTM window sprinklers and the ceiling sprinklers adjacent to the Model WSTM and CWS TM window sprinklers will occur. 5.0 CONDITIONS OF USE The Model WSTM and CWSTM window sprinklers described in this report comply with, or are suitable alternatives to what is specified in, those codes listed in Section 1.0 of this report, subject to the following conditions: 5.1 The installation of the special-purpose sprinkler systems must be in accordance with the manufacturer's published installation instructions, this report and the applicable code. In the event of a conflict between this report and the manufacturer's published installation instructions, this report governs. A copy of the installation instructions and this report must be available at all times on the jobsite during installation. 5.2 The design, with plans and details of the specific installation of the fixed glazed assembly with special- purpose sprinklers, must be submitted to the code official for approval. The design must be prepared by a registered design professional where required by the statutes of the jurisdiction in which the project is to be constructed. 5.3 Where approved by the code official, the fixed glazed assembly described in this report, comprised of special-purpose sprinklers with fixed glazing having specific construction requirements, is intended to provide an alternative to a two-hour fire -resistance - rated nonload-bearing interior fire barrier assembly prescribed in IBC Section 707, a fire partition assembly prescribed in IBC Section 708 or an exterior wall assembly prescribed in IBC Section 705. The registered design professional must provide the code official with documentation outlining the basis of compliance with the criteria specified by the IBC for a code modification in accordance with Section 104 10 or for an alternative method of construction in accordance with Section 104.11. 5.4 The assembly must not be used in locations that contain materials that represent deflagration or detonation hazards. 5.5 Special-purpose fire sprinkler system piping must be designed, sized and installed in accordance with NFPA 13. ESR -2397 I Most Widely Accepted and Trusted Page 3 of 4 5.6 Use of the system is limited to wet -type special- purpose sprinkler systems and nonload-bearing wall assemblies. 5.7 Use of the special-purpose fire sprinkler system in exterior wall applications is limited to installations where the fire separation distance is greater than 5 feet (1524 mm) for the 2006 IBC, and 10 feet (3048 mm) for the 2018, 2015, 2012 and 2009 IBC. 5.8 The assembly is not permitted to incorporate penetrations. Openings must be protected in accordance with applicable requirements of the IBC for opening protection. 5.9 The fixed glazed assembly is not permitted to be used in lieu of firewalls. Where the assemblies are used as an alternative to fire barriers for exit -passageways, horizontal exits, or exit enclosures, the fire area (Section 202 of the IBC) in which the assembly is ocated shall be fully sprinklered in accordance with Section 903.3.1 of the IBC. The water supply duration for sprinklers, where used, shall be not less than the fire resistance rating that would have been required for a fire barrier. In addition, the registered design professional shall provide the code official with documentation in accordance with Section 104.10 of the IBC for a code modification or Section 104.11 of the IBC for an alternative method of construction that addresses any anticipated impact on the functionality of the means of egress. 5.10 The fixed glazed assembly must not have intermediate horizontal mullions that interfere with the uniform distribution of water over the surface of the glazing FIGURE 1—HORIZONTAL SIDEWALL SPRINKLER 5.11 All combustible materials must be kept a minimum distance of 2 inches (51 mm) from the face of the glass, such that the complete coverage of the glass by the sprinklers is not impeded. This is accomplished by a minimum 36 -inch -high (914 mm) knee or "pony" wall at the base of the assembly. The means for maintaining clearance must be as set forth in this evaluation report. 6.0 EVIDENCE SUBMITTED Data in accordance with the ICC -ES Acceptance Criteria for Special-purpose Sprinklers Used with Fixed Glazed Assemblies to Provide an Alternative to a Fire -resistance - rated Wall Assembly (AC385), dated February 2015 (editorially revised January 2020). 7.0 IDENTIFICATION 7.1 For field identification, all Tyco Model WSTM and CWSTM window sprinklers are labeled with the manufacturer's name (Tyco), the product name, and the evaluation report number (ESR -2397). 7.2 The report holder's contact information is the following: TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT 1467 ELMWOOD AVENUE CRANSTON, RHODE ISLAND 02910 (401) 781-8220 www.tvco-fire.com FIGURE 2—PENDENT VERTICAL SIDEWALL SPRINKLER FIGURE 3—CONCEALED PENDENT VERTICAL SIDEWALL SPRINKLER ESR -2397 1 Most Widely Accepted and Trusted Page 4 of 4 2"t1" r/e Installation Note; All frame arms must be in vertical alignment I Limit of Exposed A Glass 1 Maximum Height 13'-0' 12•to4'• No Maximum Height 'Must be wi hin the frame of window FIGURE 4._.WSTM HORIZONTAL SIDEWALL No Max,mum Distance 12' Max_ 4' Min. r l t 1 f Iia Maximum Height 13'-0' 36' Minimum 'Pony' Wall J FIGURE 5—WST° PENDENT VERTICAL SIDEWALL SPRINKLER INSTALLATION SPRINKLER INSTALLATION CENTERLINE OF SPRINKLER WATERWAY Cal" {50.8 mm -- t.(.O.B 1 NO MAX MUM HEIGHT BUILDING STRUCTURE 6" to 12' { 162 W - 306 rnml SPRAY INSTALLATION NOTE: ORIENT SPRINKLER WITH GUIDE PINS ALIGNED PARALLEL TO GLAZING AND DEFLECTOR SPRAY AI -1140W PUN I ED TOWARD GLAZING 13-0" (3,96 m) MAX MUM EXPOSED GLAZING HEIGHT 36" (0,9 m) MINIMUM PONY WALL FLUSH OR EXPOSED WINDOW FRAME NON-OPERABLE GLASS WINDOW ALL COMBUSTIBLE MATERIALS SHALL BE KEPT 2" (80.8 mm) MINIMUM FROM SPRINKLEREU FACE OF GLAZING THIS MAY BE DONE THROUGH USF OF 3'-0' (0.9 m) MINIMUM PONY WALL MODEL CWS SPRINKLER SHOWN ON ONE SIDE OF GLAZING FOR CLARITY FIGURE 6—CWS CONCEALED PENDENT VERTICAL SIDEWALL SPRINKLER INSTALLATION tqcu Worldwide Contacts www.tyco-fire.com Model WS Specific Application Window Sprinklers Horizontal and Pendent Vertical Sidewall 5.6 K -factor General Description The TYCO Model WS Specific Appli- cation Window Sprinklers are fast response, glass bulb -type spray sprin- klers available in Horizontal Sidewall and Pendent Vertical Sidewall models. These sprinklers are the first to be specifically Listed to provide com- plete wetting and coverage for heat strengthened, tempered, or ceramic glass windows using closed sprin- klers. As part of the testing, the gas flow required to achieve the time/ temperature relationship specified in ASTM E119 was established in a test furnace without sprinkler protection. A window assembly protected with the TYCO Model WS Window Sprinklers was then installed in the test furnace, and the same gas flow conditions were maintained for a two-hour test period. No cracking or visible damage to the window was permitted during the test period, even when a hose stream was directed at the window. The success of the Model WS Window Sprinklers is based on their fast response thermal sensitivity and on their specially designed deflectors that ensure that the spray pattern wets the entire surface of the window. Based on successful testing, the Model WS Window Sprinklers can be used as interior protection of windows or glazing in a sprinklered building or non-sprinklered building in accordance IMPORTANT Refer to Technical Data Sheet TFP2300 for warnings pertaining to regulatory and health information. Always refer to Technical Data Sheet TFP700 for the "INSTALLER WARNING" that provides cautions with respect to handling and instal- lation of sprinkler systems and com- ponents. Improper handling and installation can permanently damage a sprinkler system or its compo- nents and cause the sprinkler to fail to operate in a fire situation or cause it to operate prematurely. Page 1 of 8 with Section 104 of the IBC ("Alternate Materials, Design and Methods of Con- struction and Equipment"). Also, the Model WS Window Sprinklers can be used as an open sprinkler for "Outside Sprinkler Protection against Exposure Fire", using the design requirements of NFPA. As with any specific application sprin- kler, the installation instructions included in this data sheet must be pre- cisely followed. If there are additional local or jurisdictional installation stan- dards/codes for window sprinklers on glazed window systems, this document does not relieve the designer/installer from these requirements. Consult your local jurisdiction to verify if or when these additional guidelines must be followed. NOTICE TYCO Model WS Specific Application Window Sprinklers described herein must be installed and maintained in compliance with this document, as well as with the applicable standards recognized by the approval agency, in addition to the standards of any author- ities having jurisdiction. Failure to do so may impair the performance of these devices. The owner is responsible for main- taining their fire protection system and devices in proper operating con- dition. Contact the installing contrac- tor or product manufacturer with any questions. Sprinkler Identification Number (SIN) TY3388 - Horizontal Sidewall TY3488 - Pendent Vertical Sidewall TY3388 is a re -designation for C3388 TY3488 is a re -designation for C3488 .f�ft.�}}t� fjTr}INy� AUGUST 2018 TFP620 TFP62O Page 2 of 8 Technical Data Approvals UL and C -UL Listed NYC under MEA 289-04-E Approvals only apply to the service conditions indicated in the Design Cri- teria section. Additional Recognition ICC Evaluation Service (ESR -2397) Ontario Building Code Pipe Thread Connection 1/2 in. NPT Discharge Coefficient K=5.6 GPM/psi'/ (80,6 LPM/bar%) Temperature Ratings 155 °F (68 °C) 200 °F (03 °C) Finish Natural Brass Signal White (RAL9003) Polyester Jet Black (RAL9005) Polyester Chrome Plated Physical Characteristics Frame . Brass Button Bronze/Copper Sealing Assembly, .Beryllium Nickel w/TEFLON Bulb Glass (3 mm dia.) Compression Screw Brass Deflector Brass/Bronze Operation The glass bulb contains a fluid that expands when exposed to heat. When the rated temperature is reached, the fluid expands sufficiently to shatter the glass bulb, allowing the sprinkler to activate and water to flow. Components: 1 - Frame 2 - Button 3 - Sealing Assembly 4 - Bulb 5 - Compression Screw 6 - Deflector * ga=71!!!WAIRRI CROSS SECTION PLAN THREAD SPRINKLER RELIEF FRAME ARMS 1/2" NPT ., CENTERLINE OF SPRINKLER WAI LHWAY 7/16" (11,1 mm) y NOMINAL MAKE -IN * Temperature rating is indicated on Deflector. 6* INDICATED TOP OF SPRINKLER DEFLECTOR 111 FLA WRENCH FLATS 2-1/8" (54,0 mm) 13/16" 1-5/8' DIA. (41,3 mm) ORIENT DEFLECTOR TOWARDS WINDOW SIDE ELEVATION FIGURE 1 MODEL WS WINDOW SPRINKLER HORIZONTAL SIDEWALL Components: 1 - Frame 4 - Bulb *Temperature 2 - Button 5 - Compression rating is indicated 3 - Sealing Screw on Deflector. Assembly 6 - Deflector * 1 4 ORIENT 0:01 FLOW ARROW A ' (INDICATED ON 4 1 DEFLECTOR) TOWARDS tiE WINDOW 5 �� CENTERLINE TOP OF OF SPRINKLER — 6* SPRINKLER WATERWAY DEFLECTOR WRENCH FLATS 1/2" 7/16" (11,1 mm) NPT NOMINAL MAKE -IN SPRINKLER FRAME 2-1/8" ARMS (54,0 mm) OIAL1 ��7 5/8" (15,9 mm) CROSS SECTION 1-1/32" (26,2 mm) 2-1/16" (62,4 mm) TOWARDS WINDOW ELEVATION FIGURE 2 MODEL WS WINDOW SPRINKLER PENDENT VERTICAL SIDEWALL Design Criteria The TYCO Model WS Specific Appli- cation Window Sprinklers are UL and C -UL Listed and NYC Approved (MEA 335-01-E) for use as "Specific Appli- cation Window Sprinkler" and as open sprinklers for "Outside" use. These sprinklers are also recognized by Underwriters Laboratories of Canada (ULC), and the Ontario Building Code for use in the Province of Ontario, Canada as providing a two-hour equiv- alency for a fire separation assembly when installed in accordance with this code. Area of Use When acceptable to the Authority Having Jurisdiction and unless modi- fied by a local jurisdictional standard or code mentioned previously, the TYCO Model WS Window Sprinklers may be used in either a sprinklered or unsprin- klered building to protect non-operable window openings that are part of a fire separation provided: • in an interior fire separation, the win- dow sprinklers are installed on both sides of the window in the fire sepa- ration (Figure 3A-1), • in jurisdictions where exterior spatial separation (that is, separation from adjacent space) is defined as pro- tecting an adjacent building from a fire in your building, window sprin- klers are installed on the interior side of the building (Figure 3A-2), or • in jurisdictions where exterior spatial separation is defined as protecting your building from a fire in an adja- cent building (that is, exposure pro- tection), open window sprinklers are installed on the exterior side of the building (Figure 3A-3). System Protection Type • Interior: Wet Systems • Outside Exposure: Deluge Glass Type The following types and thicknesses of glass are recognized for use with TYCO Model WS Window Sprinklers: • Non-operable, heat -strengthened, tempered, single -glazed (single pane), not less than 1/4 in. (6 mm) thick; • Non-operable, heat -strengthened, tempered, double -glazed (double pane or insulated), not less than 1/4 in. (6 mm) thick; • Non-operable, UL Classified and labeled FireLite Plus WS ceramic glass by Technical Glass Products (TGP), not less than 5/16 in. (8 mm) thick; or, NOTE: Refer to FireLite Plus WS ceramic glass technical data sheet for other classification limitations at www. fireglass.com. • Non-operable, stronger glass win- dow assemblies, not less than 1/4 in. (6 mm) thick. Type of Window Frame/Mullion Non-combustible Frame with a stan- dard EPDM rubber gasket seal Vertical joints of glass panes must be connected by butt -joints using a sili- cone sealant between the individual panes or by Noncombustible Mullions. (Refer to Figures 3B-1 and 3B-2) Maximum Length of Window Assembly Unlimited Maximum Height of Window Assembly 13 ft (3,96 m) (Refer to Figures 3C and 3D) Maximum Distance Between Window Sprinklers 8 ft (2,44 m) (Refer to Figures 3B-1 and 3B-2) Minimum Distance Between Window Sprinklers 6 ft (1,83 m) unless separated by a baffle or mullion of sufficient depth to act as a baffle. A mullion will act as a baffle, when in the case of the Pendent Vertical Side- wall, the mullion extends to the back of the sprinkler deflector, and in the case of the Horizontal Sidewall, the mullion extends to the sprinkler wrench flat. (Refer to Figures 3B-1 and 3B-2) Minimum Distance from Standard Sprinklers 6 ft (1,83 m) unless separated by a baffle Sprinkler Location • Mullioned Glazing Assemblies: Locate window sprinklers within each mullioned glazing segment. Refer to Figure 3B-1. • Butt -Jointed Glazing Assemblies: Locate window sprinklers on maxi- mum 8 ft (2,44 m) centers. Refer to Figure 3B-2. Maximum Distance from Vertical Mullion 4 ft (1,22 m) (Refer to Figure 3B-1) Minimum Distance from Vertical Mullions 4 in. (101,6 mm) (Refer to Figure 3B-1) TFP62O Page 3 of 8 Intermediate Horizontal Mullions Intermediate Horizontal Mullions were not tested with the Model WS Window Sprinklers. Their use is outside the scope of the "Specific Application" Listing for the window sprinklers. Refer to Figure 3B-3. Deflector Location Sprinkler Deflectors must be located as described below in order to ensure that the entire surface of the glass window is covered. Sprinkler Deflectors are positioned with respect to the window frame, not the ceiling. • Horizontal Sidewall: Locate within the outside edge of the window frame from 1/2 in. to 4 in. (12,7 mm to 101,6 mm) away from the glass and 2 in. ± 1 in. (50,8 mm ± 25,4 mm) down from the top of the exposed glass. Refer to Figure 3C. ■ Pendent Vertical Sidewall: Locate 4 in. to 12 in. (101,6 mm to 304,8 mm) from the face of the glass and 3 in. ± 1 in. (76,2 mm ± 25,4 mm) down from the top of exposed glass. Refer to Figure 3D. Minimum Clearance from Face of Glass to Combustible Materials For glass types other than FireLite Plus WS ceramic glass by TGP, all com- bustible materials shall be kept 2 in. (50,8 mm) from the front face of the glass. This can be accomplished by a minimum 36 in. (914,4 mm) pony wall or other method acceptable to the author- ity having jurisdiction. Escutcheon Assemblies The Model WS Window Sprinklers can be used with any metallic flush or extended escutcheons, provided the dimensions from the sprinkler deflector to the window frame and glass surface as specified in this data sheet are main- tained. These sprinklers are not listed for recessed applications. Recommended Hydraulic Requirements The authority having jurisdiction should be consulted to determine the hydraulic requirements for each installation. Interior Protection Sprinklered Building Identify which compartmented area has the most hydraulically demand- ing window sprinklers. Calculate up to the most demanding 46.5 linear feet of Model WS Window Sprinklers on one side of the glazing. The 46.5 linear feet (14,2 linear meters) is based upon 1.2 x the square root of the system area of operation, when the system area of operation is 1500 sq. -ft. in accordance with NFPA 13 Light/Ordinary Hazard density curves. TFP620 Page 4 of 8 Where the area of Glazing is less than 14.2 linear meters, all window sprin- klers on one side shall be calculated. If an area reduction for quick response sprinklers is utilized, the linear length of the calculated window sprinklers may be reduced, but in no case shall be less than 36 linear feet (1.2 x -1900). If a single fire can be expected to operate Model WS Window Sprinklers and sprinklers within the design area of a hydraulically calculated system, the water demand of the window sprinklers shall be added to the water demand of the hydraulic calculations and shall be balanced to the calculated area demand. If the window sprinklers are located in an area other than the hydraulic desiyr area, the demand of the window sprin- klers is not required to be added to the demand of the remote hydraulic design area. However, it is necessary to prove hydraulically the simultaneous opera- tion of the Model WS Window Sprin- klers and the ceiling sprinklers adjacent to the window sprinklers. Interior Protection Non-Sprinklered Building Calculate all sprinklers on the most demanding side of the glazing assem- bly within the enclosure. Exterior Exposure Protection Calculate all sprinklers controlled by the deluge valve using the design requirements of NFPA. Duration of Water Supply Duration of water supply must comply with requirements of NFPA. If window sprinklers are used to provide the equivalency of a fire rating, the water supply must be capable of supplying water for the required rating period. Minimum Flow per Sprinkler 20 GPM (75,7 LPM) for sprinkler spacing of 6 ft to 8 ft (1,83 m to 2,44 m) or 15 GPM (56,8 LPM) for sprinkler spacing less than 6 ft (1,83 m). Maximum Pressure per Sprinkler • Horizontal Sidewall: 70 psi (4,83 bar)* * The 70 psi is only for cold solder purposes. If there is a baffle or a mullion of sufficient depth to art as a baffle, separating the sprinklers, the maximum pressure is 175 psi (12,07 bar). • Vertical Sidewall: 175 psi (12,07 bar) When acceptable to the Authority Having Jurisdiction the Model WS Specific Application Window Sprinklers may be used in either a sprinklered or unsprinklered building to protect nonoperable window openings that are in an interior fire separation, the window sprinklers are installed on both sides of the window in the fire separation. INSIDE INSIDE FIGURE 3A-1 — INTERIOR FIRE SEPARATION When acceptable to the Authority Having Jurisdiction the Model WS Specific Application Window Sprinklers may be used in either a sprinklered or unsprinklered building to protect nonoperable window openings that are part of a fire separation provided in jurisdictions where exterior spatial separation is defined as protecting an adjacent building from a fire in your building, window sprinklers are installed on the interior side of the glass. OUTSIDE demimmimmumlwimmimem10°1°I.yr INSIDE EXPOSURE SIDE FIGURE 3A-2 - EXTERIOR FIRE SEPARATION - SPRINKLERS INSIDE When acceptable to the Authority Having Jurisdiction the Model WS Specific Application Window Sprinklers may be used in either a sprinklered or unsprinklered building to protect nonoperable window openings that are part of a fire separation provided in jurisdictions where exterior spatial separation is defined as protecting your building from a fire in an adjacent building, open window sprinklers are installed on the exterior side of the glass. EXPOSURE SIDE INSIDE ti OUTSIDE ,/fr FIGURE 3A-3 - EXTERIOR FIRE SEPARATION - SPRINKLERS OUTSIDE FIGURE 3A (A-1 TO A-3) TYPICAL NON-OPERABLE WINDOW OPENINGS TFP620 Page 5 of 8 6'-0" (1,83 m) HORIZONTAL OR VERTICAL ?. // 8'-0" \ (2,44 .2. m) F * Minimum distance Window Sprinklers (1,83 m) unless MINIMUM* between is 6'-0' separated MULLION MODEL SPRINKLER WS MAXIMUM 4'-0" (1,22 m) MAXIMUM by a baffle or mullion of sufficient depth to act as a baffle. \11 ' ,/ 0'-4" (101,6 mm) MINIMUM FIGURE 3B-1 - MULTIPLE WINDOWS SEPARATED BY MULLIONS 6'-0" (1,83 m) HORIZONTAL OR VERTICAL 8'-0" (2,44 m) Window Sprinklers required to be to horizontal MINIMUM are NOT1 located with or - BUTT MODEL SPRINKLER JOINT WS MAXIMUM 4'-0" (1,22 m) MULLION MAXIMUM respect vertical butt joints. /://// 1 0'-4" (101,6 mm) MINIMUM ` FIGURE 3B-2 - MULTIPLE WINDOWS SEPARATED BY BUTT JOINTS -� -.7 // "r HORIZONTAL OR VERTICAL MODEL WS SPRINKLER a %/ MULLION \• Window Sprinklers are NOT listed to protect windows when intermediate horizontal mullions are present. INTERMEDIATE MULLION FIGURE 3B-3 - WINDOWS WITH HORIZONTAL MULLIONS FIGURE 3B (B-1 TO B-3) WINDOW MULLIONS AND BUTT JOINTS TFP620 Page 6 of 8 NO MAXIMUM HEIGHT "TOP" BUILDING INDICATED ON STRUCTURE SPRINKLER DEFLECTOR NO MAXIMUM DISTANCE 1/2" (12,7 mm) TO 4" (101,6 mm) 13'-0" (3,96 m) MAXIMUM EXPOSED GLAZING HEIGHT NON-OPERABLE GLASS WINDOW INSTALLATION NOTE: POSITION SPRINKLER WITH FRAME ARMS ALIGNED VERTICALLY AND MARKED SIDE OF DEFLECTOR FACING AND PARALLEL TO GLAZING WINDOW FRAME 2" (50 8mm) ± 1" (25,4 mm) FOR GLASS TYPES OTI-IEII TI IAN FI1ELITE PLUS WS CERAMIC GLASS BY TGP, ALL COMBUSTIBLE MATERIALS SHALL BE KEPT 2" (50,8 mm) MINIMUM FROM SPRINKLERED FACE OF GLAZING. THIS MAY BE DONE THROUGH USE OF MINIMUM 3'-0" (0,9 m) PONY WALL MODEL WS SPRINKLER SHOWN ON ONE SIDE OF GLAZING FOR CLARITY FIGURE 3C MODEL WS HORIZONTAL SIDEWALL SPRINKLER TYPICAL INSTALLATION Installation The TYCO Model WS Specific Appli- cation Window Sprinklers must be installed in accordance with this section. General Instructions Do not install any bulb -type sprinkler if the bulb is cracked or there is a loss of liquid from the bulb. With the sprin- kler held horizontally, a small air bubble should be present. The diameter of the air bubble is approximately 1/16 in. (1,6 mm). A leak -tight 1/2 in. NPT sprinkler joint should be obtained by applying a min- imum -to -maximum torque of 7 to 14 ft -Ib (9,5 to 19,0 N•m). Higher levels of torque may distort the sprinkler inlet with consequent leakage or impairment of the sprinkler. Step 1. Install the pendent vertical sidewall sprinkler only in the pendent position with the center -line of the sprinkler parallel to the glass surface. Orient the sprinkler so that the direc- tion of flow indicated on the sprinkler deflector is facing the window. Step 2. Install the horizontal sidewall sprinkler only in the horizontal position with the center -line of the sprinkler per- pendicular to the glass surface. Orient the sprinkler so that the word "Top" indicated on the sprinkler deflector is facing the top of window frame. Step 3. With pipe -thread sealant applied to the pipe threads, hand - tighten the sprinkler into the sprinkler fitting. Step 4. With reference to Figures 1 or 2, apply End A of W -Type 20 Sprinkler Wrench only (Figure 4) to the sprinkler wrench flats and tighten the sprinkler into the sprinkler fitting. Care and Maintenance The TYCO Model WS Specific Applica- tion Window Sprinklers must be main- tained and serviced in accordance with this section. Before closing a fire protection system main control valve for maintenance work on the fire protection system that it controls, obtain permission to shut down the affected fire protection systems from the proper authorities and notify all personnel who may be affected by this action. Sprinklers which are found to be leaking or exhibiting visible signs of corrosion must be replaced. Automatic sprinklers must never be painted, plated, coated, or other- wise altered after leaving the factory. Modified sprinklers must be replaced. Sprinklers that have been exposed to corrosive products of combustion, but have not operated, should be replaced if they cannot be completely cleaned by wiping the sprinkler with a cloth or by brushing it with a soft bristle brush. Care must be exercised to avoid damage to the sprinklers - before. during, and after installation. Sprin- klers damaged by dropping, striking, wrench twist/slippage, or the like, must be replaced. Also, replace any sprinkler that has a cracked bulb or that has lost liquid from its bulb. Refer to the Instal- lation section for additional information. The owner is responsible for the inspection, testing, and maintenance of their fire protection system and devices in compliance with this document, as well as with the applicable standards recognized by the Approval agency (e.g., NFPA 25), in addition to the stan- dards of any authorities having jurisdic- tion. Contact the installing contractor or product manufacturer regarding any questions. Automatic sprinkler systems are rec- ommended to be inspected, tested, and maintained by a qualified Inspec- tion Service in accordance with local requirements and/or national codes. TFP620 Page 7of8 CENTERLINE rr OF SPRINKLER I WATERWAY NO MAXIMUM HEIGHT FLOW DIRECTION INDICATED ON SPRINKLER DEFLECTOR 4" (101,6 mm) TO 12" (304,8 mm) 13'-0" (3,96 m) MAXIMUM EXPOSED GLAZING HEIGHT BUILDING STRUCTURE NO MAXIMUM DISTANCE NON-OPERABLE GLASS WINDOW INSTALLATION NOTE: POSITION SPRINKLER WITH FRAME ARMS ALIGNED PARALLEL TO GLAZING AND DEFLECTOR FLOW ARROW POINTED TOWARD GLAZING WINDOW FRAME 3" (76,2 mm) ± 1" (25,4 mm) FOR GLASS TYPES OTHER THAN FIRELITE PLUS WS CERAMIC GLASS BY TGP, ALL COMBUSTIBLE MATERIALS SHALL BE KEPT 2" (50,8 mm) MINIMUM FROM SPRINKLERED FACE OF GLAZING. THIS MAY BE DONE THROUGH USE OF MINIMUM 3'-0" (0,9 m) PONY WALL MODEL WS SPRINKLER SHOWN ON ONE SIDE OF GLAZING FOR CLARITY FIGURE 3D MODEL WS PENDENT VERTICAL SIDEWALL SPRINKLER TYPICAL INSTALLATION TFP620 Page 8 of 8 RECESSED CEILING SPACE C TYPICAL W3NDOW COVERING INSTALLATION NOTE: INSTALL VERTICAL AND HORIZONTAL MODEL WS SPRINKLERS INTO RECESSED CEILING SPACES. DO NOT PLACE BLINDS, CURTAINS OR OTHER WINDOW COVERINGS BETWEEN SPRINKLER AND GLAZING NONOPERABLE - GLASS WINDOW BUILDING STRUCTURE WINDOW FRAME FOR GLASS TYPES OTHER THAN FIRELITE PLUS WS CERAMIC GLASS BY TGP, ALL COMBUSTIBLE MATERIALS SHALL BE KEPT 2" (50,8 mm) MINIMUM FROM SPHINKLEHEU FACE OF GLAZING. THIS MAY BE DONE THROUGH USE OF MINIMUM 3'-0" (0,9 m) PONY WALL MODEL WS SPRINKLER SHOWN ON ONE SIDE OF GLAZING FOR CLARITY FIGURE 3E MODEL WS PENDENT VERTICAL SIDEWALL SPRINKLER RECESSED CEILING TYPICAL INSTALLATION WRENCH RECESS (USE END "A" FOR MODEL WS) Limited Warranty For warranty terms and conditions, visit www.tyco-fire.com. 1400 Pennbrook Parkway, Lansdale, PA 194461 Telephone +1-215-362-0700 Ordering Procedure Contact your local distributor for avail- ability. When placing an order, indicate the full product name and Part Number (P/N). Model WS HSW Window Sprinkler with NPT Thread Specify: Model WS Specific Appli- cation Window Sprinkler TY3388, Horizontal Sidewall, with (specify) tem- perature rating, (specify) finish, and P/N (specify): 155 °F (68 °C) Natural Brass 50-305-1-155 Signal White (RAL9003) Polyester 50-305-4-155 Jet Black (RAL9005) Polyester 50-305-5-155 Chrome Plated 50-305-9-155 200 °F (93 °C) Natural Brass 50-305-1-200 Signal White (RAL9003) Polyester 50-305-4-200 Jet Black (RAL9005) Polyester 50-305-5-200 Chrome Plated 50-305-9-200 Model WS Pendent Vertical Sidewall Window Sprinkler with NPT Thread Specify: Model WS Specific Application Window Sprinkler TY3488, Pendent Vertical Sidewall, with (specify) tem- perature rating, (specify) finish, and P/N (specify): 155 °F (68 °C) Natural Brass 50-304-1-155 Signal White (RAL9003) Polyester 50-304-4-155 Jet Black (RAL9005) Polyester 50-304-5-155 Chrome Plated 50-304-9-155 200 "F (93 'C) Natural Brass 50-304-1-200 Signal White (RAL9003) Polyester 50-304-4-200 Jet Black (RAL9006) Polyester 50-304-5-200 Chrome Plated ... 50-304-9-200 Sprinkler Wrench Specify: W -Type 20 Sprinkler Wrench, P/N 56-000-1-106 ® 2016 Johnson Controls. All rIghts reserved All specifications end other information shown were current as of document revision date and are subject to change without notice NkrIO 1AL FIREPIOTECIICNASYt)CIATION and NFPA are registered trademarks of National Fire Protection Association; if%1.01! Is a regiOmmel lfsdfmark el6,an.0 rri Johnson 5W,4S0 Controls Dave Argo From: Dave Argo Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2020 3:04 PM To: 'Charles Barr' Cc: Eric Kraai; Billy Gargroetzi; Ian Musick Subject: RE: Permit Questions Charles: I'm going to pass you along to Andy Schwaller, our Chief Building Official, who can give you better answers than I can about your specific questions, because Andy reviews all grading permits and is more in tune with bigger ramifications of what the coronavirus problem may generally cause to happen within the County's otherwise "normal" operations. However, before I do that, I will share with you the following: 1. Like many others across the country, the Building Dept. is now working with only a skeleton staff in office and the rest of us are working remotely (as of yesterday). It is highly likely that most, if not all, Garfield County buildings will soon be closed to the public for the immediately foreseeable future...and as we have all see recently, the impacts of this virus are rapidly changing the old status quo every day. 2. We recently had plans dropped off at our front desk from Eric Kraii's office but without any explanation, and as a result of my recent relocation to my home office I haven't yet had the opportunity to reach out to Eric to receive clear definition of whether or not these updated plans address all of the items included in my previous plan review comments...for example, do they also include revised structurals, steel building plans, etc.? Given the amount of time our department has already spent reviewing an incomplete submission, we'd like for all of our prior comments to be properly addressed by all appropriate consultants before we continue on with our plan review. A simple cover letter or Addendum to the drawings identifying all of the bullet -point items previously sent to you and your team from our office and how each have been addressed with the Amended Plans is entirely appropriate in this situation and what we expect to see. 3. Once we have received a comprehensive follow-up submittal package with all previously identified items described in detail as suggested above, we will proceed with our final plan review for this project. As for your questions, I have copied Andy on this email and will let him get back to you with direction. Thanks for reaching out with this update and we'll be looking forward to hearing back from Eric about receiving an Addendum with the comprehensive set of Amended Plans for your project. Dave Argo Plans Examiner e-,. Garfwld County Community Development Department 108 8t" Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Tel: 970-945-8212 Ext. 1610 Email: dargo@garfield-county.com Web: garfield-county.com From: Charles Barr <charles@charlesbarr.net> Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2020 1:57 PM To: Dave Argo <dargo@garfield-county.com> Cc: Eric Kraai <eric@kraaidesign.com>; Billy Gargroetzi <Billy@mcgriffarchitects.com>; Ian Musick <ianmusick@msn.com> Subject: [External] Permit Questions Hi Dave, Could you call me to discuss the plan review status of the Spring Born project if you have any free time today? The subjects I wanted to chat about are: • The preferred earthwork contractor has another job schedule starting May 1 and he wants to start immediately on Spring Born to ensure he makes the other project's start date. I don't want him to start until I discuss the project with you and understand the building permit review status. • Health concerns are stopping work everywhere and I wanted to understand any existing or possible work stoppage orders in Garfield County, particularly for the earthwork and foundation portion of work. Thanks in advance for your time and expertise. Charles 415-377-7600 2 Project: Spring Born/Silt Farms Response to Plan Review Correction Notice dated 1-15-20 Attn: Dave Argo Permit No. BLCO-10-19-6020 3-18-20 Narrative: • The plans submitted are in response to the detailed comments to the prior plans submitted. • Scenario #2 is the determined direction KDA chose to proceed as the "U" occupancy exemption under C102.2 makes the most sense. • A 2 hour Fire wall is now provided to create two separate buildings F -21U and fully sprinklering the Technical building allows for 69,000 square feet. ■ A 1 hour rated Stair Enclosure is now provided that extends to the exterior exit per Section 1023.3. The stairway was also mirrored in order to provide direct access to the exterior exit. ■ A 1 hour rated separation is now provided between the Mechanical Room and the "B" occupancy. • A 1 hour rated shaft enclosure is now provided at the shaft penetrating the upper level "B" occupancy. • 4 direct exits to the exterior are now provided based on a 300' travel distance required by Table 1017.2. and Section C104, exception No.l. The travel distances shown are based on the equipment that will be located in the Greenhouse area. (grey poche areas) We have also based the occupant load on the equipment to be located in this area. • Updated Structural drawing is provided detailing the foundation where the two buildings meet. • The Pre-engineered metal building has been coordinated with the greenhouse and the note "no structural tie-in is allowed" has been deleted. • All occupant loads have been updated. • Note: Final Mechanical/Electrical/Plumbing drawings have not been provided at this time pending approval of the Architectural revisions made. Response to Incomplete or missing information: 1. Architect's Wet Seal/Stamp on "A Series" Drawing Sheets—As described more fully in a prior email, Architectural series drawings are to be prepared under direction of a Colorado licensed Architect and all sheets submitted to the Building Dept. shall be wet -sealed as per Colorado state statutes. All plans are stamped and signed. 2. Upstairs Office Floor Plan Layout— Including all interior partitions, fire -rated assemblies and required egress/fire exiting requirements. Original plans submission included this information, but it wasn't included on the more recently submitted Amended Plans. The upstairs office area is to be a future tenant improvement. Exiting from the future office has been addressed. 3. Building Sections -- Provide cross sections illustrating three dimensional relationships between upper and lower levels and identify/reference fire resistive assembly details as more fully described below. Wall sections depicting the extent of walls and terminations are now shown on A3.10 and A3.11. 4. Wall Types --All fire resistive wall construction needs to be clearly identified on floor plans and cross sections. Detailed specifications and fire resistive requirements shall be provided by the Architect and identified and referenced as per nationally recognized listing agency (for example, U.L./USGA). All rated walls and UL listed assemblies are now shown on Sheet A0.3. 5. Construction Details & Fire -Resistive Assemblies —All fire resistive elements shall be referenced on floor plans and cross sections including wall, floor/ceiling, roof/ceiling, shaft wall assemblies and structural frame. Provide listing agency's fire resistive ID number on each assembly detail as well as detail components and specifications for fire -rated assemblies. Anticipated penetrations are shown on sheet A3.12 as proprietary Hilti details. 6. Accessibility— Demonstrate compliance with accessibility requirements for all elements of the building and provide standards/details and specifications for egress, plumbing fixtures, etc. Typical accessible standards are shown on sheet A6.10 along with clear floor space requirements on A1.20 7. Fire Sprinkler System --An automatic fire sprinkler system is required as per Garfield County Ordinance No. 2018-02 (Table A), but the only reference we can find on drawings for this mostly undefined scope of work is on the Cover Sheet under the heading "Project Data". Additional descriptive specifications — including specific location(s) of the fire sprinkler system within the structure and in compliance with Section 903.3.1.1 shall be submitted to our office for review. The Technical building is fully Sprinklered as indicated on the life safety plan under Chapter 5 listed as (SM). The fire sprinkler design is a design build and will be submitted as a delayed submittal. Regards, Eric Kraai Dave Argo From: Eric Kraai <eric@kraaidesign.com> Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2020 11:12 AM To: Charles Barr Cc: Dave Argo Subject: [External] Re: Permit Questions Attachments: Spring Born Correction Notice- Response 3-18-20.pdf Hello Dave, I hope you are doing well. I have attached a response to your review comments that should help you understand the path I took to resolve the outstanding issues. I will also send a revised hard copy set of the updated metal building drawings that I can have delivered to you. What is the proper way to get drawings submitted to you at this time? The one item that is not included that you may require is the coordinated MEP drawings based on our changes. The MEP consultant was hoping to verify you are good with our revisions prior to making changes to their drawings. Thank you, If you want to call and discuss any of this, my cell is the best way to reach me. 970.640.7898 Eric On Tue, 17 Mar 2020 at 15:35, Charles Barr <charles@charlesbarr.net> wrote: Dave, Thank you for the detailed answers. As a team we did go through your letter point by point and made changes to address every request. I will ask the team to draft a letter identifying the specific changes included in the last set of drawings. That should not take too long to produce so expect that letter / drawing package in the next few days. Sincerely, Charles 415-377-7600 On Mar 17, 2020, at 2:04 PM, Dave Argo <dargo@garfieid-countv.com> wrote: Charles: I'm going to pass you along to Andy Schwaller, our Chief Building Official, who can give you better answers than I can about your specific questions, because Andy reviews all grading permits and is more in tune with bigger ramifications of what the coronavirus problem may generally cause to happen within the County's otherwise "normal" operations. However, before I do that, I will share with you the following: 1. Like many others across the country, the Building Dept. is now working with only a skeleton staff in office and the rest of us are working remotely (as of yesterday). It is highly likely that Dave Argo From: Dave Argo Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2020 12:25 PM To: eric@kraaidesign.com; Charles Barr Cc: Andy Schwaller (aschwaller@garfield-county.com) Subject: Re: Spring Born Permit Questions Eric: Thanks for this explanation of items addressed with your recently submitted amended plans. I don't have those plans here at my home office, but will be picking them up when I drop off plans tomorrow morning at Garfield County's Building Dept. office. Many of us — including myself— are now working remotely, so I am presently only going into the office on a limited basis. Since I'm currently at a bit of a disadvantage by not having your plans in front of me, can you give me a more "global" perspective on these plans we received from your office? ... More specifically, it sounds like the Architectural & Code Review plans for this project have now been updated by your office. Is it your intention that we simply swap out your plans for the previously submitted architectural plans? (including both the California + Crested Butte architectural drawings) ... It also sounds like SGM has updated the Foundation/Structural plans between the 2 buildings, which I assume is an easy substitution of new drawings for previously submitted Structural plans(?) ... In addition to these drawing updates you also indicate that we will also be receiving updates to: (a) steel building supplier's drawings and (b) MEP drawings. I understand and appreciate the desire for us to provide an interim review of updated Architectural & Code Review plans before having MEP Engineers update their drawings. Tomorrow I will pick up the most recent set of "amended plans" from your office and look them over with the intent of getting back to you early next week with any additional comments and to make sure that we are all on the same page before the MEP updates are finalized. However, ultimately we need to receive a clearly organized and comprehensive "FINAL REVIEW" set of documents all bound together from someone representing the Spring Born/Silt Farms team to insure that we have the most current and updated set of construction plans before we will conduct our final plan review. Our office will not be providing project coordination, printing and binding services to get us to that point. Unfortunately, it doesn't appear that Charles has gotten a consolidated effort from anyone on his consulting or contractor team to take charge of this fundamental responsibility — but that's what it's going take from our perspective before we will conduct our final review. Now that you are on board and assisting him, we hope that you can perform in this role so that the Building Department receives what we need to do our job effectively. Thanks again for your assistance. Dave Argo Plans Examiner Garfield County Community Development Department 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Tel: 970-945-8212 Ext. 1610 Email: dargo@garfield-county.com Web: garfield-county.com 1 Dave Argo From: Dave Argo Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2020 9:23 AM To: 'Eric Kraai' Cc: Charles Barr Subject: Spring Born Plan Review Update Eric: I wanted to update you on our interim review of the latest set of plans your office submitted to our office for the Spring Born/Silt Farms project. Generally speaking, this submission represents "leaps & bounds" progress above and beyond what our office had previously received to date. It was good to hear that your office has taken on the role/responsibility of overall coordination for this project, because that was a major missing piece. However, we do have some specific questions or items that will need to be addressed in more detail with your final submission for this project, but these issues are primarily related to architectural considerations and detailing of construction assemblies. Before I can send that list of items to you (along with supporting visual images/redlines) I will need to travel into the office and I probably won't be able to get you that more detailed list of comments until late tomorrow (Friday) or Monday at the latest. As you know, the Governor's order to close all non-essential services across the state of Colorado is having an impact on what our Building Dept. can do at the present time, so we appreciate your patience on this matter. We agree with your approach of submitting (2) entirely new and revised sets of construction documents for which our office will provide final plan review and then issue a building permit from. We expect that your final submittal will contain all of the various consultants included in the original submittal — including the (2) steel building Mfr's. plans. Will the architectural package also include exterior elevations of these buildings?...as had been previously included in the original submittal. Before you turn the MEP consultants loose on updating their plans, I would suggest waiting on your review of our forthcoming comments ... and I will be back in touch with those comments within the next couple of days. Dave Argo Plans Examiner 1 e. Garfield County Community Development Department 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Tel: 970-945-8212 Ext. 1610 Email: dargo@garfield-county.com Web: garfield-county.com 1 Dave Argo From: Charles Barr <charles@charlesbarr.net> Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2020 10:51 AM To: Dave Argo; Eric Kraai Subject: Re: [External] Spring Born Plan Review Update Dave, Thank you very much for the update. Since our last e-mail exchange the design team scheduled a completely updated set of drawings using Eric's backgrounds for submission to your office. The planned date of that set is March 31 but it really depends on the greenhouse manufacturer who needs to add extra exit doors. Everyone has resource issues during the virus shutdown but my impression is that it's most acute with Nexus. The good news is the team is fully engaged and when we have additional direction from your office it should be pretty easy to make adjustments. I'm looking forward to your comments and appreciate your attention during these difficult working conditions. Charles 415-377-7600 On Mar 26, 2020, at 8:22 AM, Dave Argo <dargo@Barfield-countv.com> wrote: Eric: I wanted to update you on our interim review of the latest set of plans your office submitted to our office for the Spring Born/Silt Farms project. Generally speaking, this submission represents "leaps & bounds" progress above and beyond what our office had previously received to date. It was good to hear that your office has taken on the role/responsibility of overall coordination for this project, because that was a major missing piece. However, we do have some specific questions or items that will need to be addressed in more detail with your final submission for this project, but these issues are primarily related to architectural considerations and detailing of construction assemblies. Before I can send that list of items to you (along with supporting visual images/redlines) I will need to travel into the office and I probably won't be able to get you that more detailed list of comments until late tomorrow (Friday) or Monday at the latest. As you know, the Governor's order to close all non-essential services across the state of Colorado is having an impact on what our Building Dept. can do at the present time, so we appreciate your patience on this matter. We agree with your approach of submitting (2) entirely new and revised sets of construction documents for which our office will provide final plan review and then issue a building permit from. We expect that your final submittal will contain all of the various consultants included in the original submittal — including the (2) steel building Mfr's. plans. Will the architectural package also include exterior elevations of these buildings?...as had been previously included in the original submittal. Before you turn the MEP consultants loose on updating their plans, I would suggest waiting on your review of our forthcoming comments ... and I will be back in touch with those comments within the next couple of days. 1 Dave Argo Plans Examiner <imageool.png> Community Development Department 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Tel: 970-945-8212 Ext. 1610 Email: dargo@garfield-county.com Web: parffeld-countv.com 2 Dave Argo From: Dave Argo Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2020 10:50 AM To: eric@kraaidesign.com Cc: Andy Schwaller (aschwaller@garfield-county.com) Subject: RE: Spring Born - Amended CD set Eric: Our office is still closed to the public, but Andy Schwaller is working in our Glenwood Springs location to help facilitate permit/plans drop-off and pick-up. You can call him at (970) 945-1377 ext. 1560 to schedule a drop-off time since your plans will be larger than normal & probably won't easily fit in the physical drop box that we sometimes place outside the building. I am assuming that per our previous conversation you will be submitting entirely new plans for all design consultants? We should be able to start reviewing the updated plan sets soon & we'll get back to you next week with any questions. Thanks for giving me a head's up and we'll be in touch soon. Dave Argo Plans Examiner e. Garfield County Community Development Department 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Tel: 970-945-8212 Ext. 1610 Email: dargo@garfield-county.com Web: garfield-county.com From: Eric Kraai <eric@kraaidesign.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2020 10:01 AM To: Dave Argo <dargo@garfield-county.com> Subject: [External] Spring Born- CD set Hello Dave, I hope you are doing well. I was checking in to see what your schedule is like. I believe we are ready to submit and I wanted to know what the best way to get the drawings to you would be. Thank you. Eric Kraai, AIA eric Ukroo id esig n.corn 417 Monument Suite 7 1 Dave Argo From: Andy Schwaller Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2020 1:54 PM To: Dave Argo Subject: FW: Follow-up Spring Born site visit Attachments: 2020WeedCS-SpringBorn.docx; RussianKnapweed.pdf Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Might tie this into their permit. Thanks, Andy From: Steve Anthony <santhony@garfield-county.com> Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2020 12:26 PM To: Ian Musick <ianmusick@msn.com> Cc: Andy Schwaller <aschwaller@garfield-county.com> Subject: Follow-up Spring Born site visit Hi lan, This is a follow-up to our site visit on April 9 at the Spring Born property. During our site visit we did find some Russian knapweed in the northwest corner of the property and we would like to see a management plan that addresses the treatment of Russian knapweed in 2020. I have attached a 2020 Cost -share application that is a program that Garfield County and the local Conservation Districts provide. If your application is approved it could reimburse the applicant for up to 50% of the treatment costs if you hire a commercial applicator (their time and materials). All of the program details, including deadlines and where to send the application and receipts are in the attachment. The best times to treat Russian knapweed are in the spring (from mid-May to mid-June) or in the fall (from mid- September to the end of October). I would encourage you to seek out a commercial applicator and schedule a spring treatment with a follow-up treatment in the fall. If you need a list of local applicators I can provide that information to you. Please let me know if you have any questions on anything. Regards, Stevver A nthavty Garfield County Vegetation Manager santhonv@garfield-countv.com Phone: 970-945-1377 ext. 4305 Weed Management Plan Land Owner/ Manager Name: Spring Born Address Pre -application on site visit by Garfield County Vegetation Management (945-1377 x 4305) MUST be verified by signature below before application is accepted and at least two weeks prior to weed treatment. Make an appointment early! Steve r¢ilto," email 4/20120 Signature of Garfield Co. Vegetation Mgt. or Conservation District employee Date 1. Targeted weed 2. Total acres Current amount of infested acres 3. Describe the areas you plan to treat: 4. Attach detailed map of project area showing location of weed infestations. Include: species labels, stand densities, north arrow, any ditches, roads, fences, buildings, etc; and any other important information (see attached sample map). Free mapping is provided by the Conservation Districts (Call 970-404-3438 to schedule an appointment) 5. The Districts must know when you are treating noxious weeds in order to budget this year's funding. ❑ Spring Deadline July 10, 2020 ❑ Fall Deadline November 6, 2020 ❑ Spring and Fall Deadline November 6, 2020— IF you are treating noxious weeds in the spring and fall and would like reimbursement for both treatments this box must be checked. 6. What methods of treatment will you use? a. Herbicides. List product name and rate and timing of application. b. Grazing. Describe grazing plan and timing. c. Mechanical. Describe method. (mowing, cutting, pulling) d. Alternative methods. e. Revegetation. What and when you plan to reseed. Name of professional weed control/tree service company: Amount spent Amount requested It is your responsibility to fill out 1-8, not your professional applicator. YOUR INVOICE IS NOT AN APPLICATION. P ease read each bu I I et and initial: • I understand that reimbursements are limited to $125/acre treated with the following caps: $1,000 maximum for landowners with less than 160 acres; $1,250 maximum for 160-320 acres; and $1,500 maximum for greater than 320 acres o Ex: 10 treated acres x $125/acre = $1,250, but cap is $1,000 for <160 acres treated so ONLY UP TO $1,000 of total cost will be reimbursed o Tamarisk/Russian olive treatment reimbursable up to 50% if using professional tree service or 75% DIY, up to $1,000 back per property; NOT determined by acreage • I understand that I am eligible for up to a 50% reimbursement for treatments made by hired contractors, and up to 75% for DIY treatments. I have attached copies of all relative invoices and receipts for each application or purchase made • I understand that my application must include total property acres as well as acres treated, and a detailed map attached showing the project area, location of weed infestations with species labels and stand densities, and any other important information including North arrow, ditches, roads, fences, buildings, etc. (see attached sample map for example) • I understand that the Conservation Districts will map my property free -of -charge and this map can be included with my application (to schedule apt call 970-404-3438) • I understand that it is my duty as the land owner or land manager to properly fill out and sign this application, and make sure it is turned in on or before the due dates mentioned in #4 above - NOT the responsibility of my hired contractor Land owner/manager signature. Date (%) • 1-4 ci) r:4 Updated on: 08/08 List B Species Colorado Dept. of Agriculture Conservation Services Division 700 Kipling Street Suite 4000 Lakewood, CO 80215 303-239-4100 Rangeland, pasture, and riparian site recommendations Russian knapweed Identification and Management Habitats for Russian knapweed includes many land types, from roadsides, ditch banks, riparian zones, pastures, irrigated cropland, clear cuts, and cropland. Pearl bracts with papery tips. Key ID Points 1. Russian knapweed can be distinguished from other knapweeds by the pointed papery tips of the floral bracts. 2. The roots are dark brown and have scale leaves. Identification and Impacts Russian knapweed (Acropti1on rcpens) is a non-native deep- rooted perennial that spreads by aggressive, creeping, horizontal roots (rhizomes) and seeds. The roots are black with a scaly appearance. Russian knapweed can grow up to 3 feet in height. The stems and leaves are covered with short, stiff hairs. The flowers are urn -shaped, pink ro purple in color, and are solitary at the tips of the upper branches. Russian knapweed can be distinguished from other knapweeds by rhe pointed papery rips of the rounded bracts that surround the flowers. Russian knapweed ernerges in early spring after soil temperatures remain above freezing. It produces flowers from June ro August and sets seed in late summer to early fall. Russian knapweed reproduces primarily from its root system. Buds on the horizontal roots can form adventitious shoots that can grow to be independent plants. Russian knapweed is allelopathic, which means it contains a toxic substance that inhibits the growth of competing plants. This weed may also be toxic ro horses resulting in serious injury or possibly death of the animal. Russian knapweed displaces native vegetation and reduces forage values on range and pasturelands. The most effective method of control for Russian knapweed is to prevent its establishment through proper land management. Maintain healthy pastures and rangeland and continually monitor your property for new infestations. If Russian knapweed is already established, using an integrated weed management approach proves to be effective. Russian knapweed can be managed with herbicides or insects, bur Tong -term control must include planting competitive plant species to occupy bare ground once infested by the weed Details on rhe back of this sheer can help to create a management plan compatible with your site ecology. Russian knapweed is designated as a"List B" species on the Colorado Noxious Weed Act. It is required to be either eradicated, contained, or suppressed depending on the local infestations. For more information, visit www.colorado.go /aglcsd and click on the Noxious Weed Program link or call the State Weed Coordinator at the Colorado Department of Agriculture, Conservation Services Division, 303- 239-4100. Russian knapweed=5.- x• r •. r.•.-.4 ..[q..w..,rYMww 104[4.•• FM1Nw•� Bracts photo at left, 0 Steve Dewey, Invasive. org. Infestation map above, Crystal Andrews, Colorado Department of Agriculture. All other photos © Kelly Uhing. 1 BIOLOGICAL A gall forming nematode, Subanguina picridis, is currently being monitored for effectiveness but is not yet available to the public. For more information, contact the Palisade Insectary of the Colorado Department of Agriculture, 970-464- 7916. 2 Management Recomendations Integrated Weed Management recommendations tt www.colorado.:ov a: cs■ CULTURAL Establishment of selected grasses can be an effective cultural control of Russian knapweed. Contact your local Natural Resources Conservation Service for seed mix recommendations. Maintain healthy pastures and prevent bare spots caused by overgrazing. Bareground is prime habitat for weed invasions. MECHANICAL Mowing several times before the plants bolt stresses Russian knapweed and forces them to use nutrient reserves stored in the root system. Combining mowing with herbicides will further enhance control of this weed. Mow repeatedly during the summer, then apply a herbicide in the fall. List B Species Integrated Weed Management: The most effective control for Russian knap weed is to prevent its establishment through proper land management. An integrated weed management approach can be effective when dealing with Russian knapweed. It can be managed with herbicides or insects, but long- term control must include planting- competitive lantingcompetitive plant species to occupy baregr mund once int sled 6y the weed. HERBICIDES The following are recommendations For herbicides that can be applied to range and pasturelands. Always read, understand, and follow the label directions. Rates are approximate and based on equip- ment with an output of 30 gallons per acre. Please read label for exact rates. The herbicide label is the LAW! HERBICIDE RATE APPLICATION TIMING Aminopyralid 4-6 ounces/acre Apply in the spring and summer to plants in the (Milestone) bud and flowering stage and to dormant plants in the fall. Add non-ionic surfactant @ 0.32oz/gal water or 1 qt/100 gal water. Picloram (Tordon 22K 1 qt./acre Apply in spring to bud/early flower stage and/ *this is a Restricted or or fall rosette. Use Pesticide*) 1 oz/gal water Add non-ionic surfactant @ 0.32oz/gal water or lqt/100 gal water. Chlorsulfuron (Telar) 1-3 oz/acre Apply in spring from pre -bloom to bloom and or to fall rosettes. 2 grams/3 gallons of Add non-ionic surfactant @ 0.32oz/gal water water or lqt/100 gal water. Nematode photo © Tony Ceasar, Invasive.org. All other photos © Kelly Uhing. �.a A ItICULTURE Dave Argo From: Eric Kraai <eric@kraaidesign.com> Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2020 10:25 AM To: Dave Argo Subject: [External] Spring Born- Firewall Attachments: 2012 - SPRINGBORN_FINAL-A3.11 (1).pdf Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Hello Dave, just as I was about to send out the drawings to print on Tuesday, I realized I had missed something in reading the code. I had still intended on having the firewall terminate on the bottom side of the roof deck as I have in the past on metal buildings and realized it stated "both buildings". Thus requiring the parapet.... This was a major oversight on my part. We had also intended on using a pre -manufactured rated wall panel before I realized this. So, after speaking with the owner and everyone involved I threw out the idea of an indepentant cmu wall once again. Not to get too much into detail, I would just like to know what system you would prefer to see. (see attached sections) An independent CMU wall, or a pre -manufactured rated panel that is attached to each building with an aluminum burn clip. This would allow either structure to fall without pulling the panel down with it. My thought is I make this less brain damage for you to make your review that much easier. Sorry to make this more complicated than it really needs to be. Thanks for your time. Eric Kraai, AIA eric@kruaidesign.com 417 Monument Suite 7 Grand Junction, CO 81507 T: 970.712.5045 1 krooidesign.com. 1 PEW MC., TE MD E.6 ' e , RATED PANEL WALL LH! KRAAIDESIGN ARCHITECTURE ION CO81507 SPRING BORN SILT .COLORADO CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS v 2012 WALL ALLL SECTIONS DATE: 1/13/2o A3.1 1 SCALE: AS NOTED 11 :L E I • _c 14 _4. E'€ �M 1A'X E E H—'' r •E 7 1 Q1U FIRE WALL Ail' Irr= d`- IL .L E 1 1 r. 'FEE iE _ 1 1AX �H E E E 11- T T E T 2 RATED PANEL WALL ' 3 Al 14 irr = Dave Argo From: Dave Argo Sent: Monday, May 4, 2020 10:04 AM To: eric@kraaidesign.com; Charles Barr Cc: Ted White; Lindsay Krol; Andy Schwaller (aschwaller@garfield-county.com) Subject: RE: Spring Born Eric: There are a couple of items that I've come across that I'd like some follow-up from you on: • OWTS Permit — The Building Dept. is no longer reviewing septic system permits and review/approvals are now conducted by Garfield County's Public Health Dept. Can you please have SGM Engineers forward digital copies of the OWTS design over to Ted White who I have also copied on this email? Typically we prefer that OWTS & Building permits are reviewed & approved at the same time, but as long as I receive confirmation from Ted that he has received a copy of SGM's OWTS plans we will not hold up issuance of the building permit. • Fire Wall Specs — Can you email a copy of the Thermal Safe insulated metal panel system? The copy on the set of plans is somewhat fuzzy and not really legible. By and large this set of drawings appears to have addressed the myriad issues as laid in in my previous correspondence and it is a vast improvement over the initial package of drawings. My expectation is to complete my review by the end of today and you should be hearing from Lindsay sometime tomorrow morning about final balances due and pick-up instructions. If anything else comes up as I finalize my plan review, I'll be sure to reach back out to you later today. Dave Argo Plans Examiner '. Garfield County Community Development Department 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Tel: 970-945-8212 Ext. 1610 Email: dargo@garfield-county.com Web: garfield-county.com From: Eric Kraai <eric@kraaidesign.com> Sent: Monday, May 4, 2020 9:05 AM To: Dave Argo <dargo@garfield-county.com> Subject: [External] Spring Born Hello Dave, I hope you had a good weekend. I'm just checking in to see if you have any questions on the plans. We also developed a com check meeting the 2015 energy code I'm sending over to you. Thanks Eric 1