The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutREVIEWS - 93-00020 - Valley Medical Shoppe - New BuildingI r je REXBURG MADISON CO. FIRE D EPARTMENT 26 NORTH CENTER STREET, P.O. BOX 280 REXBURG, IDAHO 83440 (208) 359-3010 4e, L a i r' - d ri s acC13 Rexburg Hal Feb -3 011A. U ark, Y Dear J ccs Ir , I believe t�-,$at -the w 3. *rfdowrz- the rjort'..h ti-�I*dL= •w s-ik w d in A ill r ,- T t 4 e -,#a,c, , 13 4 }} YF 1 rte. '' � �+•4 �wr F®F s�+e�d Tom■ F i � f� ,aa� 4P it t y n "Elve square feet Cif i, they mrieed0 -a cl i f f er-'enceWctuld make if T h - a as a f :� we need With r%ash ban need the stairs WO ii*je ursder _° 1-1 Er They ? e a. H!4 i e instal !4nl d ct r S J c PP. i rs g t. o the ip F, ,' . k J i of T 4 ~ } -•'�1' u#�[ •ryL, y{� y,,, met tae •� w S and down, T h 1* Fiji S 9 Fsit that 'the rn o u L- t. cif 4 - � n M e basement still ricit Meet. LIBC 3802 or UFC 10.v507 Y c; " r �,�-t ori U I Y ; #� ... M x k#irF ,,,.t +f■. M!Mr, wrr ■.�- ++rer t..E r i 9 October 9, 1993 To: City of Rexburg wilding Department SUbj ea t: Valley Medl'.cal Shoppe P I ease find e,nc 1 used review Gammen is f or the above men ti"oned project. The BUi I Cl ing Of f icl'al shnz(ld ascertain compliance to - the comments prior tQ�.ssuing a building permi t . If there are any qUeSticns� plLease call me at 52c?-C)143D Respectfully, d cc Project Files REX-3 a October 9 , 1993 CODE REVIEW FDR Valley Medical Shap,pe- Occupancy GrOLI P a s a a 'It 0 N a a 0 it a 0 a N Construction Type a ff a 0 a 4 W a a a a a & 2 P W a a D a a E Allo-wable Floor Area 0 a A1.1owable Increases N ■ Al 1 Portions project, The or omissions code. of the 199i Uniform BUilding Code following are specific comments that in the drawings regarding the nates B-2 V � Non Rated 8, 000 sq . f t. N /,4r). Apply address erections to the errors of the im Seativn 702 (c 3 2. Storage areas in cQnnec '%,.ian with wha3es��le or retail sales in Division 2 0%CmCLtPanc_ies snal 1 be separatPUb�d froom the ic area by a one-hour fire--resistive occupancy separat'ion . dee Sectign 503 for details. The plans do not appear tO comply with this requiraments 2. If medical gases are stored in the buildingx see Section 702 (c) 4. �Section 705 (c) Sanitation. BLI i IdIngs or Portions thereof where persons are employed shall be provided with at least one water claret. Separate facilities shall be provided for each seg; when the number of employees exceeds 4. The plans do not appear to comply with this requirement. 4a Section 510 (bl 2. Walls within 2 feet of the front and sides of urinals and water closets shad 1 have a smcoth ., hard nonabsorbent surface to a height QEF 4 feet} , .. The plans do not appear to comply with this r2qUiremEnt, 'fie Section 31302 (b).v requires an automatic fire-extinguishing system for the basement. the pans do not appear to comply with this reqUirement. b. Section 1703. Usable space under the first floor- shall be enclosed and such enclosure when constructed of metal or wood shai I be protected on the side of the usable space as reqUi red for ane--hOc.tr f ire--resis�iti�e Canstrtsction . Doors shall be s�I�--��.�si�g; of noncQmbustible canStrUCtian or solid wood core, not less than 1 3!4 inches 'in thir-kness.. See Section 50'.]"'1 for add i tiana I reqUi semen is . The p l a,ns do not appear to comply with this requirement. A October 9, 1993 7e Section 33Q3 (a) gage 630.Cccupants ... in basements shall have access to not less than two separate exits from the ... basement. The exCeptions do not apply. The pians do not appear tO comply with this requ9. irement, 8 . Section 3306 (c) e The stairway design does not appear to comply with this section of the code. 90 Table 5--A. South- wall crf the bUilding is regc.ti,red to be of one-hour fire-resi�tive construction. The plans do not appear to comply with this reqUirQmenta 1.0 d sheet 5, Section A, "REINFORCE WALL REQ LOCA'L' CODE" , this note appears on the referenced section. Whenwi II thiS information b e provided"? Who is going to provide the design? Hoy will it be conveyed to the Building Department and the c c n �ractorit appears that the pians are incomplete. ild Section ?'05 (b). The mechanical systern for. this building shall meet th,=. requirements of this Section and the Uniform Mechanical Ccde, 12A chapter 2-3, Part I I I� seismic connection between the trusses ar�d the �r� I 1 i s not shown. 13.. Chapter 31, Section 7103 (a) 3. Group Et Occzipancies shall be accessible as provided- in this chapter. I interpret the SE?ction to r-�q��ire ��c�s� �o the basement by rami orelevator. Thi r�mer-�.c�ns With Da,sabilities Act requires an elevator. This Section is sLtbject to interpretatIon by the Building Dffieial . _ These are the comments at this time. During constrUc tion , additional items may be. identified that w.IZ I need t o be addressed. REX-3 T Uecember 2,01 1993 From: T� Subject: Rose, Rulon 1531 Idaho Nielsen, Architect Rosewoad Circle Falis� Idaho 8340.1 Ruse Bagley, City Clerk Rexburg, Idaho Code Review for Valley Ica Shoppe93-02 This is a letter- -dor your files concerning the Code Review for Valley Medical Shoppe which I conducted in October. I feed, that this letter- is necessary tO remove me fromMossible abi lity sprinklers due to the decision by thy+ Fi�� Ins�ectc�r to not require sp�inkles in the Valley�iedi�al �hQppe. � believe him decision is incorrect and wi�.1 attempt to explain why,. is Section 3802 (b) Offers no exception to -the requirement for a fire sprinkler. erection 3804 "Permissible S pr��.nk�.er letter. does rat address the exception r�ferenced in your 2- The exception referenced in the litter, "Exhibition or display area > 12,004 square feet," 3842 (a) 3 and only applies i5 a quite from S�etion applies�o Group A Occupancies . Classifying the area as Group A wi �, �, got h�i p because Section 38Q2 (a) 2 Iikewise requires sprinklers in the ba sement. 3. Egress windows wi1.1 not satisfy the requirements in an case. The only available argument is to have the basement meet the definition of a first flo(nr, see Chapter 4, lection 448, Grade, and Sect Qt, it is difficulic�n 420, Story, Fist. 0n this srnal % �-t to meet the definition. Thies was the approach used on Doctor Cr -ouch's ofific�. We tasked about the visEast i�n cer;ter- an the corner of First South and first Appar-ent�.y thi--s buil ing was issued a PerMLit and occupied without a fire 'sPrinkler system in the basement. � man not ted 1 you why this happened, designed by an architect and thepefore, � The building �a� ��e the plans. I suggest that the architect tae contac ted and ask him t� ehaw he avoided this section of the code. 4. The only reml option for the decision is to quote Section 202 (a) , second p,�,ragraph, "The building Official shall have the power to render znter-pretatir�ns of this cede and toadc,�fi and enforce rules and supp3ernenta3 oregulatlonS inordert� c 1 ar�� fy the application Q# � is in tPrpretatic�ns � �u�. es and regulations rovsionc h sha �. � � r be �� conformancein the intent and purpose Of this code, However � even this saes not give mucic real relief . calf. tine TC$Q answer line end ask far an interpretatian. I w�u�. d YOu may be asking yourself, "What does it matter?„ Law is the ccarrcern. �n recent Y. that way to rn�ke Building Dff,�cea�.s, and just has found a i. personally liable for actions relating to their about everyone else �'f a law suit, � belleve that the Gigy of RIn the case PaY the attorney' S fees and such se�-�lements as are assigned 0 to the City. Where are ether penalties that can be assigned. instance, ti�� huzlding offiicial can be held persona �i� For meaner that his of sonai r�� erg Y b3.e. P � property y caR be attached if the courts rine against hire. Here is one possible scenario, the building owner s complete, the app 1 �,es -dor- insurance from a yam an owner dawn �insur-ance companies knave the Ctheaownerny �n5 the "loss �,-� �nccrme" because the City does not enforce the code sues f �r redress. � know,. "'It wi11 neer ha ,�: an�fne�rer pure . happen here Your are Scenario 2; The building is complete, the building isinsured there is a firms which r�r�.g.in�tes in the basements the a tota1 Toss, the insurance examiner- reviews the building bui�din g -is establish lass, fznds that no_sp.r�.r�k�er system exa.sts and ref uses to Why?to pay. Why? Because the insurance pa�i�y has small print that states that if the bpi 1�#�.ng is not cc�nstructecf properly the Policy is void. Ham can tn�, owner reeau� f�i� 1o�s. Sue the c�-ty. The owner's attorney will practice the "s�a-� gun" method. The defendants will be everyone, � . Y The Building Ofificia�. � the ��-� Inspector, the Plans Examiner- (me) , the Mayor, the C-ty�aur�c " and an and on. Each of the def�ndan�s wi�� be a�.# as pr-ofessional ly IiaPersonally as well check with the Gity attorney ��eeoi.�b� believe isn't it'd Please m wrong . Scenar-10 3; Sams as above except that the an insurance cram � and then sues to recover the loss, �' Y P Y -s If this sectio.n of the code is not acceptable to the CityRexburg HuiIding Depar-�tment, it si-�r�u1d be voided b amen of the Ordinance for Adoption. '� dment to � am not certain that remoliabilityth's ac tion collectively and individ wi remove.remove. exposure . Nothing seems to Protect u� u��. �y, f�-�m haw suits. ' I have been sued Qnce. I success ully defended the quit, However-, I stip had a�tvr�ney� fees., � do not want tc� that kind of ordeal, again, This is the reason 'f car the letter. go YOU have nflw been comp l etel y informed of my ca inion derision to neat enforce the sprinkler requirement is defenseless and violates the intent and pur-pOse of the Uniform Building Code as adopted by the City of Rexburg. Pandora's box has now been the sprinkler requirement. opened�pp1 icants wi �. 1 Thal. lenge TMer� they wig. � challenge other partc=- C low 0 of the code that are expensive or inconvenient, I � the code i not going to be enforced it isbetters The Bu i�di�Tg }department can I evy �d �aKnot adopt the code. Uniform Building Gude. �t f�+�s without the T want to ask one more question. Why didn't comment #13 in the Coded Review dated October 95 x.993 rare a protest? Chapter 3�, Access iai 11 ter, rr�i 1 1 cost a lot mare to compl �• with than the r� comment on fire sprinklers. The ramp or elevator required to meed the equi remen is cit th�� Chapter Will exceed $25 , 00a . 00 . I assume that the Building Department is not ging to enforce requirernent. Please refer to the arguments above,this they wild, b� generally appy icab1e. I real � z that this letter is not perfect, I -f you have an quest,�ons or if you need c � ami fiicatzonplease� 01430 � Call me at mm. ectfully, 4" en , Ft rC hi tec t cc: Firms Inspector Nile Boyle, Mayor Pro.j ect Files 7 - S �.<�IpTokj U,v � ffo Wyk, .per t tr 0 / Aj�-) -r::::�-o rL,. v Ak� G S(A /Ut " t c4M--� S Al -0 f p rl=- -I C) 2 v f A MT - a Ao-,u To V/A--O�cic�rS�� 0 *I i �� ■ mow■ �� i a i 10 4. D C ember 20, From: To' Subject, 1983 Rulon Niel.sen, Ar, C: Al 531 Rosewood Ci r� I e Idaho Falls, Idaho+ e3401 Rome Bagley5 pity Clerk Rexburg i Idaho Code Review This is a letter for your fiiles concerning Valley MRdical �`happe whict� I conducted i�� Q�toberCadI Review for this leiter is necessaryeI that t❑ remove me f��m possible Ibi exposure due to the decisionb}� the Fire Inspectar to not iar� Iity require? sprinklers in the Val ley � decision is incorrect and wil�1att�rnhoppef I believe that him ptto explain why, I'm Section 3802 (ti) Offers n4 exception to the re uire a fire sprin�c3.er. Section 3844 "Permi�sik�ge 5pe�.nkl.er n or O�rtissions" do�� not address the exception referenced in fetter, your 2o The exception referenCed in the litter Ft display area. > 12,000 square 'Feet, jo is a quo�e.9 xframt�en or 38C�2 c tion Via) 3 and only applies to Groin A Occupancze�. Classi-Fy�ing the area as Group A vii, l I not helpSectia�r 3842 (a) 2 .�i�cewise requires sprinklers because basemen t , in the 3' Egress windows will not satisfi case. The or�1a�ai��b�e Y the requirements 1n any y argument is to have the basement meet the defini ��.or� Q-� a fir-st floor, see Cha�pter �. �� 4�g, Grade, and Sic tion �2Q � tion 5tary, F�rst. On this Iot, it is di�f�cu2t to meet the definition. T�� aPPraaeh used on Dactt�r Crauc�' s of-�i��.talked 5 was the she visiar� center on the corner of First �ru�hnd about East. APparent�.y this building was issued � First occupiec� without a fiire spr-ink 1 e�- sys t��n in the bas�r�en t .Permi t and can not teII you why this happened.�'esi ned by They building was 9 an why and therefore pans. I suggest that the architect be co�tacted id not ��e the him to exp 3 a�� aw he avoic�e�d this section of the and ask cede. 4. The only real option for the decision is tc) 202 �a) � �ecanc� paragraph, The �ui7.din �iuote S�ction the power 1� t� r�e�der �nterpret�tzons � atfiicial shall have adopt and of -this erode and t c�.o enf�r�e rules and supp�emenfial order to Clarify the appli�or-�s �n 'cation regu�a� of its proviszons. r int�rpretatzo��1 rules and regulations shall SU�h �or��armance witf� the intent ar�d ,�,� be zn purpose 0 f this code . '1 12 J 17 However, even this does not give mush real rel ief , 4yau- call the IC$Q answer line and ask for an interpretation. You may be asking yours -elf, "What does it matter?'' Lawyers, that is the cancern. In recent years, the legal system has #aund a WAY to make Building Dfficials and jest about everyone else Personally liable for actions relating to their, gab. In the case of a law suit, I believe that the City of Rexburg w -.3I offer to pay the attorney's fees and such settlements as are assigned to the City. There are tether penal instance, the building ofies that can he assigned, For i-i�i�l can be held personally liable. This means that his, personal .pro pert} can be attached if the courts rule against him. Here is one possible scenario, the building i-s.complete, the owner applies for insurance from a company, the company turns the dawn(insurance companies know the lJ�3G), the owner incurs "loss of incomes" because the City does not enforce the code and sues for redress. I k.naw, `• I t wi 1 I never h,appen here You ire never- pure . Scenario 2; The building is complete, the build - there is insured there is a fire which Originates in the basement, the building is a total loss, the insurance examinees reviews the building to establish loss, finds that no sprinkler system exists and refuses to pay. Why? Because the insurance policy has small Print that stades that if the building is not constructed Print the p0li�y �.s va�d. Hew can the owner recoup his loss. Sum the city. The owner's attorney will Practice the "shot gun" method , The defendantswill be everyone. The Building Offic,al, the Fire Inspector, the Plans Examiner (me), the Mayfly, the C ty Coon and an and on. Each of the defendants will be persona 1 � y as well as professiona}. I liable. Hard to be�,ieve iso' t it? Please chick with the City attorney to see if I am wrong. Scenario 3; Same as above except that the insurance company pays and then sues to recover the loss, If this section of the code is not acceptable to the City o-� Rexburg Building Department, it should be voided by amendment to the Ordinance for Adopt�an, I am not certain that this action remove � iab�. 1 � t ex sur � P e - No thing seems to pr-cte� t us , callectivel�r and individually, from law suits, � nave been sued once. suceessfu Y defended the suit, ofHorvever, I still had attDrr��v �ee5. I do not wait to go thr ough that kind oordeal again. You have now been This is the mason for the letter, completely informed Of my opinion. The dEaC151Df'7 to not enforce the spr,znk3er requir-ement Is defenseless and vi o 1 ates the intent and purpose �f the Uniform �a�Hsi 1 d ing Codeas adopted by the Ci Ly ❑f Rexburg, Pandora's his n ow been the sprinkler en L opened . All applicants wi .enge Then they wzl� Challenge other parts of the code that are expensivecar znconve��ent, If the jade -15not going to be enforced, it is better- to not, adopt the code. The Building Department can levy and Uniform Building Code, CC)11e(:t fiRes Without the I wait to ask one more question. Why didn't comment #13 in Coded review dated October 9, 1893 raises a prOtest? Ch�pte�r 3ie Accessibility, will CDSt a lot more tQ comp�.y with than the comment on fire sprinklers. The ramp or elevator required to meet the requirements of this Chapter wl I I exceed $25 , 000.0 oo . I assume that the Building Department is rrot going to enforce this requirement. Please refer to the arguments above, they will be generally appleable. .. I realize that this letter is notperfect. If you have any 01430 questionsions or if you named �Iar�, fi�.cat,�Qn Please cal I me at 529 - IIs dire Inspector Ni I e Hoy I e, Mayor Praj ee t Files t