Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBuilding Review Board - Minutes - 10/26/1989amumm REVn1 BOARD October 26, 1989 is rya•. ••ia.a •,. - ID r'a•a Ule minutes of the September 28, 1989 meeting were unanimously approved. Class B license applicants, Rex lapehire and Robert William Mesenw for Alley Oonstivction, were present at the meeting. Mr. ra pshire stated he was the job superintendent on the Color Tile stare. On some of the other Oolor Tile stores, he acted as assistant superintexlent, handling more than half of the and the work dale to existing railroad tracks. Mr. Messner explained he acts as the architect and the general contractor on all projects listed. He was the superintendent c n most of them. In sore cases, as he Proposes to do in Fort Oollins, he hires a superintendent to run the job. He has hired Class B certificate holder, Paul McWilliams. Mr. Messner plans on being the project manager and will be on the jab two to three times a week . After answering quesstic s from several of the boardmmloers, both were unani- mously approved for licenses. Appeal #01-89 - Fire Board of Appeals 304 W. Prospect, Henry Glisan, Owner - Sections 10.306 and such other sections as applicant may apprise the Board at hearing; UFC Standard 10-2. Request - To have confirmed that an automatic fire alarm system need not be installed, because the UPC does not (or should not be interpreted to) require the ramie with regard to the subject property, or, alternatively, because suitable alternatives exist. Mitigating Factors: Several of the subject apartment buildings neither rise three stories in height nor contain more than 15 apartrments. The varying densities of the subject buildings make strict application of the UFC irrational and arbitrary. Smoke detectors, different types of alarm systems, and/or ladders and or other escape means provide a suitable alternative. Applicant reserves the right to present further mitigating factors at hearing. 0 Mr. Rick Zier, Attorney, represented H. C. Glisan acccu anted by Mr. Nix, who tends the buildings a Glisan was not at the meeting. t at the meeting. He was Prospect Plaza. Mr. Mr. Zier submitted as evidence Poucdre Fire Authority Fire Inspection Report dated July 25, 1989; pictures from the location; and read frcam the attached documents. Summarizing the appeal, Mr. Zier felt PC udre Fire Authority has the burden to prom that there is a "distinct" hazard by riot providing an automatic fire alarm system, as stated in Section 1.103(b). In his opinion, they have not at this time proved it. The apartments were built in 1964 and were in Connformanoe at that time. Mr. Glisan built the apartments and is still the owner. There has never been a reported fire in any of the twelve buildings. Nine of the buildings have sixteen units which subjects them to Pc udre Fire Authority law. Three of the , 1 ings have twelve units and alarm requirements don't apply to them. There are three levels; one garden level which does not constitute a "story" as defined in the Uniform aalding CUcde; a middle story which is five feet above grade; and an upper story standing fourteen feet above grade. The appellant's claim is that none of the buildings are three stories in height, but are 2 - 1/2 stories. Mr. Zier's oorntentim is the Uniform Fire Code fails to provide information such as distance to an exit (there should be a differenoe on an interior hall if the door to an apartment was five feet frDDh an exit or forty feet F an exit) , unit dimensions and n ater of occupants, which could vary the degree of danger. Mr. Zier stated all buildings are equipped with fire extinguishers and have low pitch roofs. The overhead wires between the buildings that have made it difficult for Poudre Fire Authority access have been installed underground. The overhead cable for T.V. will be installed underground by June 1, 1990. A new two inch water main has been installed for auxiliary water source. All curtains have been reTaved and non-flammable blinds installed. No hot plates are allowed nor spaoe heaters. No storage of flammable liquids is allowed. All wiring is in metal conrhuit and all boxes are metal. Range hoods have been removed. All units have new electric stoves. All units and stairways have escape windows. Wide fire lanes are on both long ends of each building. Mr. Zier maintains there is no need to discuss suitable alternatives; the apartments themselves are alternatives. Mike Gavin, Assistant Fire Marshal, presented a pacdmt of bacgrcnld informa- tion to the Board and Mr. Zier at the meeting. Mr. Gavin said in 1983, the 1982 Uniform Fire Code and amentnents were adopted by the City of Fort Collins and included the section regarding installation of auutanatic fire alarm systems. In 1984, the chief, after examining national fire trends determined that apartment buildings and hotels with interior corridors as the primary means of emergency escape were a distinct hazard to life and as such must comply with the new edition of the Ctxde. 0 Boazdmenber Johnson asked if there were any reported fires in similar build- ings without alarm. Mr. Gavin names several including the Aspen leaf Apart- ments, Cambridge AparbaNft, and Stadium Fast Apartments. He said alarms saved peoples lives at the Aspen Taaf Apartment and the Stadium East Apart- ment where the fires occurred in the night. Boardmenber Cotterman asked if the building were to be built today, would it require an alarm. Mr. Gavin said yes. BoartInedber Bcnta asked if there were fourteen or fifteen apartments, and Poud a Fuze Authority felt there was a hazard, could they require an alarm? Mr. Gavin answered according to Section 1.103(b), yes they could. Mr. Bentz brought up the earthquake in San Francisoo that had occurred just last week. In this case when the road was designed, it met code, but because it wasn't updated to prevent standards, there was a disaster and many people lost their lives. Boardmenber Cutteroan asked if the party walls between the units and the hallways are fire rated. Mr. Zier didn't know. Director of Building Permits and Dmpec'icns, Felix lee, said in 1964 there would not have been fire ratirq requirements for the party walls, based on the 1961 Edition of the Uniform B ildim Code, but the corridars and doors of the apartments would have been required to be one hour fire rated. Mr. Zier said he thinks the walls are ccstar-tern of 2 x 4's and 5/8" drywall. Mr. Cotten= questioned whether this was assumed or fact since there are no plans on the buildings. Mr. lee stated if Type X gypsum was used, it would be one hour fire rated, but not having the plans, it would be hard to tell. Mr. Zier said he hadn't thought to bring it up but there are smoke detectors in plane, the small batter operated ones. Mr. Vincent asked if they are inspected regularly and are records kept on the inspections. Mat are the locations of the alarms? Mr. Zier said he had no facts on alarms. Felix lee told the Board it was their job in this appeal to interpret whether alternative means exist and are sufficient. Boardnabber Baker said he agreed with Mr. Zier in the fact that government shouldn't be allowed to put obstacles in the path of business for no apparent reason. He does feel, however, that it is clear in Section 1.103(b) that if it is a distinct hazard in the opinion of the chief, he has the right to require the alarms. Therefore, he would vote to deny the appeal. Boardmerber Bontz agreed with Boardnenber Baker and will vote to deny. He pointed cut the law was not applied suddenly: evidence shows the owner has fought the change for five years. Boardamber Allison felt it would be outrageous if there was a fire and the building didn't ccnply. He was involved in the Stadium Fast Apartment fires and said it was a case of fire breaking cut uben everyone was asleep. The smoke was so thick that people couldn't find the exits. There was an alarm 0 9 Nc- - =AV system that worked well and probably saved lives. Mr. Allison felt the cost of installing a system is not cut of line and said he would vote to deny the variance. •. - _. . MIM Class A certificate applicant, Dale A. Fraser, was approved as a certificate holder for PC L 03mtruction. In reviewing Ray Spender's application for a Class C-02 license/certificate, boob_ M bens didn't see any Class C-02 e>pPXien oe. He dial provide them with Class D experience. Boardmember Johnson made a motion to approve Mr. SPencer for a Class D lime/certificate, but deny the Class C-02 iuntil further references were submitted. nie motion was seconded by Boardnember Guerrie. Motion carried unanimously. Uanas C. Lloyd, Lloyd Cwpany (ogstructors was approved for a Class D lip/certificate. Jim Buchanan, R. Burch Construction, was approved for a Class E license/ certificate with waiver of testing approved based on testing in Cheyerme, Colorado Springs, and Aurora. 'Ihe next meeting will be held on November 30 at 9:15 a.m. in the Council ncil Chambers. Appeal #02-89 will be heard and Fbudre Fire Authority will pre- sent amendments to the 1988 Uniform Fire Code. Me meeting was adjourned. Respectfully submitted, Felix Lee, f Liaison 0 ! HARDEN, SCHMIDT, HASS & ZIER, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW NINTH FLOOR, FIRST TOWER BUILDING, P.O. BOX 1606, FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80522 TELEPHONE (303) 482-7777 TELEFAX (303) 482-8084 Ralph B. Harden H. Ted Schmidt, Jr. George H. Hass Richard F. Zier d/b/a Pr ect tts Appeal of H. C. Glisan f Prospect Plaza Apartments S. Jeannine a Haag Marla R . HeHaag Richard M. Stillwell Before the Fort Collins Fire Board of Appeals PP Michael A. Abram:. u John N. Lefler October 26, 1989 Law Section 10.306(a), UFC (1985 Ed.): "An approved automatic fire alarm system shall be installed in the following occupancies: 1. Apartment houses three or more stories in height or containing more than 15 apartments." Section 1.103(b): "The provisions of this code shall apply to existing conditions as well as to conditions arising after the adoption thereof, except that conditions legally in existence at the adoption of this code and not in strict compliance therewith shall be permitted to continue only if, in the opinion of the chief, they do not constitute a distinct hazard to life or property." Nonconforming conditions are permitted, unless the chief considers them a "distinct hazard", "Distinct" — "presenting a clear unmistakable impression"; "notable"; "readily perceptible". [Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary] The burden is on the fire authority to state and show a distinct hazard where there is a nonconforming condition. This has not occurred here. (The fact that there are apartment buildings at Prospect Plaza with 16 units does not mean they constitute a distinct hazard — as non -conforming buildings, they would be legal even if they had 500 units as long as there was no distinct hazard. The number of units does not automatically correlate to a hazard.) The fire inspector simply considers any nonconformity with the UFC to be a violation. This is patently incorrect. The fire inspector has a discretionary function: He can, and should, determine whether something is or is not a distinct hazard. His failure to do so here has resulted in damages to the owner in terms of application fee, professional advice, and loss of time from work, among other things. Prospect Plaza is placed in the awkward position of having to deny the existence of a distinct hazard which has not been specified and about which it has no notice. This is, at the least, a violation of the constitutional guarantee of due process, and it amounts to a capricious enforcement of the Uniform Fire Code. The charge of this Board is to determine the suitability of alternate materials and type of construction and to provide for reasonable interpretations of the Fire Code. The application form calls for the appellant to list "mitigating factors", but this is not required by the Fire Code or the Code of the City of Fort Collins. stes � ,rc Office m Assooahon wdn Hallberg & Brown. P.O. Box 3018. 201 1st National Bank Bldg., Estes Park, CO 80517 Telephone (303) 586A474 The proper focus of the Board should be on the interpretation of the Code concerning height of the subject apartment buildings, and whether, under the facts and mitigating circumstances, the 16-unit buildings could reasonably be considered a "distinct hazard". "Story" -- (UBC) As defined, the garden level of each of these buildings is not to be considered a story, because the floor level of the middle level in each building is not more than six feet above grade (it is approximately five feet above grade). "Height of Building" -- (UBC) This is measured from the highest adjoining sidewalk or ground surface within five feet of exterior wall. The implication is clearly that height of buildings is measured from the ground. Thus "three stories in height", as used in Section 10.306(a), must be interpreted as meaning three stories from (above) the ground. "First Story" — A level will not be considered a first story if, for more than 50% of its perimeter, its floor level is more than four feet below grade. This may well be the situation at Prospect Plaza. Facts and Mitigating Circumstances The apartment buildings were in full conformance with all applicable fire and building codes at the time of their construction in 1964. The apartments have never, to the owner's knowledge (the current owner is the same person who built the complex), had a reported fire. Prospect Plaza features 12 separate apartment buildings. Three of the buildings contain 12 units, and nine of the buildings contain 16 units. Sixteen is the least possible number of units which can subject an apartment building to the UFC requirement. (Increase in simple risk from 15 units to 16 units is .066.) Each building has three levels. The floor level of the bottom level is approximately four feet below grade (in places more), and this level is called the garden level. The floor level of the middle level is approximately five feet above grade, and the floor level of the upper level is approximately 14 feet above grade. The exterior perimeter dimensions and interior square footage of the 12-unit and the 16- unit buildings are identical. There are 180 units in the complex: 71 two -bedroom units, 37 one -bedroom units, and 72 buffet (efficiency) units. In a 12-unit building, there are six two -bedroom units (two on each floor) and six one -bedroom units (two on each floor). In a 16-unit building, there are six two -bedroom units, two one -bedroom units, and eight buffet units. On the first floor of a 16-unit building, there are two two -bedroom units and two one -bedroom units (identical to a 12-unit building). On the middle floor and the third floor of a 16-unit building, there are two two -bedroom units and four buffet units each. The difference between the 12-unit and 16-unit buildings is that in the latter the same space which two one -bedroom units would occupy on each of the middle and upper floors is instead occupied by four buffet units (the space for one one -bedroom unit is the same as the space for two buffet units). -2- There is no automatic, or even apparent, correlation — without more — between detection of fire and number of units. Similarly, there is no automatic, or even apparent, correlation -- without more -- between the probability of adequately receiving warning of fire and number of units. Any presumption in the UFC of the existence of such bald correlations is unfounded, arbitrary and irrational. The UPC fails to provide necessary indicia in order to be able to be rationally applied, e.g., specifying unit dimensions, or fixing numbers of units in particular levels, or providing specific requirements for particular building designs. By not so doing, irrationality, inconsistency and arbitrariness are not only invited, but inevitable. Each building is only 54 feet long (exterior dimension). The interior hallways are straight, with no curves. There are staircases at either long end, and so the length of the interior hallways is considerably less than the exterior length of the buildings, being less than 40 feet. In the 16-unit buildings, the doors to only two units on each of the middle and upper floors are located near the middle of the hallway -- and those doors are less than 20 feet from a stairway. The other doors on those floors are located adjacent to the stairways. Average occupancy of Prospect Plaza is one person per bedroom. (For example, Prospect Plaza is currently fully leased. Of the 71 two -bedroom units, there are two with one resident, 65 with two residents, three with three residents, and one with four residents. Thus, there are 145 persons occupying 142 bedrooms, or 1.0211 people per bedroom. Of the 37 one -bedroom units, 31 have one resident, and six have two residents. Therefore, there are 43 persons occupying 37 bedrooms, or 1.1621 people per bedroom. Of the 72 buffet units, 72 are occupied by one resident, and this is an average of 1.0000 people per bedroom -- the owner does not permit more than one person in each buffet. The total complex features 260 people in 251 bedrooms, or 1.0358 people per bedroom.) The highest occupant density (people/bedroom) is in the one -bedroom units. The lowest occupant density is in the buffet units. Although each buffet unit does have a kitchen, a buffet unit is much safer than a one - bedroom or a two -bedroom unit, because (1) the occupant will necessarily detect a fire starting in the kitchen area more readily and more quickly than persons in the separate bedrooms in one -bedroom or two -bedroom units, and (2) the occupant can exit from a buffet to the hall more easily and quickly. One -bedroom and two -bedroom units are not only less safe than buffet units in the event of kitchen fire, but there are more people, both per unit and per bedroom, to evacuate from such units as there are with buffet units. None of the 12-unit buildings features buffet units. Those buildings could contain three more units (and these could be one -bedroom or two -bedroom units) and still not trigger the Fire Code requirement for alarm systems. The 16-unit buildings, however, have eight buffet units, and each of them is safer than a one -bedroom or a two -bedroom unit. Thus, the 16-unit unit buildings, because fully half of the units are buffets, are, as constructed, much safer than a 151mit building which would feature one -bedroom and two -bedroom apartments (and which would not require an automatic alarm system under the UFC). -3- All of the apartment buildings are brick/celotex (no plywood in walls). Celotex is 25/32" All of the apartment buildings have fire extinguishers which are regularly tested, refilled and certified. There are wide fire lanes on both long ends of each building. All roofs are low pitched, which means a slower rate of fire spread and permits easier fire -fighting access to them. All units (rooms) have escape windows. All stairways have escape windows. The owner has recently installed a new 2" water main to the commercial building on the property, which is available as an auxiliary water source in the event of fire. As of one year ago, there are no longer any draperies in any of the buildings (entirely replaced by nonflammable blinds). No storage of flammable liquids is allowed. No hot plates are allowed. No space heaters are allowed. Owner inspects at regular intervals for compliance (every unit). All wiring in the building is in metal conduit. All boxes are metal. All range hoods have been removed -no fans or grease filters. All units have new (electric) stoves. There is no combustible landscaping or any other combustible material around the exterior of any of the buildings (entirely paved). The small size of the buildings, the location of the doors near stairways, the easy, fast, and close access to all the apartments, and the rapid response time of fire units satisfactorily mitigate concerns having to do with occupants receiving warning of fire. The owner of Prospect Plaza recently negotiated with the City of Fort Collins to have the City remove its electric lines from the poles between the two rows of apartment building. This was done in August, 1989, and the lines were placed underground. The owner is now in negotiations concerning the remaining telephone and cable TV wires, and they will be removed together with the poles by June 1, 1990. Access to the complex is excellent (directly off of both Prospect Street, a major arterial, and Lake Street, which goes through all the way from College Avenue, a major arterial, on the east to Shields Street, a major arterial, on the west). There are fire hydrants in close proximity to the property, both on Prospect Street (one is on the property line, less than 35 feet from the first apartment building) and on Lake Street. The location is very near the Spring Creek Fire Station, and responding units need only go west two blocks on Spring Creek Drive, north three blocks on College Avenue, and west two blocks on Prospect Street. -4- Conclusion None of the 12 buildings is three or more stories in height. Three of the buildings contain only 12 apartments, and so they are entirely immune from the UFC automatic alarm system requirement. The remaining 9 buildings do not, in consideration of the many significant mitigating factors, constitute a distinct hazard to life or property, and so the expressly permitted nonconforming status of them under the UFC should continue. -5- Fire Prevention Bureau �IorEMINGTON / L�O 102 COLLINS, uc FORT COLLINS, COLO. 80524 s" 303-221-6570 T0: Fort Collins Fire Board of Appeals FROM: Mike G. Gavin, Assistant Fire Marshal RE: Fire Code Appeal for Prospect Plaza Apartments DATE: October 23, 1989 ISSUE: Prospect Plaza Apartments of 304 West Prospect Street is appealing an installation of an automatic fire alarm system requirement pursuant to Section 10.306(a),(b),(c), (d) and (e) of the 1985 Uniform Fire Code as adopted and amended by the City of Fort Collins. The Appellant operates an apartment complex at this location which comes under these requirements, but is not in compliance of said Code. The owner of Prospect Plaza Apartments, r1r. H.C. Glisan, has not complied with the section of this Code nor has he submitted for approval plans for such system, or submitted for approval suitable alternatives as described in the Uniform Fire Code. STAFF RECOMMENDS: Staff recommends that the Board deny the appeal and require that an automatic fire alarm system needs to be installed. BACKGROUND: In 1983, the 1982 Uniform Fire Code and amendments was adopted by the City of Fort Collins included the Section regarding installation of automatic fire alarm systems. This was a new requirement in the published Code developed by the Western Fire Chiefs Association and the International Conference of Building Officials. As applied to existing buildings, the UFC does not have a "grandfather" clause but allows the chief to continue the use of existing situations even though they are not in compliance with the current code, if a distinct hazard to life or property does not exist. In 1984, the Chief, after examining national fire trends determined that apartment buildings and hotels with interior corridors as the primary means of emergency escape were a distinct hazard to life and as such, must comply with the new edition of the Code. Uniform Fire Code, Section 1.103(b) The provisions of this code shall apply to existing conditions as well as to conditions arising after the adoption thereof, except that conditions legally in existence at the adoption of this code and not in strict compliance therewith shall be permitted to continue only if, in the opinion of the chief, they do not constitute a distinct hazard to life or property. PROTECTING LIVES & PROPERTY Attachments cc: John Mulligan Felix Lee John Duval After the adoption of this Code, Poudre Fire Authority began working with building owners who had buildings which fell into this category to install proper alarm systems. As of this time, there are nine buildings in this complex that are required to comply with this section. These buildings have 16 units on three floors as garden level apartments. In October 1984, we began working with the management and owners attempting to have this property come into compliance with the UFC. Due to many delays, refusals, and change of ownership, this property is still not in compliance, nor have any approved exceptions been presented, reviewed or accepted by Poudre Fire Authority. There are battery operated smoke detectors located in several areas in these buildings, but their operation cannot be guaranteed due to lack of a monitor system. These detectors do not alert the entire floor or entire building of a possible life threatening situation. Due to center hallway exiting, there is only one approved exit per apartment and there is no approved exit directly to the outside from floors other than the lower garden level (window exits). Since this Code was adopted, we have experienced fires in apartments where approved automatic fire alarm systems have been installed. These systems functioned correctly as intended and we believe this has been a major contributing factor in the prevention of fire loss including injuries and deaths. 2 POUDRE FIRE AUTHORITY INSPECTION POLICY 84-4 FIRE ALARMS IN APARTMENTS AND HOTELS Section 10.307 (a) requires that apartment buildings and hotels meeting the following criteria be equipped with an approved fire alarm system unless specifically exempted. An approved system should include provisions for automatic detection and manual operation in interior corridors and automatic detection in storage rooms, laundry rooms, furnace rooms and similar common areas. C:RITFRTA Apartment buildings three (3) stories or more in height or containing 15 or more apartments. Hotels three (3) or more stories in height or containing more than 20 guest rooms. EXCEPTIONS 1) Apartment buildings and hotels not over two stories in height with direct exits from each dwelling unit to a yard or public way and one hour separation between each dwelling unit from basement to roof. 2) Special PFA exception for all apartment buildings and hotels with direct exits from each dwelling unit or guest room to a yard or public way. RETROFIT POLICY It will be the PFA policy to only require retrofit alarm systems in apartment buildings or hotels with interior exit hallways if the building meets either one of the first two criteria. This is because buildings with direct outdoor exits present less hazard and the operational problems associated with alarming buildings with no common areas. DATE s Lo.R -'m. E^?•+�So s Ez S Q p .T m n= A u V m? �_—, D 7 o v 3- n C •O -O v n= O^ C�N_aOmes 79 =["=�° 0= O m ei is S R 6 n S d 3- m rtn 9 „K,. �1 C ^ d m N O m- if S O W y ,°.,� y 3• H !? °: — n n N " W— O S m^ A O, W o� C) u n O o m n` o y d n c O e n= n 0 O m G �. n o �' •m rt $. IOC 0 ,< o 0 O- •J N f O>> ' R m- a K= .ei c'N917 m O 3 O •p n O O ._, o� = rn e d W c� ° is e � � � r"i •°. £ o° C m �`_^' `.c E -' a n n D w y n `< d'C 'm0 9 4 n w 4 RO Z w m m G rt 3 w = A = 3 > o c 0_� �.nmm F.w too = 7 n3 sm3o z eo.m Zm._ OAo �^^nye3H < Pi -m m n s W O 'i n , e 7 �� m .'p z �G Cmb c N c Mn H N ° 3 n•r7 =Oo t' E. SKv wp NON^S� -i0^y=69.GW N y NR� 9S dW 6�W m..l 6"j,OC n n °=^�I 1� n•m0 x 0° n A C ^ 6 �' N .Q O M S n C. 6 A n m 4- m n n m n O = N= a 7 ^ ^ C N W S N N 3 Z ^ 9 O O w n y FrG n ^ �' c n 9k'nHR.F3�' _ o' Nc �N 3na^9,'^N ^Ns+-n' � ��0 G W = O n 8 == 3 3 ^ 3 N Y F n °' m 9 o e 3 '4 N n F, n W c o = p ry N n^ o mso>m 'c3 m �ce3a w3HN �W°Nj ^9= `a � � C ^ muo O .nm.. a �::t 3w' 3 �(�� Ov-' F m N =< E. '� �o n�R <>ripc <<, •a90 <c O^ it -m=mn ^n a-'.m. oG m onNo'o.=° n� z^ O m« °: W 6g N n nS=..Nn ._ o.N n 3 n(�c n n n na .N c„m^� no. d os° o ^a ^ 3 ii Z �_^ = o _c.9 °' c. e 3 n o _ o F.o ,? n nO A = O S d O, N O^ O' f^� rvm� n y C C' m •^� '-' -Oj •< 30• w O� �Fi nn C DN C1 ^9mD=NY prt �6 Cvne;^O O u m D 90 n m a v E O ^ n•,� ' c c �C � >OO n m n u == wF 0.� H a m� N 6� 9 3 y ^ i <nOpS6= !� � m O H O = N -O• � n `t 3n� b S 6 O 21 Fr F, w F l v o �— • POUDRE FIRE AUTHORITY • FIRE INSPECTION DOCUMENT FORM w.ruo nr nneTXlrCC ADDRESS PERSON CONTACTED DATE TIME COMMENTS INSPECTOR !"� r f St•� CEE Cam" NtT !!-<)- t15 OO /� ��� �:'� 14 �^ _�tiT WCT LtS pwL - A U �' L►Q- _ � � � 7 , ` . �: �Lr t r ` 1 ��.� _ ♦^ �,.._,__ : �• • c Gam, � G k-5-er� v F r. 7e c-- of wk-. , v- .n-i I.'..cwT �c c t -S 5 v c{J •- lttl� �..,�< I Gk t 1, hTA^< Oi 1E C-ii c��:I � :4T lev:, 1 � V\ 4� r c" t o- KA-c, L I -/ AMSWEk ALL QUESTIOMS: • 1. What did we see on arrival? 2. What did we do? 3. What were the results7 4. Were there any unusual factors involved? I issued a summons to Michael Nix, manager of Prospect Plaza apts. This was necessary for non-compliance of. sec. #10.301 of the Uniform Fire Code 1985 ed. The buildings at 250-315 W. Prospect st. are required to have an approved fire alarm system installed. We have been attempting to achieve compliance since October of 1984. The owner,Mr. Ken Grady, lives in Littleton and has ignored numerous deadlines and meetings to clear this violation from the books. Log of contacts made: - *October 16, 1984. Letter sent to Mr. Grady stating one year to comply. *September 4, 1985 Company inspection *October 10,1985 Company Re -inspection *September 8•, 1986 Company inspection *October 4, 1986 . Company re -inspection *January 16, 1987 Letter to Mr. Grady stating 30 days to establish a timeline for compliance: *February 2, 1987 Reply from Mr. Grady setting up a meeting on 2/11/87 @ 1330. *February 16, 1987 Letter from Mr. Grady stating he would call to set up a meeting when he was in Ft. Collins. Also stating to contact Mike Nix for business that needs immediate attention. *April 21, 1987 Company inspection *April 21, 1987 Mr. Grady and Mr. Nix met with Rob Weber of the Poudre Fire Authority Fire Prevention Bureau. It was stated that Chadwick Electric would start installation of the alarm system on May 18, 1987. *February 23, 1988 I talked to Mike Nix on the phone. He said Mr. Grady would be in Ft. Collins on thursday 2/25/88. *February 25, 1988 Cashier at desk said Mr. Grady had been in Ft. Collins on 2/24/88. *February 26, 1988 Talked to Mr. Grady on the phone. Meeting set up for 3/3/88 @ 1330 *March 3, 1988 Mike Nix called to cancel appointment. Another meeting set for 3/10/88 @ 1330. *March 3, 1988 I confirmed appointment with Mr. Grady by phone. *March 4, 1988 Letter sent to Mr. Grady confirming appointment. *March 10, 1988 Mike Nix called to say that Mt: Grady could not make appointment because of bad weather. *March 10, 1988 Mr. Grady called to say he could not make it but Mike Nix was his representative. *March 23, 1988 Letter sentse•tting deadline for a contractual agreement by 5/1/88. *April 6, 1988 Reply stating a plan that Mr. Grady. had come up with that would not comply. *April 11, 1988 Letter stating specific requests for contracts and plans by 5/9/88 *April 25, 1988 Reply stating Chadwick Electric would be doing the work. *May 12, 1988 Met with Mr. Chadwick. He submitted a bid to Mr. Nix on 5/5/88. *May 12, 1988 Met with Mike Nix, he stated that no bid had been received. *May 12, 1988 I issued a summons to Mr. Nix. 1311 /V? 6 8co 131 S Z zs AJ,,q. of 78(-'(7YT jz-z5 A).A. 4� 781-Y7Y7 To /(A2e�iA1 se'f u� A.'ar (33a a-r P/'csp2<T �o z a 301 W . �✓bspec-�. 3 ' 3 /n ; ke /J ix C,9,//ed fa Ca-n ce ( ca-ase ge., t as/eea( M(- Io re�,Ceol�le a_ ih„is_ 3-/6-88 3-fy A -f� aj)p ,,rf A,are . apP-- ¢ar .Sa ri ear l l eo/ % f �Q r �o en Gera% �i �� ��• 7 y /fi2e�i •r9 . Lkc. Ni'c (l�l 4,0 SOS. �� � Ire Grady Rd Ii6 ,!Lf" 2/e�k n) Z24--a vat of lQd A, Grady ca///mil A �j. Ae here ie/r POUDRE FIRE AUTHORITY FIRE INSPECTION REPORT 102 REMINGTON STREET FT. COLLINS, COLORADO 80524 — PHONE: 221-6570 E OF BUSINESS _ F,8=C'r ADDRESS.- j BUSINESS HONFr,, •. T i`- .FT`5 (_} t't T�r .. -� 7 COORDIp5TE , MA�AGER' NAME MANAGER'S HOME PHONE . FINAL NOTICE Yo rar,had in excess of days,tg�correct the violations noted on the fire inspection conducted on •r You have an additional ! n business days to take one of the following courses of action: ` (-TEN (1) Correct the violation(s). (2) Contact Inspector 11,1� G AA/ i r11 at 221-6570 or in writing at the above address and request that a schedule for bringing all noted violations into compliance be established. All reasons for this re- quest must be clearly stated and will be considered by the Fire Prevention Bureau representative. (3) Appeal these violations in writing (pursuant to U.F.C. section 2-302) to the Fire Board of Appeals. An applica- tion for appeal must be obtained from the Fire Marshal's office, Poudre Fire Authority, 102 Remington St., Fort Collins, CO. 80524. The purpose of the appeals board is to "determine the suitability of alternate materials and type of construction and to provide for reasonable interpretations of" the Uniform Fire Code. If any one of these steps is not taken, a summons to appear in Municipal/County Court may be issued. For any questions regarding this notice, please contact the inspector listed above at 221-6570. I INlenooccrcn Vnnl eTtnnie UFC SECTIONv r v I rl X DATE DATE: i/--r' COMPANY/ ` PAGE OF PROTECTING LIVES & PROPERTY WHITE • Business Representative YELLOW: Fire Inspection Coordinator r v I rl X DATE DATE: i/--r' COMPANY/ ` PAGE OF PROTECTING LIVES & PROPERTY WHITE • Business Representative YELLOW: Fire Inspection Coordinator POUDRE FIREIRUTHORITY FIRE INSECTION REPORT 505 PETERSON STREET FT. COLLINS, COLORADO 80524 - PHONE: 484-4220 Ext. 200 NAME OF BUSINESS ADDRESS ^' __. BUSINESS PHONS. - TYPE OF OCCUPANCY BUILDINGOWNER— J MANAGER'S NAME: MANAGER'S HOME PHONE OWNF,R'SADDRESS(CITY A STATED. - A. FIRE PROTECTION YES o ( Coordinate %- " ' ! Time Point Value 1 SPRINKLER SYSTEM VALVE LOCATION FIRE DEPT. CONN. LOCATION t STANDPIPES LOCATION OF F.D. CONN. S ALARMS TYPE A EXTINGUISHERS IN ORDER S FIRE SYSTEM MAINTENANCE 6 FIRE DOORS ADEQUATE A IN ORDER YES MIA 1 ADDRESS VISIBLE 2 EXIT WAYS ADEQUATE A IN ORDER S EXIT LIGHTS ADEQUATE A IN ORDER a STAIRWAYS ADEQUATE 6 IN ORDER 5 DECORATIVE MATERIAL 6 PROPER STORAGE OF COMBUSTIBLES 7 PROPER STORAGE OF FLAMMABLEb I OCCUPANT LOAD - POSTED I• % C. ELECTRICAL - HEATING YEN NO NI 1 PROPER ELECTRICAL / , ; 2 MAIN ELECTRICAL - DISCONNECT ACCESSIBLE LOCATION S MAIN GAS VALVE ACCESSIBLE O PROTECTED O LOCATION 6 BOILER f_' GFA "' OTHER O S PROPER VENTING 6 MOT WATER HEATER OAS 'I ELEC ❑ VIOLATIONS OF THE UNIFORM FIRE CODE AS ADOPTED: UFC NUMBER DATE CLEARED r BY ORDER OF THE CHIEF: You are hereby notified to immediately correct the conditions stated above, or show cause to the fire code Board of Appeals why you should not be required to do so. A reinspection will be conducted after 141 days from the date of service of this notice. If, at the time of reinspection, the same conditions exist, a summons to appear in court will be issued. For any questions regarding this notice, please contact the Fire Prevention Bureau. 'I INSPECTED BY a 1. THE UNDERSIGNED, AM IN RECEIPT OF A COPY OF THIS INSPECTION � �. / 7 CAT / _COMPANY � ��` IMEOFINSP. � / NOTICE AND AM AWARE OF THE HAZARDS AS INDICATED REINSP EDmz BY: - DATE DATE CORRECTED NOT COMECTED WHITE 8169_ TOPSM YELLOW. Enalw OpmpanY PINK - FIN, PraY6HkM W-Millu GOLDENROD- FIN, PN,wnIHln Bwwu 0 Fire Prevention Bureau FORT COLLINS, COLO. 80524 303-221-6570 September 12, 1989 Henry Glisan Prospect Plaza Apartments 304 W. Prospect Ft. Collins, CO 80521 Dear Mr. Glisan: 1 have enclosed an application for Request for Hearing by the Fire Board of Appeals in the City of Fort Collins. As explained on this form, the hearing is the last Thursday of each month (September 28th) at 9:15 A.M. in the City Council Chambers at 300 Laporte Ave. The application must be filed no later than September 21st at the City Building Department, which is also located at 300 Laporte Ave. There is a $50.00 docket fee which must also be filed at that time. 1 have also enclosed a copy of the Uniform Fire Code section that relates to appeals. Keep in mind that the appeal must be for either alternate materials or reasonable interpretation of the Code. Pursuant to our conversation yesterday, if an appeal is not filed by September 21, 1989 for a September 28th hearing, I will be left with no other alternative than to issue a summons to appear in Municipal Court for failure to comply with the Code of the City of Fort Collins. Thank you for your time and concern with this matter. MGG:dede Enclosures Sincerely, Mike G. Gavin Assistant Fire Marshal Inspection Services PROTECTING LIVES & PROPERTY • -A • Fire Prevention Bureau , h0 � R1 M1N UN FOO RT COLLINS,I`'COLD. 80524 303-221-6570 July 25, 1989 Mr. Glissen 304 W. Prospect Street Ft. Collins, CO 80521 Dear Mr. Glissen: I am writing to confirm the fact that your property at 250-318 W. Prospect has never been brought up to standards in the Uniform Fire Code. The section in question regards the fire alarm requirements. We have been attempting to work with you to resolve this issue for almost a year (since you obtained the property from Mr. Grady), yet these buildings continue to be in violation of the Uniform Fire Code, as adopted by the City of Fort Collins. This is a situation that we will not allow to continue. It is necessary for either you or your representative to contact me by September 8, 1989 to begin to resolve this issue, or a summons will be issued for you or your business representative to appear in Municipal Court. Sincerely, Mike G. Gavin Assistant Fire Marshal Fire Inspection Division MGG:dede cc: R. Frasco PROTECTING LIVES & PROPERTY C:tv Attorn Citv of Fort Collins June 28, 1988 Mr. Michael Nix 250 West Prospect Road, #5 Fort Collins, CO 80526 Re: Municipal Court Case #43219 Dear Mr. Nix: Please be advised that the above -mentioned case has been dis- missed without prejudice at the request of the Poudre Fire Authority. My understanding is that the ownership of the prop- erty involved in that case has been transferred and that the Poudre Fire Authority intends to work with the new owners in an attempt to obtain compliance with the Code prior to making a determination as to whether a new summons should be issued for the violation. As a result of this case being dismissed without prejudice, please disregard any court dates which you had relating to the same. Sincerely, t ri . ruin Kathleen M. Allin Assistant City Attorney KMA:kkg Enclosyres cc: ,Art Echdahl, Poudre Fire Authority George Hass, Attorney 300 LaPorte Avenue, P.O. Box 380, Fort Collins. CO 30522-0580 • (303) 221-6320 23 Brookside Dr. Littleton, Colo. 80121 June 13, 1988 Mr. Steve Miller Ass't Chief Poudre Fire Authority 505 Peterson Ref: Fire Safety Trial Ft. Collins, Colo.-O0524 June 24, 1988 250-318 W. Prospect Dear Mr. Miller: Please be advised that in our approaching trial of June 24, 1988, that I will not defend Prospect Plaza against the Poudre Fire Department request for additional fire protection systems, and therefore allegations of operating unsafe buildings. The property is being returned to the former owner, H.C. Glisan, who has been informed of the fire department request, and our differences of opinion on fire safety at the property. Mr. Glisan may be contacted at 14077 E. Arizona Ave, Aurora, Colo. 80012, for your continuing fire safety program. Than you Ken G. Gra rc H.C. Glisan Mike Nix John Corbridge Attorney Larimer County Court 23 Brookside Dr. Littleton, Colo. 80121 April 25, 1988 Mr. Steve Miller Assistant Fire Marshal Poudre fire Authority 505 Peterson Ft. Collins, Colo. 80524 Dear Mr. Miller I received your letter dated April 11, 1988 on April 22, 1988 concerning Prospect Plaza 250-318 Id. Prdspect. In your recent inspection I assume you noticed that we have installed independent smoke detectors in the areas designated in my recent reply and first plan. This alarm gyptem is in place in all apartment buildings. It is installed and operational. I have asked Mr. Nix to provide Chadwick Electric with a copy of your letter of April 11, 1988, and come up with a plan and proposal that is based on your letter and vour meeting of Rob weber and Mr. Nix earlier in April. This was requested last week and Mr. Chadwick should have something for you to review shortly. Thank you for vour letter and concern. We too are interested in the best fire safety possible. For that reason we have completed the redent outlined detector installation even before you considered the plan outlined in my last letter. I presume the installation of those detectors improves the fire safety and reduces potential accidents. We hope to have Chadwicks plan very soon. Thank You Ken Grady, OEM, w T Phone 303-22*70 Vlap1 •1. • ` 'Iff CERTIFIED, RETURN RECEIPT Ken Grady 23 Brookside Drive Littleton, CO 80121 Dear Mr. Grady: April 11, 1988 RE: Prospect Plaza Apartments 250 - 318 W. Prospect St. This letter is in reply to your correspondence to Art Eckdahl dated April 6, 1988. In your letter you stated that you have not been given clear direction about what is required and feel that the imposed deadline is unrealistic. I have reviewed the file on your building and have discussed this situation with those involved from our Department (Art Eckdahl, Ralph Kettle, Glenn Levy, and Rob Weber). The following comments are based on the above -stated research: 1) All indications are that you have been clearly informed as to what you are required to do in regard to the fire alarm systems. On 4/21/87 you and Mike Nix met with Rob Weber of our Department in regard to what was required. Rob outlined what was needed, and you agreed to have Chadwick Electric start installation by 5/18/87. 2) In regard to May 1, 1988 being an unrealistic timeline, you have repeatedly failed to meet promises to comply with this requirement and/or attend meetings regarding this subject. This situation has remained unresolved since 10/16/84 when Warren Jones informed Mr. Nix of the problem. Three and a half years is much too long and this deadline has been set to provide some movement on this problem. You must submit to me by May 2, 1988 the following: 1) A copy of the contract you have entered into to provide installation of an approved fire alarm system in all the apartments located at 250 - 318 W. Prospect St., Ft. Collins, CO. The alarm installer must be licensed to work on alarms in the City PROTECTING LIVES & PROPERTY Ken Grady April 11, 1988 Page 2 of Ft. Collins. The fire alarm shall be an automatic and manual system, installed in accordance with National Fire Protection Standard 72. This system shall provide smoke detectors in all common areas (hallways); pull stations at each exit on each level; and heat detectors in storage areas, furnace or boiler rooms, laundries, and other similar areas. The system shall be designed such that any device, when activated, will initiate an audible alarm which can be heard in any part of the building. 2) The designated contractor must submit to me by May 9, 1988, two sets of plans and other required documents for me to approve. Have them contact me prior to the deadline if they have any questions as to what is required of them. 3) Installation of the alarm systems must begin no later than May 16, 1988. 4) All alarm systems shall be installed and operational no later than June 13, 1988. Failure to comply with any of these requirements will result in the issuance of a summons on this matter. ' If you have any questions please call. Sincerely, —4;�5 Aa Steven S. Miller Assistant Fire Marshal ssm/sw Phone 3030-6570 FORT COLLINS, COLO.80524 March 23, 1988 CERTIFIED.RETURN RECEI P Mr. Ken Grady 23 Brookside Drive Littleton, CO 80121 RE: Prospect Plaza Apartments 250 - 318 W. Prospect St. Dear fir. Grady: I'm sorry that the weather prevented you from attending the scheduled meeting on March 10, 1988 regarding the fire alarm requirements at your multi -unit apartment complex located at 250-318 West Prospect Street, Fort Collins, Colorado. We did meet with your manager, Mr. Nix, at that time and reviewed the history of this case with him. As I explained to him, this situation has dragged on since 1984 and your complex must conform to the fire alarm requirements of the Uniform Fire Code as soon as possible. To the best of my knowledge, your apartment complex is the only one in our jurisdiction that has not complied with this Fire Code requirement. It is also one of the largest complexes of this type in our jurisdiction. Approximately one year ago you entered into an agreement with Rob Weber of our Fire Prevention Bureau to complete a complying alarm system "within one month". This agreement was never completed by you. We must receive documentation (i.e. plans for review or a contractual agreement) no later than April 15, 1988, showing that the alarm system in your complex will be completed to full Fire Code compliance by flay 1, 1988 or a summons will be issued in this matter. I'm enclosing a listing of fire our jurisdiction. All of these Code requirements. If you need me. Yours truly, M1-7 J rn O J Art D. Eckdahl "' c w c g� Asst. Fire Marshal m {L w <o _ Cc cc W wa z ADE/sw Ulu oW S LL Uz M1 LL a¢ D a F W i W 2 O �Z Q alarm installers approved to operate in contractors are familiar with the Fire additional information, please contact m y M M � d N o m oo s_ Q v o " cm as p LL 3 0 L S O Y G • Y9i" '^ u) O 0 1191OP-C"I'O'd'o'S'n • LBBL'god'DM w,oj sd f Phone 303-2• 570 `' •FORT COLLINS,• • March 4, 1988 Mr. Ken Grady 23 Brookside Drive Littleton, CO 80121 Dear Mr. Grady, I am writing to confirm our meeting scheduled for Thursday March 10, 1988 at 1:30 p.m. at 304 W. Prospect Street in Fort Collins, Colorado. As we discussed by phone, this meeting is to clarify the fire alarm requirements that apply to your buildings at 250-318 W. Prospect St. We have been attempting to work with you to resolve this issue since October of 1984, yet these buildings continue to be in violation of the Uniform Fire Code, as adopted by the City of Fort Collins. This is a situation that we cannot allow to continue. It is necessary for meeting or a summons Municipal Court. RK/cs cc: Steve Miller Art Eckdahl either you or your representative to attend this will be issued for you to appear in Fort Collins Sincerely, Ralph Kettle Fire Inspection Coordinator PROTECTING LTYES & PROPERTY Phone 303-221-6570 • OW 1JPI1 L'iwVlI FORT COLLINS, COLO. 80524 January 16. 1987 Mr. Ken Grady 23 Brookside Dr. Littleton, CO 80121 Dear Mr. Grady: Our records show you as the responsible party/owner of the Prospect Plaza Apartments, 250-318 W. Prospect, Fort Collins, Colorado, 80521. As required under the Uniform Fire Code, 1985 Edition, as adopted by the City of Fort Collins, Section 10.306(a) and by Poudre Fire Authority Inspection Policy #84-4, your buildings must have an approved fire alarm system. This violation has been cited for the last three years without compliance. It is imperative that you contact me within 30 days to discuss the violation and establish a timeline for compliance. Sincerely Glenn M. Levy Fire Inspection Coordinator GML/sw cc: Uniform Fire Code requirements Poudre Fire Authority Policy #84-4 Requirement letter of 3/5/84 PROTECTING LIVES & PROPERTY FA Fire Prevention Bureau - 221-6570 505 Peterson, Fort Collins. CO. 80524_ TATION INSPECTION COMPLAINT / h[ Master Building File Date 2� t_` Time 0 General File R/efe'r1reVo LOCATION/ADDRESS`( REQUESTING PERSON/CO./PHONE # x ACTION REQUESTED J PREFERRED DATES & TIMES NATURE OF CALL )INGS: � I aYmh � f4 r1PP P � � t1 JI 0( f �im�, J trk L IQ IU =\.CNI\i Date i I Phone 303-482-9020 SOS PETERSON - _ -- 1 Hi•� L FORT COLLINS, COI O. �05?4 X) yt I11� �Y . • o _Ii r::17: M4'. : Mr. Michael hick, 11anager Prospect Plaza Apartments 304 W. Prospect Fort Collins, CO 80521 Dear Mr. Nick: Pursuant to our recent conversation concerning the boiler room in your Laun- dromat, I agree with Company Officer Mark Sprenger, that sprinkler protection is an acceptable alternative to retroactively installing a one -hour fire ra- ting around the boiler room. Specifically, this one -hour rating is required by the Building Code when the boiler or heating plant exceed 400,000 BTU's per hour input. It is my understanding from talking to Mark Sprenger, that there is a 2" water service to this room. If this water service can supply the fire flow needed for this small sprinkler system, it is permissible to use this rather than providing a new water supply. Please remind who ever designs and installs this system, to have their plans'reviewed and approved before installation begins. related -mate �+e-d-i e' 1L�95UM =-Ahe:-datemf:i is--�etten �;" ere ire=several:;a_arm_con rac ors: " famaa-iar with this-re`qu%cement i_n`the area ivho cM be contacted to biif- this worm= � QfP,C 1 UK lL4u If you have any questions, please contact me at any time. Thank you for your attention to these matters. Sincerely, Warren D. Jones, Inspector WDJ/cs PROTECI-ING LIVES & PROPERTY