1520 25TH ST 2024-02-28 - Laserfiche WebLink

Code Council. As this opinion is only advisory, the final decision is the responsibility of the designated authority charged with the administration and enforcement of this code. "Copyright O 2017 International Code Council, Inc. All rights reserved." Sincerely, Chris Holland Senior Technical Staff Architectural & Engineering Services International Code Council, Inc. Chicago District Office 4051 West Flossmoor Road Country Club Hills, IL 60478 888-ICCSAFE (422-7233) x4314 708-799-0310 facsimile cholland(U)iccsafe.org www.iccsafe.org From: Charles Fritzemeier [mailto:hcfritzemeier 1@q.com] Sent: Friday, May 05, 2017 4:09 PM To: Chris Holland Subject: Sections 102, 105 - 2015 IPMC Hello—I couldn't tell if you had been sent the entire text or an abbreviated version, thus I am sending the complete text directly. Thanks for your help. CF Ladies and Gentlemen—Clermont Holdings, LLC("Clermont") hereby requests a written opinion from the International Code Council regarding the effect of Sections 102.2, 102.4 and 105.1 of the International Property Maintenance Code ("IPMC") on an alleged violation of IPMC Section 606.2 (which requires owners of buildings equipped with elevators to keep those elevators operational) under the circumstances described below. The City of Everett,Washington (the "City") has adopted the IPMC as its code setting forth required commercial building maintenance standards. Clermont owns a 5-story residential apartment building in the City which was built in 19_(the "Building"). The Building contains an old, inoperative elevator(the "Elevator"). The Elevator had been decommissioned approximately 5 years before Clermont purchased the Building because it had ceased functioning, because its antiquated design and equipment caused it to be out of compliance with the ADA and modern elevator codes, and because it was not required equipment in the Building. Shortly after purchasing the Building, the City required Clermont to create a fire-safe vertical shaft in the Building's stairwell to facilitate a secure exit rout in case of fire (the "Fire Shaft"). In order to install the Fire Shaft, all access to the Elevator had to be blocked off because (i)the Elevator shaft, which was located adjacent to the stairwell, could become a fire chimney inside the Fire Shaft,thus defeating the Fire Shaft's purpose, and (ii) due to size constraints in the Building's hallways and stairwell,the only appropriate location for the fire doors was directly over the Elevator's call buttons and other electrical equipment. Clermont's drawings of the Fire Shaft design clearly showed that the Elevator shaft would be sealed off and the fire doors would be installed over the location of the Elevator's call buttons and other electrical equipment.The City carefully reviewed this Fire Shaft design pursuant to its normal construction permitting process and issued a permit for construction of the Fire Shaft which included sealing off the Elevator shaft and removing its electrical equipment. Several years later a Building tenant filed a complaint with the City based on the fact that the Elevator was inoperative. In response, the City cited Clermont for violation of IPMC Section 606.2. Clermont reminded the City of the above-stated facts, but the City's code enforcement officials are taking the position that they have no discretion with respect to applicability of IPMC Section 606.2, and that, in light of this section, they are obligated to require Clermont to 3