2015-0846 Point Edwards Bldg 10 - elevator hoistway pressurization - Studio Meng Strazzra.pdfOV EQ_4 City of Edmonds
PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS
BUILDING DIVISION
(425) 771-0220
DATE: March 30, 2017
TO: Aidan Bird
Studio Meng Strazzara
abird@studioms.com
FROM: Chuck Miller, Plans Examiner
RE: Plan Check: BLD2015-0846
Project Address: 50 Pine Street
Project: Point Edwards Building 10
Scope: Construct 68 unit residential structure — R-2/S-2 occupancy groups — V-A
construction - NFPA- 13 sprinkler system required— mechanical and plumbing may
be deferred submittals or under separate pen-nit(s) — separate permits required for fire
systems
A request was made regarding the substitution of hoistway pressurization for 'smoke screens' to
consider pressurization as an acceptable alternative to lobbies per IBC 713.14. 1, Item 6.
The requirement for the 'smoke screens' at the elevator hoistway openings was to maintain the
integrity of the corridor as follows:
IBC 10 18.1 - Corridor required to be constructed as fire partition complying with IBC 708.
IBC 708.6 - Openings in a fire partition (corridor) required to be protected in accordance
with IBC 716.
0 IBC 716.5.3 — Fire doors in a corridor must provide smoke and draft control.
Because the elevator was not enclosed within a lobby (by proposal or requirement), separating
the elevator (and its doors) from the corridor, it became part of the corridor. Unfortunately, the
elevator hoistway doors themselves do not meet the requirements of IBC 716.5.3.
Consideration was given by the reviewer during the first plan review of the project for providing
elevator lobbies, providing additional doors (or 'smoke screens'), or for pressurizing the
elevator shafts, as options to limit the transfer of smoke as required for corridors. The
installation of 'smoke screens' was proposed and approved as a means of protecting the
hoistway door openings.
IBC 713.14. 1, Item 6 specifically states that where the elevator hoistway is pressurized per IBC
909.21, enclosed lobbies are not required. It would be difficult to reason otherwise. But to be clear
in this instance, the provision of elevator hoistway pressurization is not as an alternative to a
required elevator lobby, it is to provide smoke control at the hoistway door openings into the
corridor.
The corridor smoke control options expressed in the earlier plan review are still viable and the City
will accept a proposal for pressurization of the elevator hoistway in accordance with IBC 909.21 as
a means of providing smoke and draft control at the hoistway openings into the corridor as required
by IBC 716.5.3.
Page 2 of 2