Fire Station sleeping area

[permitguy]

Has the FD in this case taken a formal position on sprinklers? It almost sounds like they built an unmanned station at some point in the past, but now want to man it. Did they build the facilities separately simply to avoid sprinklers? If so, I agree that's a deplorable action for a FD. Regardless, I agree that this could be acceptable as an IRC structure based on your analysis, and wouldn't require sprinklers based on your state amendment.

Are firefighters transient occupants in a fire station or not when sleeping is provided?

My vote would tend to be "not". Ours average 10 days per month on 24 hour shifts (except calls). In terms of transience (familiarity with surroundings), they are as much "residents" of their firehouse as they are their actual homes.

 

[zigmark]

Permitguy-

This was indeed originally an unmanned station, very rural all volunteer until recently. Their intent is definately to avoid the installation of a sprinkler system since they lack not only funding but municipal water to supply the system requiring added expenditure.

I don't think this application was ever the intent of the States' ammendment to the code as far as allowances. I think it was simply one of the overlooked issues that occur when ammendments are proposed then made without thorough consideration. It ceases to amaze me how these cases find us.

ZIG

 

[gbhammer]

If the state oppted out of sprinklers for R3 construction then no sprinkler should be required. The intent behind the exception from a low occupant load for any of the other R uses is to allow them to be built to the prescibed methods of the IRC because there is a very low life safety risk.

Easy pleasie,