• Welcome to the new and improved Building Code Forum. We appreciate you being here and hope that you are getting the information that you need concerning all codes of the building trades. This is a free forum to the public due to the generosity of the Sawhorses, Corporate Supporters and Supporters who have upgraded their accounts. If you would like to have improved access to the forum please upgrade to Sawhorse by first logging in then clicking here: Upgrades

egress/sprinkler issue with new EMS bldg.

B

BSSTG

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2009
Messages
729
Location
Seadrift, Tx.
Greetings all,

I posted up awhile back on the future fire house with sleeping rooms and whether or not to sprinkle. Well, we have plans and it's actually an EMS bldg.

?1 The plan reviewer and I are of the opinion the bldg has to be sprinkled. I also believe that if they provide a direct exit to a public way out of each sleeping room via a doorway we could allow the ommision of sprinklers as long as they get a variance. This would be possible but the building owner does not want the doors. (does not want unwanted guests) Does this sound reasonable? I'm a bit conerned since doing away with the sprinklers no matter how it's mitigated it would lesson the level of life safey somewhat.

?2 The plans call for 2 exits. The main entrance/exit is from the ambulance parking area which is attached to the building and is under a large canopy which is open on 3 sides. It seems to me and the plan reviewer that this would be egress through an intervening space. Would this be acceptable?

thanks a bunch

BS
 
Code calls for 2 exits also because of travel distance. That's where the question arises with the canopy deal.

BS
 
Sprinklers required.

I would not call the canopy an intervening space. In Section 1027.4 (2009 IBC) it states that "exit discharge components shall be sufficiently open to the exterior so as to minimize the accumulation of smoke and toxic gases." Depending on the design of the canopy, being open on three sides appears to me to be "sufficiently open." As long as the path from the exit door to the public way is of the minimum required width, I would see no problem with the exit door.
 
Q1: No [NFPA 13 - 4' canopy rule] and

This would be possible but the building owner does not want the doors.
Click to expand...
and what MT said :) Q2: Sprinkler protection for the area under the canopy would suffice in a reduction in the rating of the "protected egress assembly"
 
Why is the word "Sprinkler" a bad word?

The building owner does not want unwanted guest? I assume the doors will have door locks! This does not sound reasonable IMO.

pc1
 
Update

This is actually a county bldg. They are now ok with the doors out of each sleeping room directly to the outside. Additionally, they are wanting to go with 2 hour protectives which will work as far as I'm concerned. The way the layout is it will totally isolate the six sleeping rooms from the business area with direct egress to a public way out of each sleeping room at grade. That said, I'm still going to get the blessing of the city attorney and he may want a variance. We shall see.

BS
 
As long as you're willing to extend the same variance to every motel, dormitory, and apartment building that meets the same requirements . . .

I wouldn't go there. No way.

The code says sprinkler it.
 
Unwantwed Guests....hummm...low pay...bad hours...away from loved ones....ahhh bunk rooms.... Seen it all too many times :)

Permit is 150% correct as are others.......don't open that can of worms or let someone else make the selective enforcement call so you can send future customers to them ;)
 
Since the fire services were so hot to sprinkler residential buildings, why would they not voluntarily sprinkle their own??
 
A local variance may not be an option. Check with the funding source. We just completed a second floor addition on our FD and the grant we recieved required the entire FD to be sprinklered.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top