ginal Message-
From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of George Church
Sent: Monday, March 16, 2009 6:26 PM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Mixed-Use Code Question/Wish List
I didn't propose it during last c
rg
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Thom McMahon
Sent: Monday, March 16, 2009 7:12 PM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Mixed-Use Code Question/Wish List
See George all you had to do was ask, and in less than 12 hours this forum
has removed one of your 6
Tel: 970-879-7952
Fax: 970-879-7926
-Original Message-
From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of George Church
Sent: Monday, March 16, 2009 7:42 AM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Mixed-Use Code
I think there are a couple of members who know who he is.
Thanks,
I knew a contractor 20 years ago who had folders of "sticky backs" he had
copied of various PE's signed stamps off of plans.
Some people...
If I can help ferret out a copy of this guy's stamp, let me know. It
still doesn't beat the
If I can help ferret out a copy of this guy's stamp, let me know. It
still doesn't beat the contractor (same state) who was using the dead
PE's stamp, but it is close.
At 02:34 PM 3/16/2009, you wrote:
>Funny...
>I just heard second hand a competitor (who many fondly refer to as "Gump")
>got i
aking a "Jr PE" seal out of a
NICET registration.
George Church
Rowe Sprinkler
-Original Message-
From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of
ParsleyConsulting
Sent: Monday, March 16, 2009 2:41 PM
To: sprinklerforum@
Tom,
Turn him in to NICET, they're awfully cranky about people doing that
sort of thing, going so far as to pull certifications from individuals.
"Registered Sprinkler Contractor", that's a new one on me.
I bet he thinks it's pretty clever too.
--
PARSLEY CONSULTING
Ken Wagoner, SET
760.745.
Funny...
I just heard second hand a competitor (who many fondly refer to as "Gump")
got it and is running with the (deceit) ball. 55K job for 38K.
He also has fashioned a nicet stamp that looks just like a PE stamp, say's
"registered sprinkler contractor" around the edge with his nicet number in
t
To repeat that famous quote: Stupid IS as stupid DOES.
Roland
On Mar 14, 2009, at 7:29 AM, Tom Duross wrote:
> They think that once the other 7 units
> and common basement (OH2 per spec, ok by me) are completed, the
> changes will
> only apply within the four walls of the unit. I sent him a
us some ideas for topics other than PE bashing, B A Fans, etc.
glc
-Original Message-
From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Chris Cahill
Sent: Monday, March 16, 2009 9:28 AM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Sub
5390
-Original Message-
From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of John Drucker
Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 4:04 PM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Mixed-Use Code Question
This is almost getting scary Huggins
Tom,
Let your conscious be your guide. I once told a contractor I was
working for I wouldn't design a building that was aboveground public
parking (1 level) with a "horizontal fire wall" (type I), then four
stories of type V apartments, all designed to 13R even though the
architect said it was OK
I'm going to lose this job for one reason only but I'm doing right by the
code, my liability and my conscience (if that matters).
It's staying as a residential building for the long form application. At
some point, they plan to apply for another permit for changing one unit from
residential to com
The 13R origins and development statement says it all. The standard was
clearly promulgated to facilitate sprinklers in low rise, 4 story or less,
residential facilities. Nowhere is the term mixed use or mixed occupancy
referenced. I believe there's a misconception of what constitutes a
residential
Nextel Direct Connect
-Original Message-
From: "Steve Leyton"
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2009 14:11:52
To:
Subject: RE: Mixed-Use Code Question
I agree with you, and the TC on Residential Sprinkler Systems has adopted
language for Chapter 1 of 13R that is intended to finally c
John Drucker
> Fire Protection Subcode Official
> Building/Fire/Electrical Inspector
>
> Safe Buildings Save Lives !
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org
> [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Steve Leyton
>
day, March 13, 2009 5:12 PM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Mixed-Use Code Question
I agree with you, and the TC on Residential Sprinkler Systems has adopted
language for Chapter 1 of 13R that is intended to finally clarify the
appropriate application of the standard. If ratified at the code
rum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: Re: Mixed-Use Code Question
Although I disagree with interpretation for horizontal fire barriers
that Jamie refers to that has been typical in many jurisdictions out
on the best coast. As others have mentioned typically the entire lower
floor is commercial with 13/
klerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Mixed-Use Code Question
Jamie,
However 2006 IBC & 2006 IFC provides;
[F] 903.2.7 Group R.
"An automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with Section 903.3
shall be PROVIDED THROUGHOUT all buildings with a Group R fire area."
Emphasis on
-boun...@firesprinkler.org
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Roland
Huggins
Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 4:52 PM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: Re: Mixed-Use Code Question
those have been lenient AHJ/BCO's. Other than the previously
discussed
Seidl
Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 3:57 PM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Mixed-Use Code Question
As always, I should have clarified... I was looking at the North Carolina
IBC. Table 302.3.2 in the NCIBC (table 508.3.3 in the 2006 IBC) omitted the
(S) and (NS) designations f
those have been lenient AHJ/BCO's. Other than the previously
discussed EXCEPTION (parking floor to other occupancies), the only way
a single structure can be two or more buildings is separation by fire
WALLS. Walls in a horizontally orientation is called a collapsed
building.
AS for danc
iday, March 13, 2009 2:35 PM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Mixed-Use Code Question
Careful on the IBC 509 provisions, i.e. so called "horizontal
firewalls".
First and foremost anything horizontal isn't termed a wall. Second
firewalls must meet the criteria of be
; Jamie Seidl
>
> -Original Message-
> From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org
> [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Tom Duross
> Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 12:23 PM
> To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
> Subject: Mixed-Use Code Question
So in the end if its mixed its 13.
Hope that helps
John Drucker
Fire Protection Subcode Official
-Original Message-
From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Jamie
Seidl
Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 1:28 PM
To: spri
g] On Behalf Of Tom Duross
Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 1:50 PM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Mixed-Use Code Question
Thanks. My take is the owner got the chance for an early sale as a
commercial condo and wants to take it.
I wrote the gc that I thought the implications to spkr
Thanks. My take is the owner got the chance for an early sale as a
commercial condo and wants to take it.
I wrote the gc that I thought the implications to spkr. and fa design might
effect the rest of the building and they might want to reconsider the quick
sale and factor in the details. I just
nklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Tom Duross
Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 12:23 PM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: Mixed-Use Code Question
I have a question about a small project I'm bidding and how it relates to
other's buil
Steve
Leyton
Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 10:02 AM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: Mixed-Use Code Question
What we've done in the past is provide OH-2 at the lower (commercial)
level to allow for retail and then residential above. But the entire
design has been per 13, a
-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Tom Duross
Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 12:23 PM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: Mixed-Use Code Question
I have a question about a small project I'm bidding and how it relates to
other's building codes.
Four storey 8 unit residential building, in bid
-Original Message-
From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org
[mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Tom
Duross
Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 9:23 AM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: Mixed-Use Code Question
I have a question about a small project I'm b
I have a question about a small project I'm bidding and how it relates to
other's building codes.
Four storey 8 unit residential building, in bid stage, just got notification
that one unit, half the ground floor, will be zoned for commercial use.
I'm at odds if this changes the building to mixed-us
32 matches
Mail list logo
