Steve, That's my point. When the rich city A manages to get their modified 13D requirement in place (like garages that double as seaplane hangers) fire guys being fire guys (not a slam--just an observation) in their zeal to provide the best protection possible will want to copy city A even though their tax base is the low priced spread. City A folks will grumble but write the check while the other guys are trying to figure a grocery budget. If you need 0.15 for garages in Rich Man Acres because you have six car garages with an RV hole force the garage with a 13 requirement for the fat cats with 10K sqft mansions. Down in Poor Man Flats with their 2000 sqft ramblers just have 13Ds--no mods.
On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 5:29 PM, Steve Leyton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Don't even kid about that. We have plenty of jurisdictions here in CA > that require fully sprinklered attics and then there's the .15 density > in garages. Don't get me started. > > 13D and 13R very specifically disclaim that they are both life-safety > standards. Sure, we might all want sprinklered attics, but we'll be > shooting ourselves in the foot if we push for that and frankly, I'm > always at the ready to argue AGAINST such changes if they're proposed. > Leave 13D the way it is. Why? Because it continues to feed the fire > regarding costs and homebuilders continue to hold the upper hand in that > argument. Let's say IRC adopts sprinkler requirements - any state can > amend the model code and not adopt that provision if they so choose. > Why give them more ammo? > > > Steve Leyton > Protection Design & Consulting > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ron > Greenman > Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2008 1:49 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: 2nd request 13d attic storage > > Rick, > > Require 13 systems in SFDs and you get your wish. Make it apply to > buildings over X sqft and keep 13D for buildings under x sqft. Don't > make 13D something it isn't. > > On 2/26/08, Matsuda, Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > There was a "slight" code change between the 1996 and 1999 editions of > > NFPA-13D, paragraph 4-6, exception #4. > > > > It changed from stating, "...not required in attics, crawl spaces, > and > > other concealed spaces that are not used or intended for living > purposes > > or storage"...to ..."not required in attics, crawl spaces, and other > > concealed spaces that are not used or intended for living purposes". > > > > The committee omitted the words "or storage" which makess it seem > that > > they accept that most attics would be used for storage and sprinklers > > would not be required. They have since changed the wording again in > the > > 2007 edition, par 8.6.5 to state "...and do not contain fuel-fired > > equipment". > > > > Some big homes that we have in Dallas have a standard doorway into > the > > attic which is decked with lighting provided, but it's not > conditioned > > space and no walls or ceilings are provided. It's just open to the > roof > > joists. Per the wording of 13D, we allow sprinklers to be omitted. > > > > I don't agree with this position cause I'd like to have sprinklers in > > every attic, bathroom, closet and dog house, but until changes are > made > > again I will abide with the committee's decisions. > > rick matsuda, city of dallas > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steve > > Leyton > > Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2008 2:55 PM > > To: [email protected] > > > > Subject: RE: 2nd request 13d attic storage > > > > But does your attic have a pull-down or fixed stair? All good > points > > Todd, which underscores how subjective this issue really is. If it's > a > > storage "room", I'd consider it part of the dwelling unit. If it's > dead > > space above the ceiling in which the home owner chooses to put stuff, > > then it quacks like an attic. > > > > Steve Leyton > > Protection Design & Consulting > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Todd > > Williams - FPDC > > Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2008 12:31 PM > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: 2nd request 13d attic storage > > > > 13D says that sprinklers in attics may be omitted, provided they are > > not intended for "living purposes". Does storage in an attic space > > constitute a living purpose? I'm not sure if it does or not. I would > > think that a case could be made, considering that 13D is a Life > > Safety System. (My assumption here is that the access to the space is > > more on the idea of a pull-down stair as opposed to a carpeted > > staircase.) > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Sprinklerforum mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum > > > > To Unsubscribe, send an email > to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) > > > > > -- > Ron Greenman > at home.... > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum > > To Unsubscribe, send an email > to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum > > To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) > -- Ron Greenman at home.... _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
