# We should adopt codes based on the FD limitied abilities



## mtlogcabin (Feb 7, 2012)

[h=1]Builders, county fire officials disagree on fire codes[/h]January 10, 2012 7:45 PM

BARBARA COTTER 

THE GAZETTE

County fire officials and representatives of the local building industry butted heads Tuesday over a fire code requirement that structures larger than 6,000 square feet be built with an automatic sprinkler system.

Caught in the crossfire is the El Paso County board of commissioners, which is being asked to approve the 2009 International Fire Code, as well as several amendments to better address local needs.

What baffled some fire officials who attended a county commission work session Tuesday is that the board, without fanfare, approved the 6,000-square-foot requirement six years ago when it OK’d the 2003 International Fire Code.

“There are no requirements in here that have not been in place since 2006,” said Falcon Fire Chief Trent Harwig.

But building industry representatives said they had no idea the commission was voting on the regulation in 2006, and now want a voice.

“It was snuck under the radar; nobody knew about this and we got hit with this,” said homebuilder Barbara Keller, who said it would cost a homeowner $30,000 to install a sprinkler system in a 13,000-square-foot house. “It’s overreaching, and there should have been a discussion of this ... before it was rammed down our throats.”

The 2003 and 2009 International Fire Codes set a 12,000-square-foot minimum for sprinkler systems, but Harwig and officials from the other eight fire districts outside Colorado Springs city limits say the more stringent local regulation is needed in rural areas because they have fewer fire stations, not as much equipment or manpower, and a greater response time than urban areas. In many cases, there are no hydrants for miles around.

“It really comes down to one thing: our ability to fight a fire,” Harwig said. “Our ability is not the same as the city. We don’t have 21 stations. The code should be amended to meet our ability.”

Keller and Kyle Campbell, past president of the Housing and Building Association of Colorado Springs, told commissioners that better building materials and construction techniques, smoke detectors, the use of firewalls and mitigation steps such as clear-cutting around structures have lessened the need for sprinkler systems. Campbell also suggested that the sprinkler system requirement could be a barrier to business development.

But Harwig said the requirements have not dampened development.

“Look at the rapid growth in Falcon the last five, six years,” he said. “Our amendment hasn’t hurt that.”

It’s not just fire officials who back the 2009 code and the amendments, most of which are minor. The boards of each district OK’d them,  as did the town council in Palmer Lake.

“So essentially, 47 elected directors have already approved the code,” Harwig said.

But county commissioners must approve the code and amendments before the fire districts can implement them, and they made it clear Tuesday that they’re not ready until all parties talk about the issue.

“The fact is, in 2006, there was not a discussion,” said commission chairwoman Amy Lathen said. “We’ve been asked to allow the community to have a discussion, and I believe it is our obligation to foster the discussion.”

And so, it will be. Regional Building Official Henry Yankowski, who spoke against the need for the local amendment, offered to facilitate a meeting between fire officials and building industry representatives.

Before Tuesday’s work session ended, there was an indication they might reach agreement. Keller, for example, suggested that more people would be willing to support the regulation if the 6,000-square-foot rule excludes garages and covered patios, which are now factored into the structure size and can easily push a modest-sized house into sprinkler-system territory.

“I would entertain the thought, but they’ll have to give us something at the same time,” said Curtis Kauffman, fire marshal for Tri-Lakes/Monument Fire Protection District.

Read more: http://www.gazette.com/articles/fire-131515-county-code.html#ixzz1ljHXJjzm

I guess I have a different mentality than the FF folks. I bet most FF know when they pull up onsite if it is worth trying to put out the structure fire or not. In reality the cost to partially repair/rebuild is more than likely to exceed the cost of a new structure. Contain it on site and let it burn.  Lets be honest most rural fire are a complete loss and the RFS is not intended to protect the structure as suggested by the FC comments.


----------



## Coug Dad (Feb 7, 2012)

Did they also modify the IFC to include the IRC?  IFC Section 102.4 limits application to the IBC and IEBC.


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (Feb 7, 2012)

I'm trying to visualize a 13,000 square foot house.  I wonder how much it will cost to put a lawn sprinkler system for that home?  My understanding was that residential fire sprinklers are for preservation of life, and not property?  If the FD doesn't have the resources to limit loss of property then they are mostly preventing the loss of life and containment, and a fire sprinkler system to protect their 13,000 sf property tax generator makes sense.


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (Feb 7, 2012)

(correction to post #3:  "property tax generator makes *no* sense."

okay...I send a check where and I get the edit button back right?  Who ever took that carrot away is genius.  An evil genius, but a genius.


----------



## hlfireinspector (Feb 7, 2012)

Link to their site:

http://www.tri-lakesfire.com/IFCDocs/MULTI%20JURISDICTION.pdf


----------



## cda (Feb 7, 2012)

Did not know el paso texas county areas had such high dollar homes??

So they adopted a code without any public hearings???


----------



## Coug Dad (Feb 7, 2012)

Unless there are other amendments, sprinklers are not required for single family dwellings under these amendments.  A SFR built under the IRC is not an R-3 under the IBC.  I see where they amended the IBC R-3 provisions, but not the IRC provisions.


----------



## cda (Feb 7, 2012)

Single-family new house construction building permits:

2007: 3190 buildings, average cost: $137,400

2008: 2897 buildings, average cost: $141,700

2009: 2640 buildings, average cost: $155,800

Read more: http://www.city-data.com/county/El_Paso_County-TX.html#ixzz1ljZSgMiu


----------



## cda (Feb 7, 2012)

Some Code sections  are designed with fire department operations in mind


----------



## rktect 1 (Feb 7, 2012)

13,000 sq. ft. home?  Possibly $30k (exagerated $) for a sprinkler?

What is that?  Maybe 1% of the building cost.  Maybe?

I'm not feeling their pain at this point.


----------



## hlfireinspector (Feb 7, 2012)

From their site:

*Residential Fire Sprinkler system Requirements:* Some newly built homes in the Tri-Lakes area are required to install a residential sprinkler system.  All new homes built in the Wildland Urban-Interface (WUI) area as determined by the El Paso County Regional Building Department using the Geographic Information System mapping since April , 2008 may be required to install sprinkler system.  One and two family  homes with a square footage of 3,600 to 6,000 to have a system installed with one exception.  El Paso County Land Use Code requires all new homes built within the WUI area to mitigate the property 30 ft. out  from the exterior walls 360 degrees.  If the builder and /or homeowner mitigate 1.5. times the 30 ft. to equal 45 ft., then the fire sprinkler system will not be required.  Any new home with 6,001 sq. ft or greater whether in the WUI area or not must have a sprinkler system installed.  Please refer to NFPA.org for further information.
​​


----------



## Coug Dad (Feb 7, 2012)

Still don't see where their code amendments require sprinklers for an IRC building.  The amendments cite R-3 occupancies under the IBC.  There is a difference between IRC and IBC Group R-3.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Feb 7, 2012)

I don't see where the deleted Section 102.5 Application of residential code of the IFC so I agree the sprinkler equirements would not apply if the IRC is adopted as a one & two family dwelling code.

Our state legislature would not let this happen

MCA

(2) The department may adopt rules necessary for safeguarding life and property from the hazards of fire and carrying into effect the fire prevention laws of this state if the rules do not conflict with building regulations adopted by the department of labor and industry. 

ARM's

c) Notwithstanding any other provisions or references to the contrary within the NFPA standards, the authority having jurisdiction over any fire protection system required by the International Building Code shall be the building official


----------



## cda (Feb 7, 2012)

The other thing is Texas has declared fire sprinklers in homes unconstitutional, unless you had an existing ordinace in place prior to a certain date

http://contractormag.com/law/home-sprinklers-blocked-0709/


----------



## mark handler (Feb 7, 2012)

cda said:
			
		

> The other thing is Texas has declared fire sprinklers in homes unconstitutional, unless you had an existing ordinace in place prior to a certain datehttp://contractormag.com/law/home-sprinklers-blocked-0709/


Most of Texas, does not have the water for fire sprinklers in homes.

Texas "Will Not Have Enough" In the midst of the worst-ever single-year drought Texas has ever experienced

http://www.texastribune.org/texas-environmental-news/water-supply/draft-water-plan-says-texas-will-not-have-enough/


----------



## permitguy (Feb 7, 2012)

This is in Colorado, not Texas.


----------



## cda (Feb 7, 2012)

Never mind

Remember the alamo


----------



## JBI (Feb 7, 2012)

It is quite possible that a 13,000 s.f. home could exceed the prescriptive limits of the Res Code for the materials used making it subject of review under the Building Code.

Also, the article does not state this, but is it possible that they are also updating all of the Codes to 2009? If so, the 2009 Res Code _would_ require sprinklers for all new homes. (Sorry, too lazy to open the link.)


----------



## permitguy (Feb 8, 2012)

> In reality the cost to partially repair/rebuild is more than likely to exceed the cost of a new structure.


You can't believe that to be true.  We have probably all dealt with dozens (if not hundreds) of fire rebuilds.  In any of those cases, if it were cheaper to scrape and start over, you can be assured that is what the insurance company would insist on.



> Lets be honest most rural fire are a complete loss and the RFS is not intended to protect the structure as suggested by the FC comments.


That may not be the intention, but it is often the outcome regardless.  Yes, there are exceptions to that; however, in a WUI area like the one they're dealing with, a single house fire can quickly turn into thousands of evacuated residences, several square miles of damaged property and destroyed environment, and maybe death.

I don't know much about this specific instance, but I get the impression the HBA types are trying to save face since they were asleep at the wheel 6 years ago.  Hopefully they aren't successful in moving things backwards.


----------



## Coug Dad (Feb 8, 2012)

permitguy,

You are in the area.  Do you know if they amended the code to make it applicable to buildings built under the IRC?  I do not see where they made that link.  They made if for R-3's that opt to be designed under the IBC but I do not see the connection to the IRC.


----------



## permitguy (Feb 8, 2012)

I think they've managed to convolute things pretty well down there.  There is a multi-jurisdictional "regional building department" that picks and chooses individiual chapters out of each code to enforce.  They have adopted some of the IBC and some of the IRC, and I have no idea how they classify buildings since they seem to have deleted many administrative provisions without replacing them.  They leave fire sprinklers and alarms up to the fire districts, and I'm fairly positive the fire districts' intention is application of those sprinkler provisions to what we would normally consider "IRC" structures (even though they say R3).

http://www.pprbd.org/


----------



## permitguy (Feb 8, 2012)

> Keller and Kyle Campbell, past president of the Housing and Building Association of Colorado Springs, told commissioners that better building materials and construction techniques, smoke detectors, the use of firewalls and mitigation steps such as clear-cutting around structures have lessened the need for sprinkler systems.


I about busted a gut on this quote, espeically the part about "better building materials and construction techniques!      Great stuff!


----------



## gbhammer (Feb 8, 2012)

permitguy said:
			
		

> I about busted a gut on this quote, espeically the part about "better building materials and construction techniques!      Great stuff!


I personally like the "clear cutting around structures part" what a lark.

In our area we have so much frigg’n water that the feds have taken away so many build able sites with stream order acts that you’re lucky to have a lawn to cut.


----------



## Msradell (Feb 8, 2012)

mark handler said:
			
		

> Most of Texas, does not have the water for fire sprinklers in homes.Texas "Will Not Have Enough" In the midst of the worst-ever single-year drought Texas has ever experienced
> 
> http://www.texastribune.org/texas-environmental-news/water-supply/draft-water-plan-says-texas-will-not-have-enough/


Having a reduced water supply is a very good argument to mandate sprinklers!  It's been proven in many studies that it takes less water to put out a fire with a sprinkler system in operation than it does without them!


----------

