Appeal 10076
Appeal Summary
Status: Decision Rendered
Appeal ID: 10076
Submission Date: 9/24/13 8:57 AM
Hearing Date: 9/25/13
Case #: B-009
Appeal Type: Building
Project Type: commercial
Building/Business Name:
Appeal Involves: Alteration of an existing structure
Proposed use: VZW Mobile Phone Equipment Room
Project Address: 5319 SW Westgate Dr
Appellant Name: Ian Robertson
LUR or Permit Application #: Permit 08-164277-REV-02-CO
Stories: 2 Occupancy: B Construction Type: V-B
Fire Sprinklers: Yes - Basement
Plans Examiner/Inspector: Jerry Engelhardt, Gary Boyles
Plan Submitted Option: mail [File 1]
Payment Option: mail
Appeal Information Sheet
Appeal item 1
| Code Section | OFC 2010, 903.2.11 and OFC 2010,903.2.11 |
|---|---|
| Requires | 903.2.11 Specific building areas and hazards. In all occupancies an automatic sprinkler system shall be installed for building design or hazards in the locations set forth in Sections 903 .2.11.1 through 903. 2.11. 7. Exception: Groups R-3 and U.
with Section 1009 or an outside ramp complying with Section 1010. Openings shall be located in each 50 linear feet (15 240 mm), or fraction thereof, of exterior wall in the story on at least one side. The required openings shall be distributed such that the lineal distance between adjacent openings does not exceed 50 feet (15 240 mm).
in each 50 linear feet (15 240 mm), or fraction thereof, of exterior wall in the story on at least one side. The required openings shall be distributed such that the lineal distance between adjacent openings does not exceed 50 feet (15 240 mm). |
| Code Modification or Alternate Requested | |
| Proposed Design | The existing mobile phone equipment room was permitted and installed in the basement in
and adding a standalone single-hazard fire alarm panel (SHP) which only annunciated to the Lessee's network operating center since the building at the time had no fire alarm control panel (FACP). While completing work on the site this year it was noticed that all fire sprinkler laterals in the room had been capped, the SHP nameplate mentioned "Halon" but no Halon ball was found in the room and the firm doing the SHP testing since 2007 had no record of the a Halon ball. A records search of BDS and Fire Department records turned up no explanation for when and why this occurred but it appears to have been installed originally and the Halon ball removed by an overzealous operation's person before 2007. VZW would like to install substitute a cross-zoned HFC-125 clean-agent fire suppression system in lieu of fire sprinklers for their Equipment Room which would entail the installation of new detection, notification and initiating devices and circuitry controlled by a new SHP. HVAC shutdown would be part of the design and permitting of the new system. |
| Reason for alternative | The alternative solution is requested in per OFC 903.3.1.1.1, Exempt location 2 (see below) and OFC 904.10 (see below). The Equipment Room has several mobile phone base station equipment bays and well as a DC Power Plant which could be damaged by an accidental release by the fire sprinkler system or even a well-placed drip of water. The Equipment Room is separated from the Basement corridor and other basement suites by one-hour fire resistive construction. 903.3.1.1.1 Exempt locations. Automatic sprinklers shall not be required in the following rooms or areas where such rooms or areas are protected with an approved automatic fire detection system in accordance with Section 907.2 that will respond to visible or invisible particles of combustion. Sprinklers shall not be omitted from any room merely because it is damp, of fire-resistance-rated construction or contains electrical equipment.
hazard.
floor/ceiling or roof/ceiling assemblies having afire-resistance rating of not less than 2 hours.
904.10 Clean-agent systems. Clean-agent fire-extinguishing systems shall be installed, maintained, periodically inspected and tested in accordance with NFPA 2001 and their listing. |
Appeal item 2
| Code Section | OFC 904.3.5 |
|---|---|
| Requires | OFC 904.3.5 Monitoring. Where a building fire alarm system is installed, automatic fire-extinguishing systems shall be monitored by the building fire alarm system in accordance with NFPA 72. |
| Code Modification or Alternate Requested | |
| Proposed Design | The existing SHP was installed prior to the building's FACP being installed and the monitoring of the SHP was not added at that time by the Lessor and the SHP is still a stand-alone system monitored by the Lessee's network operating system (NOC). The Lessor understands the problem but requests that the SHP remain stand-alone citing the additional cost of testing apparently caused by the lessee's more frequent system testing than is required by NFPA 72. |
| Reason for alternative | The SHP would be monitored by the Lessee's 24/7/365 NOC in lieu of the Lessor's NOC which should be equal in nature. The local discharge annunciation appliance in the corridor would notify first responders from which room the alarm was occurring only slightly less efficient than being able to locate the room from paper zone maps at the FACP. |
Appeal Decision
1. Alternate sprinkler protection in equipment room: Granted as proposed, for this use only.
2. Alternate fire alarm monitoring: Denied. Proposal does not provide equivalent fire safety. Appellant may contact Gary Boyles (503-823-3778) for more information.
The Administrative Appeal Board finds that the information submitted by the appellant demonstrates that the approved modifications or alternate methods are consistent with the intent of the code; do not lessen health, safety, accessibility, life, fire safety or structural requirements; and that special conditions unique to this project make strict application of those code sections impractical.