# Mixed Use Occupancy Fire Sprinkler Requirements



## brizoun1

We are in the process of building a 6000 square feet two story building. The first floor, 3000 square feet, will have a classification as Business Group B consisting of office space. The upstairs is classified as Residential R-3. A one hour fire rated ceiling will separate the first and the second story and a one hour fire rated wall will separate the two dwellings upstairs. What areas need to be sprinkled and what NFPA sprinkler system can I use? NFPA 13, 13R, or 13D? I appreciate your input.


----------



## cda

Which building code and edition??


----------



## cda

Normally when you have an R,,,

You sprinkle the entire building

I am thinking full NFPA 13 for first floor and 13R for 2nd


----------



## brizoun1

cda said:


> Which building code and edition??


Our municipality uses IBC 2015


----------



## cda

Check your book to see if same wording 


*903.2.8 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_.   “””””


----------



## cda

And still say 13 on first 13R on 2nd



1.1* Scope. A.1.1 NFPA13D is appropriate for protection against fire hazards only in one- and two-family dwellings and manufactured homes. Residential portions of any other type of building or occupancy should be protected with residential sprinklers in accordance with NFPA 13 or in accordance with NFPA 13R


----------



## cda

Give it a day or two for others to reply


----------



## brizoun1

cda said:


> Check your book to see if same wording
> 
> 
> *903.2.8 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_.   “””””



My book has the same wording, but if I continue reading I it leads me to think that only the top floor needs sprinkled. 903.2.1 says an automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with Section 903.3.1.3 shall be permitted in Group R-3 occupancies. 903.3.1.3 says automatic sprinkler systems installed in one and two family dwellings, group  R-3, group R-4 Condtion 1 and townhouses shall be permitted to be installed throughout in accordance with NFPA 13D. The reason why I was thinking the R-3 portion is the only portion that needs sprinkled is because of the way 508.1, Mixed Use and Occupancy reads. Each portion of a building shall be individually classified in accordance with section 302.1. Where a building contains more than one occupancy group, the building or portion thereof shall comply with the applicable provisions of Section 508.2, 508.3 or 508.4, or a combination of these sections. Since we are using 1 hour fire partitions and walls shouldn't this be considered to have separated occupancies? If so, according to section 508.4.1 Occupancy Classification, separated occupancies shall be individually classified in accordance with Section 302.1. Each separated space shall comply with this code based on the occupancy classification of that portion of the building. Group B occupancy doesn't require fire sprinklers but R-3 does. That's what led me to believe I only needed an NFPA 13D system on the second floor.


----------



## brizoun1

cda said:


> And still say 13 on first 13R on 2nd
> 
> 
> 
> 1.1* Scope. A.1.1 NFPA13D is appropriate for protection against fire hazards only in one- and two-family dwellings and manufactured homes. Residential portions of any other type of building or occupancy should be protected with residential sprinklers in accordance with NFPA 13 or in accordance with NFPA 13R



If I'm understanding separated occupancies correctly 508.4 the two dwellings on the second story shall be classified as type R3 completely independent from the first floor and shall comply with the codes based on the R3 occupancy only.


----------



## brizoun1

cda said:


> Give it a day or two for others to reply


Thank you for taking the time to answer my questions. I will wait to see what others say.


----------



## cda

The problem is the more stricter wins

That is why I separated the wording :::

*903.2.8 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_. “””””


Throughout


----------



## cda

For 13D

I posted the scope

Your building is outside of the scope of 13D,,,

So it cannot be installed.


----------



## cda

Read this thread 

https://www.thebuildingcodeforum.co...usiness-tenant-sprinklered.21139/#post-172871


----------



## brizoun1

cda said:


> Read this thread
> 
> https://www.thebuildingcodeforum.co...usiness-tenant-sprinklered.21139/#post-172871



That's an identical situation as mine. I'm just trying to get clarification on this matter and it helped reading that thread. My whole dilemma is that my building inspector approved the plans with no provisions for a fire sprinkler system. He even issued the building permit. Our financing was secured and construction had already began and then we receive a letter in the mail stating we have to have a sprinkler system installed. I feel like it was his mistake that he overlooked it not having a sprinkler system, therefore we shouldn't have to add one at this point. Adding $35,000.00 to install a sprinkler system puts us way over budget and that's not feasible. I'm curious how this would be handled in other jurisdictions.


----------



## cda

brizoun1 said:


> That's an identical situation as mine. I'm just trying to get clarification on this matter and it helped reading that thread. My whole dilemma is that my building inspector approved the plans with no provisions for a fire sprinkler system. He even issued the building permit. Our financing was secured and construction had already began and then we receive a letter in the mail stating we have to have a sprinkler system installed. I feel like it was his mistake that he overlooked it not having a sprinkler system, therefore we shouldn't have to add one at this point. Adding $35,000.00 to install a sprinkler system puts us way over budget and that's not feasible. I'm curious how this would be handled in other jurisdictions.




Read the fine print.

Yes we did review your plans, but if we missed something, you still have to build it to every section of the code.

Mosts cities will not let something like that slide.

On the other side whoever drew the plans for you, should know all aspects of the code, and designed it to code.


----------



## north star

*@ ~ @ ~ @*

brizoun1,

FWIW, ...I agree with* **cda*** !.........Also, it may be time to
speak with your lawyer to see which direction you will need to
go regarding plan design errors.

You may want to have a discussion with the municipal Fire Chief
to confirm the sprinkler system throughout both floors, or s/he
may have another option.

*@~ @ ~ @*


----------



## TheCommish

As stated perversely throughout is the whole  building, not the use
NFPA 13 2007 








Review of a set of plan does not give permission to violate any coded sections
IBC 2101


Second, do not pit the Fire Chief against the Building Department, if the authority  is in the Building Commissioner the FC probably  only has review authority, like wise if in the community  the FC has the  authorly, the BC may have limited responsibility


----------



## brizoun1

north star said:


> *@ ~ @ ~ @*
> 
> I drew the plans myself on a computer program. When I presented them to the inspector he accepted them saying he didn’t require engineered drawings as long as the builder was okay with a basic floorplan. He had me write on the plan that the building would include a one hour fire rating between floors. He never mentioned  anything about a fire sprinkler needing to be added.
> 
> 
> brizoun1,
> 
> FWIW, ...I agree with* **cda*** !.........Also, it may be time to
> speak with your lawyer to see which direction you will need to
> go regarding plan design errors.
> 
> You may want to have a discussion with the municipal Fire Chief
> to confirm the sprinkler system throughout both floors, or s/he
> may have another option.
> 
> *@~ @ ~ @*


----------



## steveray

Uses get separated by fire barriers, not fire partitions....I'm in the throughout camp.....we have had previous discussions on 13R throughout the building when the R drives the sprinkler requirement....


----------



## brizoun1

north star said:


> *@ ~ @ ~ @*
> 
> brizoun1,
> 
> FWIW, ...I agree with* **cda*** !.........Also, it may be time to
> speak with your lawyer to see which direction you will need to
> go regarding plan design errors.
> 
> You may want to have a discussion with the municipal Fire Chief
> to confirm the sprinkler system throughout both floors, or s/he
> may have another option.
> 
> *@~ @ ~ @*




I drew the plans myself on a computer program. When I presented them to the inspector he accepted them saying he didn’t require engineered drawings as long as the builder was okay with a basic floorplan. He had me write on the plan that the building would include a one hour fire rating between floors. He never mentioned anything about a fire sprinkler needing to be added.


----------



## tmurray

brizoun1 said:


> I drew the plans myself on a computer program. When I presented them to the inspector he accepted them saying he didn’t require engineered drawings as long as the builder was okay with a basic floorplan. He had me write on the plan that the building would include a one hour fire rating between floors. He never mentioned anything about a fire sprinkler needing to be added.


Are you trained in building design and code interpretation (architect/engineer/etc.)?


----------



## brizoun1

tmurray said:


> Are you trained in building design and code interpretation (architect/engineer/etc.)?



Absolutely not, and I never claimed to be. I drew the floor plans to give to an architect to have engineered drawings designed. The inspector accepted the basic floor plan so an architect was never solicited.


----------



## cda

brizoun1 said:


> Absolutely not, and I never claimed to be. I drew the floor plans to give to an architect to have engineered drawings designed. The inspector accepted the basic floor plan so an architect was never solicited.




Is this a one horse town?? One inspector


----------



## mtlogcabin

To create a separate fire area for the "R" will require a 2 hour horizontal separation and 2 hour supporting construction. You are then only required to sprinkle the "R" occupancy
TABLE 707.3.10
FIRE-RESISTANCE RATING REQUIREMENTS FOR
FIRE BARRIERS, FIRE WALLS OR HORIZONTAL
ASSEMBLIES BETWEEN FIRE AREAS

It will probably be cheaper to provide a sprinkler throughout the entire building


----------



## brizoun1

cda said:


> Is this a one horse town?? One inspector



That’s exactly what it is. A town of 4000 people with a part time building inspector.


----------



## cda

brizoun1 said:


> That’s exactly what it is. A town of 4000 people with a part time building inspector.



Great 

I would wonder what other surprises there will be

Till you actually occupy the building.


----------



## classicT

brizoun1 said:


> That's an identical situation as mine. I'm just trying to get clarification on this matter and it helped reading that thread. My whole dilemma is that my building inspector approved the plans with no provisions for a fire sprinkler system. He even issued the building permit. Our financing was secured and construction had already began and then we receive a letter in the mail stating we have to have a sprinkler system installed. *I feel like it was his mistake that he overlooked it not having a sprinkler system, therefore we shouldn't have to add one at this point.* Adding $35,000.00 to install a sprinkler system puts us way over budget and that's not feasible. I'm curious how this would be handled in other jurisdictions.





brizoun1 said:


> *I drew the plans myself on a computer program.* When I presented them to the inspector he accepted them saying he didn’t require engineered drawings as long as the builder was okay with a basic floorplan. He had me write on the plan that the building would include a one hour fire rating between floors. He never mentioned anything about a fire sprinkler needing to be added.


Looks like you made your own bed, and now you get to sleep in it too.

As others have indicated, it was your responsibility to provide code compliant plans. Sure, the inspector didn't catch *your mistake*, but oh well, the code and most likely the state laws, indemnify him.

If you had hired an architect, they would hopefully not made the same mistake, but if they had, they carry insurance from which you could make a claim. Sorry, but looks like you are headed downstream and your paddle is still on shore.


----------



## brizoun1

Ty J. said:


> Looks like you made your own bed, and now you get to sleep in it too.
> 
> As others have indicated, it was your responsibility to provide code compliant plans. Sure, the inspector didn't catch *your mistake*, but oh well, the code and most likely the state laws, indemnify him.
> 
> If you had hired an architect, they would hopefully not made the same mistake, but if they had, they carry insurance from which you could make a claim. Sorry, but looks like you are headed downstream and your paddle is still on shore.



I had every intention of hiring an architect to provide code compliant plans, but when the AHJ said it wasn’t necessary I took his word. Please explain how that is my mistake?


----------



## steveray

brizoun1 said:


> I had every intention of hiring an architect to provide code compliant plans, but when the AHJ said it wasn’t necessary I took his word. Please explain how that is my mistake?



You trusted the government to educate you instead of regulating you.....But seriously, Sounds like horrible customer service to me and just because a designer is not required by law, does not mean that you shouldn't hire one to protect your interests. We would not give someone a building permit for a building that requires sprinklers without at least some kind of acknowledgement that they will be putting them in....


----------



## VillageInspector

brizoun1 said:


> I had every intention of hiring an architect to provide code compliant plans, but when the AHJ said it wasn’t necessary I took his word. Please explain how that is my mistake?



In most states there is such a thing as sovereign immunity which in almost all instances protects the inspector from oversights or mistakes unless you can prove malice or intent and I think in your case that's a heavy if not impossible lift. Unfortunately you are most likely going to have to eat this or he could revoke your permit and/or just not issue a CO.


----------



## tmurray

brizoun1 said:


> Absolutely not, and I never claimed to be. I drew the floor plans to give to an architect to have engineered drawings designed. The inspector accepted the basic floor plan so an architect was never solicited.


The building official is responsible to ensure the construction meets code, not that you know what the code requires. This is why people who do not have in-depth knowledge in building construction employ registered design professionals.

I agree with others, it is poor customer service that it was not caught at plan review. 

It is likely that the sprinkler system will be required no matter who made the mistake. It is now only a question of who pays for it.


----------



## classicT

brizoun1 said:


> I had every intention of hiring an architect to provide code compliant plans, but when the AHJ said it wasn’t necessary I took his word. Please explain how that is my mistake?


I don't disagree that he made a mistake.... but his mistake does not abolish the code requirements.


----------



## cda

brizoun1 said:


> We are in the process of building a 6000 square feet two story building. The first floor, 3000 square feet, will have a classification as Business Group B consisting of office space. The upstairs is classified as Residential R-3. A one hour fire rated ceiling will separate the first and the second story and a one hour fire rated wall will separate the two dwellings upstairs. What areas need to be sprinkled and what NFPA sprinkler system can I use? NFPA 13, 13R, or 13D? I appreciate your input.





Was this going to be where you lived?????????


----------



## brizoun1

cda said:


> Was this going to be where you lived?????????



I will live in one dwelling and my business partner will live in the other.


----------



## my250r11

mtlogcabin said:


> It will probably be cheaper to provide a sprinkler throughout the entire building





Ty J. said:


> If you had hired an architect, they would hopefully not made the same mistake, but if they had, they carry insurance from which you could make a claim. Sorry, but looks like you are headed downstream and your paddle is still on shore.





Ty J. said:


> I don't disagree that he made a mistake.... but his mistake does not abolish the code requirements.



I'm with you guys all the way. In our state there is no way you could do this type of project with out a Design Professional by state law. would also have to have a licensed contractor that should know enough to know this as well or a least tell you you needed a DP.


----------



## Builder Bob

13 system required - areas may omit sprinklers as allowed by NFPA 13 systems that are located in the residential portion of the building.


----------



## mtlogcabin

Check and see if there is a local amendment that may not require a fire suppression system. You could do this in my state without a fire suppression system if you met other requirements.


----------



## cda

brizoun1 said:


> I will live in one dwelling and my business partner will live in the other.



Well there goes my ideas 

Either turn it into a B or M

or

Do not finish it out now, save some money for a sprinkler 



Since you are a firefighter, find a sympathetic fire sprinkler company that will do it for materials and promote sprinklers and firefighters !!!


----------



## brizoun1

cda said:


> Was this going to be where you lived?????????



Since my business partner and I are both 50/50 co-owners of the building, that means he owns my dwelling as much as I own his. I know it’s blurring the lines but at that point couldn’t it be considered one dwelling since we are both the owners occupying both sides. It’s merely a door separating the two, as a door separates a bedroom from the rest of a house. If so, could I classify them as owner occupied Lodging Houses? Perhaps I have intentions of operating an Air B&B.  If that’s the case, the lodging house according to code, 310.0.5, is subject to International Residential Code and not International Building Code. IRC 2009 and later mandates one and two family dwellings to have sprinkler systems installed, but the State of Missouri passed a law, 67.281, banning local governments from requiring sprinkler systems in one and two family dwellings. Therefore, the entire building is now exempt due to the fact the second story will now be built using residential codes and the bottom story is classified as Group B and is not required.


----------



## brizoun1

cda said:


> Well there goes my ideas
> 
> Either turn it into a B or M
> 
> or
> 
> Do not finish it out now, save some money for a sprinkler
> 
> 
> 
> Since you are a firefighter, find a sympathetic fire sprinkler company that will do it for materials and promote sprinklers and firefighters !!!




Maybe we are exempt from sprinkler requirements without having to classify the upstairs as Owner Occupied Lodging Houses because of Missouri law 67.281. Please let me know your thoughts.


----------



## brizoun1

brizoun1 said:


> Since my business partner and I are both 50/50 co-owners of the building, that means he owns my dwelling as much as I own his. I know it’s blurring the lines but at that point couldn’t it be considered one dwelling since we are both the owners occupying both sides. It’s merely a door separating the two, as a door separates a bedroom from the rest of a house. If so, could I classify them as owner occupied Lodging Houses? Perhaps I have intentions of operating an Air B&B.  If that’s the case, the lodging house according to code, 310.0.5, is subject to International Residential Code and not International Building Code. IRC 2009 and later mandates one and two family dwellings to have sprinkler systems installed, but the State of Missouri passed a law, 67.281, banning local governments from requiring sprinkler systems in one and two family dwellings. Therefore, the entire building is now exempt due to the fact the second story will now be built using residential codes and the bottom story is classified as Group B and is not required.



Correction on the typo, section 310.5.2


----------



## cda

brizoun1 said:


> Maybe we are exempt from sprinkler requirements without having to classify the upstairs as Owner Occupied Lodging Houses because of Missouri law 67.281. Please let me know your thoughts.



Show me

Do you have a link to post, to the law


----------



## brizoun1

cda said:


> Show me
> 
> Do you have a link to post, to the law



https://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneSection.aspx?section=67.281


----------



## brizoun1

cda said:


> Show me
> 
> Do you have a link to post, to the law



Here is another article discussing the varying laws nationwide. 
https://www.nahb.org/-/media/NAHB/a...nklers/fire-sprinkler-state-adoption-2019.pdf


----------



## cda

brizoun1 said:


> https://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneSection.aspx?section=67.281




Might work in that one horse town, you are building in. 

All they can say is no, and than you can appeal


----------



## e hilton

brizoun1 said:


> Since my business partner and I are both 50/50 co-owners of the building, that means he owns my dwelling as much as I own his. .


Is the property owned by the business?  What names are on the deed?


----------



## brizoun1

e hilton said:


> Is the property owned by the business?  What names are on the deed?



The property is not in our business name but is in our personal names. With the loan being backed by our business.


----------



## FM William Burns

Tried reading through all but missed a few but get the issue of the situation. In the event the structure is in a phase where the separated area provision potential MT mentioned earlier on is no longer an option to cut down on sprinkled areas “required”, the best bet is sprinkle it. I read in a reply that it was mentioned you were a FF. If this is correct, I mean no disrespect but remain surprised that sprinklers were not factored into the business plan and scope foundation phase. The possibility exists for a use of sprinklers 13 for ground floor and 13R 2nd floor. Also check with your accountant and apply for the federal sprinkler incentive tax bill break that (finally) went into effect a couple years ago when the newer tax law was established by current administration. Better be quick since it started at 100% for fire protection and may be at 85-90 now and sunset clause kicks in at 2023 I recall. Been out of municipal work for a couple years but know it hadn’t been repealed. Great tax break and could help your finances out in payback for the fire sprinkler system in a few years. Just a thought!


----------



## mtlogcabin

The way I read it the state law does does not keep the local AHJ from mandating a fire suppression system in a residence through the local adoption process


----------



## sid Kaouachi

I heard some AHJ waive smoke doors inspection if the building is fully sprinkled, any input ?


----------



## cda

sid Kaouachi said:


> I heard some AHJ waive smoke doors inspection if the building is fully sprinkled, any input ?



Welcome


Possible, but should not be doing that


----------



## classicT

sid Kaouachi said:


> I heard some AHJ waive smoke doors inspection if the building is fully sprinkled, any input ?


AHJ should never waive a requirement.

And more often than not, it is an AHJ that does not require documentation. Not requiring documentation is not the same as waiving a requirement. Ultimately (check your states laws), a contractor is still required to comply with all code based requirements. This is irrespective if enforced by the AHJ.


----------



## ArchBaech

brizoun1 said:


> We are in the process of building a 6000 square feet two story building. The first floor, 3000 square feet, will have a classification as Business Group B consisting of office space. The upstairs is classified as Residential R-3. A one hour fire rated ceiling will separate the first and the second story and a one hour fire rated wall will separate the two dwellings upstairs. What areas need to be sprinkled and what NFPA sprinkler system can I use? NFPA 13, 13R, or 13D? I appreciate your input.


I have a similar scenario. I am designing remodeling for a three story commercial building. The first and second floors are B-business occupancy and the top floor is R-3 Residential apartment. I am creating "separated" occupancies by designing a two hour horizontal fire barrier between floors.  The group B occupancy is not required to be sprinklered, but the group R occupancy is required to be sprinklered per 903.2.8
903.2.8 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.
EXCEPT PER 903.2.8.1 GROUP R-3. AN AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER SYSTEM INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 903.3.1.3 SHALL BE PERMITTED IN GROUP R-3 OCCUPANCIES.
903.3.1.3 NFPA 13D SPRINKLER SYSTEMS.
AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER SYSTEMS INSTALLED IN ONE- AND TWO-FAMILY DWELLINGS; GROUP R-3, AND TOWNHOUSES SHALL BE PERMITTED TO BE INSTALLED THROUGHOUT IN ACCORDANCE WITH NFPA 13D.
903.3.2 QUICK-RESPONSE AND RESIDENTIAL SPRINKLERS.
WHERE AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER SYSTEMS ARE REQUIRED BY THIS CODE, QUICK-RESPONSE OR RESIDENTIAL AUTOMATIC SPRINKLERS SHALL BE INSTALLED IN ALL OF THE FOLLOWING AREAS IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 903.3.1 AND THEIR LISTINGS:
DWELLING UNITS AND SLEEPING UNITS IN R OCCUPANCIES.

This has triggered all kinds of other questions as you can read below in these posts: 
1. What kind of sprinkler system is required?  NFPA 13?,  NFPA 13R?, NFPA 13D?
2. Are we required to sprinkler the entire building if only one apartment requires a sprinkler system?
420.5 requires R occupancies to be equipped throughout with automatic sprinklers per 903.3.2 - this allows for NFPA13D
3. Are we allowed to use an NFPA 13D sprinkler in a mixed occupancy?
In Pennsylvania, the requirement for sprinklers for single family dwellings has been repealed, 
4. Does an apartment qualify as an R-3 single family dwelling exempt from the sprinkler requirement in PA?
5.  Is a R-"Fire area" in a non separated mixed occupancy still considered a trigger for a sprinkler system, throughout the "entire building", if the R-fire area is "separated" in accordance with provisions separated mixed occupancies?

I believe there is a conflict in the building code, at least perhaps some confusion:
Table 508.4 shows required separations in mixed occupancies
For each separation there are fire barrier requirements both for sprinklered (S) and non-sprinklered (NS) buildings 
For a "non-sprinklered" building, the separation of B-Business and R-Residential is two hours
would it be true then that 903.2.8 is void?
903.2.8 AN AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER SYSTEM INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 903.3 SHALL BE PROVIDED THROUGHOUT ALL BUILDINGS WITH A GROUP R FIRE AREA.
No exceptions are noted

a fire area is defined as
FIRE AREA. The aggregate floor area enclosed and bounded by fire walls, fire barriers, exterior walls or horizontal assemblies of a building. Areas of the building not provided with surrounding walls shall be included in the fire area if such areas are included within the horizontal projection of the roof or floor next above.

By Others: Aggregate Floor Area” shall mean the sum of the gross horizontal areas of all of the floors on a lot measured from the exterior faces of exterior walls or from the center line of party walls.
The code does not define aggregate floor area and there are many interpretations of aggregate

I say a sprinkler is not required, at all, for an R-fire area in a "separated" mixed occupancy because the occupancies are safely and properly separated for a *non-sprinklered* (NS) building, in accordance with table 508.4,  and the Group R fire area is not really a fire area unless it is included in an "unseparated" mixed occupancy. 

What say ye all?


----------



## classicT

ArchBaech said:


> I have a similar scenario. I am designing remodeling for a three story commercial building. The first and second floors are B-business occupancy and the top floor is R-3 Residential apartment. I am creating "separated" occupancies by designing a two hour horizontal fire barrier between floors.  The group B occupancy is not required to be sprinklered, but the group R occupancy is required to be sprinklered per 903.2.8
> 903.2.8 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.
> EXCEPT PER 903.2.8.1 GROUP R-3. AN AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER SYSTEM INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 903.3.1.3 SHALL BE PERMITTED IN GROUP R-3 OCCUPANCIES.
> 903.3.1.3 NFPA 13D SPRINKLER SYSTEMS.
> AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER SYSTEMS INSTALLED IN ONE- AND TWO-FAMILY DWELLINGS; GROUP R-3, AND TOWNHOUSES SHALL BE PERMITTED TO BE INSTALLED THROUGHOUT IN ACCORDANCE WITH NFPA 13D.
> 903.3.2 QUICK-RESPONSE AND RESIDENTIAL SPRINKLERS.
> WHERE AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER SYSTEMS ARE REQUIRED BY THIS CODE, QUICK-RESPONSE OR RESIDENTIAL AUTOMATIC SPRINKLERS SHALL BE INSTALLED IN ALL OF THE FOLLOWING AREAS IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 903.3.1 AND THEIR LISTINGS:
> DWELLING UNITS AND SLEEPING UNITS IN R OCCUPANCIES.
> 
> This has triggered all kinds of other questions as you can read below in these posts:
> 1. What kind of sprinkler system is required?  NFPA 13?,  NFPA 13R?, NFPA 13D?
> 2. Are we required to sprinkler the entire building if only one apartment requires a sprinkler system?
> 420.5 requires R occupancies to be equipped throughout with automatic sprinklers per 903.3.2 - this allows for NFPA13D
> 3. Are we allowed to use an NFPA 13D sprinkler in a mixed occupancy?
> In Pennsylvania, the requirement for sprinklers for single family dwellings has been repealed,
> 4. Does an apartment qualify as an R-3 single family dwelling exempt from the sprinkler requirement in PA?
> 5.  Is a R-"Fire area" in a non separated mixed occupancy still considered a trigger for a sprinkler system, throughout the "entire building", if the R-fire area is "separated" in accordance with provisions separated mixed occupancies?
> 
> I believe there is a conflict in the building code, at least perhaps some confusion:
> Table 508.4 shows required separations in mixed occupancies
> For each separation there are fire barrier requirements both for sprinklered (S) and non-sprinklered (NS) buildings
> For a "non-sprinklered" building, the separation of B-Business and R-Residential is two hours
> would it be true then that 903.2.8 is void?
> 903.2.8 AN AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER SYSTEM INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 903.3 SHALL BE PROVIDED THROUGHOUT ALL BUILDINGS WITH A GROUP R FIRE AREA.
> No exceptions are noted
> 
> a fire area is defined as
> FIRE AREA. The aggregate floor area enclosed and bounded by fire walls, fire barriers, exterior walls or horizontal assemblies of a building. Areas of the building not provided with surrounding walls shall be included in the fire area if such areas are included within the horizontal projection of the roof or floor next above.
> 
> By Others: Aggregate Floor Area” shall mean the sum of the gross horizontal areas of all of the floors on a lot measured from the exterior faces of exterior walls or from the center line of party walls.
> The code does not define aggregate floor area and there are many interpretations of aggregate
> 
> I say a sprinkler is not required, at all, for an R-fire area in a "separated" mixed occupancy because the occupancies are safely and properly separated for a *non-sprinklered* (NS) building, in accordance with table 508.4,  and the Group R fire area is not really a fire area unless it is included in an "unseparated" mixed occupancy.
> 
> What say ye all?


I am going to keep it short and sweet...

No. Fire sprinklers are required for the Group R (unless amended by the AHJ).


----------



## steveray

You say remodel?...To what extent?


----------



## cda

ArchBaech said:


> I have a similar scenario. I am designing remodeling for a three story commercial building. The first and second floors are B-business occupancy and the top floor is R-3 Residential apartment. I am creating "separated" occupancies by designing a two hour horizontal fire barrier between floors.  The group B occupancy is not required to be sprinklered, but the group R occupancy is required to be sprinklered per 903.2.8
> 903.2.8 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.
> EXCEPT PER 903.2.8.1 GROUP R-3. AN AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER SYSTEM INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 903.3.1.3 SHALL BE PERMITTED IN GROUP R-3 OCCUPANCIES.
> 903.3.1.3 NFPA 13D SPRINKLER SYSTEMS.
> AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER SYSTEMS INSTALLED IN ONE- AND TWO-FAMILY DWELLINGS; GROUP R-3, AND TOWNHOUSES SHALL BE PERMITTED TO BE INSTALLED THROUGHOUT IN ACCORDANCE WITH NFPA 13D.
> 903.3.2 QUICK-RESPONSE AND RESIDENTIAL SPRINKLERS.
> WHERE AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER SYSTEMS ARE REQUIRED BY THIS CODE, QUICK-RESPONSE OR RESIDENTIAL AUTOMATIC SPRINKLERS SHALL BE INSTALLED IN ALL OF THE FOLLOWING AREAS IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 903.3.1 AND THEIR LISTINGS:
> DWELLING UNITS AND SLEEPING UNITS IN R OCCUPANCIES.
> 
> This has triggered all kinds of other questions as you can read below in these posts:
> 1. What kind of sprinkler system is required?  NFPA 13?,  NFPA 13R?, NFPA 13D?
> 2. Are we required to sprinkler the entire building if only one apartment requires a sprinkler system?
> 420.5 requires R occupancies to be equipped throughout with automatic sprinklers per 903.3.2 - this allows for NFPA13D
> 3. Are we allowed to use an NFPA 13D sprinkler in a mixed occupancy?
> In Pennsylvania, the requirement for sprinklers for single family dwellings has been repealed,
> 4. Does an apartment qualify as an R-3 single family dwelling exempt from the sprinkler requirement in PA?
> 5.  Is a R-"Fire area" in a non separated mixed occupancy still considered a trigger for a sprinkler system, throughout the "entire building", if the R-fire area is "separated" in accordance with provisions separated mixed occupancies?
> 
> I believe there is a conflict in the building code, at least perhaps some confusion:
> Table 508.4 shows required separations in mixed occupancies
> For each separation there are fire barrier requirements both for sprinklered (S) and non-sprinklered (NS) buildings
> For a "non-sprinklered" building, the separation of B-Business and R-Residential is two hours
> would it be true then that 903.2.8 is void?
> 903.2.8 AN AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER SYSTEM INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 903.3 SHALL BE PROVIDED THROUGHOUT ALL BUILDINGS WITH A GROUP R FIRE AREA.
> No exceptions are noted
> 
> a fire area is defined as
> FIRE AREA. The aggregate floor area enclosed and bounded by fire walls, fire barriers, exterior walls or horizontal assemblies of a building. Areas of the building not provided with surrounding walls shall be included in the fire area if such areas are included within the horizontal projection of the roof or floor next above.
> 
> By Others: Aggregate Floor Area” shall mean the sum of the gross horizontal areas of all of the floors on a lot measured from the exterior faces of exterior walls or from the center line of party walls.
> The code does not define aggregate floor area and there are many interpretations of aggregate
> 
> I say a sprinkler is not required, at all, for an R-fire area in a "separated" mixed occupancy because the occupancies are safely and properly separated for a *non-sprinklered* (NS) building, in accordance with table 508.4,  and the Group R fire area is not really a fire area unless it is included in an "unseparated" mixed occupancy.
> 
> What say ye all?




Welcome

1 st rule in dealing with codes,,,, read the entire book.

2 nd rule,,,, the most stringent of any code wins/// applies

Any other state I would say sprinklers through out

13 r  for apartments

13 for below.

Best advice Conceptual meetIng with the building official,, their word will be that last  word


----------



## RickAstoria

brizoun1 said:


> Since my business partner and I are both 50/50 co-owners of the building, that means he owns my dwelling as much as I own his. I know it’s blurring the lines but at that point couldn’t it be considered one dwelling since we are both the owners occupying both sides. It’s merely a door separating the two, as a door separates a bedroom from the rest of a house. If so, could I classify them as owner occupied Lodging Houses? Perhaps I have intentions of operating an Air B&B.  If that’s the case, the lodging house according to code, 310.0.5, is subject to International Residential Code and not International Building Code. IRC 2009 and later mandates one and two family dwellings to have sprinkler systems installed, but the State of Missouri passed a law, 67.281, banning local governments from requiring sprinkler systems in one and two family dwellings. Therefore, the entire building is now exempt due to the fact the second story will now be built using residential codes and the bottom story is classified as Group B and is not required.


No, If each unit is a complete dwelling unit. Key element.... do each unit have an actual kitchen as in natural gas for oven? If so, it would be two dwelling units. It can be converted into an SFR but that would be a occupancy classification change. If the existing use are that which per architect licensing laws is work that constitutes the practice of architecture and therefore require an architect then you can not do the project without an architect and shall have new plans prepared by the architect submitted and new permit issued. Old permits shall be invalidated and your original plans re-assessed and denied for not bearing the stamp of a licensed architect or engineer per the respective licensing laws. In addition, you would by law need to be reported to the licensing board for unlicensed practice of architecture if you had so done the plans for a building that requires a licensed architect. Is the existing building a historic building or such a building subject to provisions of Chapter 34 of the IBC?


----------



## RickAstoria

Is this an existing building? If so, has the local jurisdiction adopted the IEBC? The OP is in Missouri but can't speak for the particular township or jurisdiction there. If the juridiction where the building is located adopted IEBC, I would use that code which works along with the IBC but have lighter (less strict) requirements for existing and historic buildings, recognizing that historic buildings (especially) can not be made to comply with all requirements for new construction without losing historic fabric, character.


----------



## RickAstoria

RickAstoria said:


> No, If each unit is a complete dwelling unit. Key element.... do each unit have an actual kitchen as in natural gas for oven? If so, it would be two dwelling units. It can be converted into an SFR but that would be a occupancy classification change. If the existing use are that which per architect licensing laws is work that constitutes the practice of architecture and therefore require an architect then you can not do the project without an architect and shall have new plans prepared by the architect submitted and new permit issued. Old permits shall be invalidated and your original plans re-assessed and denied for not bearing the stamp of a licensed architect or engineer per the respective licensing laws. In addition, you would by law need to be reported to the licensing board for unlicensed practice of architecture if you had so done the plans for a building that requires a licensed architect. Is the existing building a historic building or such a building subject to provisions of Chapter 34 of the IBC?


I would double check if your jurisdiction adopted Chapter 34 when adopting IBC or the IEBC.


----------



## RickAstoria

ArchBaech said:


> I have a similar scenario. I am designing remodeling for a three story commercial building. The first and second floors are B-business occupancy and the top floor is R-3 Residential apartment. I am creating "separated" occupancies by designing a two hour horizontal fire barrier between floors.  The group B occupancy is not required to be sprinklered, but the group R occupancy is required to be sprinklered per 903.2.8
> 903.2.8 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.
> EXCEPT PER 903.2.8.1 GROUP R-3. AN AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER SYSTEM INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 903.3.1.3 SHALL BE PERMITTED IN GROUP R-3 OCCUPANCIES.
> 903.3.1.3 NFPA 13D SPRINKLER SYSTEMS.
> AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER SYSTEMS INSTALLED IN ONE- AND TWO-FAMILY DWELLINGS; GROUP R-3, AND TOWNHOUSES SHALL BE PERMITTED TO BE INSTALLED THROUGHOUT IN ACCORDANCE WITH NFPA 13D.
> 903.3.2 QUICK-RESPONSE AND RESIDENTIAL SPRINKLERS.
> WHERE AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER SYSTEMS ARE REQUIRED BY THIS CODE, QUICK-RESPONSE OR RESIDENTIAL AUTOMATIC SPRINKLERS SHALL BE INSTALLED IN ALL OF THE FOLLOWING AREAS IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 903.3.1 AND THEIR LISTINGS:
> DWELLING UNITS AND SLEEPING UNITS IN R OCCUPANCIES.
> 
> This has triggered all kinds of other questions as you can read below in these posts:
> 1. What kind of sprinkler system is required?  NFPA 13?,  NFPA 13R?, NFPA 13D?
> 2. Are we required to sprinkler the entire building if only one apartment requires a sprinkler system?
> 420.5 requires R occupancies to be equipped throughout with automatic sprinklers per 903.3.2 - this allows for NFPA13D
> 3. Are we allowed to use an NFPA 13D sprinkler in a mixed occupancy?
> In Pennsylvania, the requirement for sprinklers for single family dwellings has been repealed,
> 4. Does an apartment qualify as an R-3 single family dwelling exempt from the sprinkler requirement in PA?
> 5.  Is a R-"Fire area" in a non separated mixed occupancy still considered a trigger for a sprinkler system, throughout the "entire building", if the R-fire area is "separated" in accordance with provisions separated mixed occupancies?
> 
> I believe there is a conflict in the building code, at least perhaps some confusion:
> Table 508.4 shows required separations in mixed occupancies
> For each separation there are fire barrier requirements both for sprinklered (S) and non-sprinklered (NS) buildings
> For a "non-sprinklered" building, the separation of B-Business and R-Residential is two hours
> would it be true then that 903.2.8 is void?
> 903.2.8 AN AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER SYSTEM INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 903.3 SHALL BE PROVIDED THROUGHOUT ALL BUILDINGS WITH A GROUP R FIRE AREA.
> No exceptions are noted
> 
> a fire area is defined as
> FIRE AREA. The aggregate floor area enclosed and bounded by fire walls, fire barriers, exterior walls or horizontal assemblies of a building. Areas of the building not provided with surrounding walls shall be included in the fire area if such areas are included within the horizontal projection of the roof or floor next above.
> 
> By Others: Aggregate Floor Area” shall mean the sum of the gross horizontal areas of all of the floors on a lot measured from the exterior faces of exterior walls or from the center line of party walls.
> The code does not define aggregate floor area and there are many interpretations of aggregate
> 
> I say a sprinkler is not required, at all, for an R-fire area in a "separated" mixed occupancy because the occupancies are safely and properly separated for a *non-sprinklered* (NS) building, in accordance with table 508.4,  and the Group R fire area is not really a fire area unless it is included in an "unseparated" mixed occupancy.
> 
> What say ye all?



If you are working with an existing buildings, you should check chapter 34 (if adopted, whether amended or not is aside) and also if IEBC is adopted. There usually are provisions that may alleviate some of the sprinkler requirements.


----------



## harri852

ArchBaech said:


> I have a similar scenario. I am designing remodeling for a three story commercial building. The first and second floors are B-business occupancy and the top floor is R-3 Residential apartment. I am creating "separated" occupancies by designing a two hour horizontal fire barrier between floors.  The group B occupancy is not required to be sprinklered, but the group R occupancy is required to be sprinklered per 903.2.8
> 903.2.8 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.
> EXCEPT PER 903.2.8.1 GROUP R-3. AN AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER SYSTEM INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 903.3.1.3 SHALL BE PERMITTED IN GROUP R-3 OCCUPANCIES.
> 903.3.1.3 NFPA 13D SPRINKLER SYSTEMS.
> AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER SYSTEMS INSTALLED IN ONE- AND TWO-FAMILY DWELLINGS; GROUP R-3, AND TOWNHOUSES SHALL BE PERMITTED TO BE INSTALLED THROUGHOUT IN ACCORDANCE WITH NFPA 13D.
> 903.3.2 QUICK-RESPONSE AND RESIDENTIAL SPRINKLERS.
> WHERE AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER SYSTEMS ARE REQUIRED BY THIS CODE, QUICK-RESPONSE OR RESIDENTIAL AUTOMATIC SPRINKLERS SHALL BE INSTALLED IN ALL OF THE FOLLOWING AREAS IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 903.3.1 AND THEIR LISTINGS:
> DWELLING UNITS AND SLEEPING UNITS IN R OCCUPANCIES.
> 
> This has triggered all kinds of other questions as you can read below in these posts:
> 1. What kind of sprinkler system is required?  NFPA 13?,  NFPA 13R?, NFPA 13D?
> 2. Are we required to sprinkler the entire building if only one apartment requires a sprinkler system?
> 420.5 requires R occupancies to be equipped throughout with automatic sprinklers per 903.3.2 - this allows for NFPA13D
> 3. Are we allowed to use an NFPA 13D sprinkler in a mixed occupancy?
> In Pennsylvania, the requirement for sprinklers for single family dwellings has been repealed,
> 4. Does an apartment qualify as an R-3 single family dwelling exempt from the sprinkler requirement in PA?
> 5.  Is a R-"Fire area" in a non separated mixed occupancy still considered a trigger for a sprinkler system, throughout the "entire building", if the R-fire area is "separated" in accordance with provisions separated mixed occupancies?
> 
> I believe there is a conflict in the building code, at least perhaps some confusion:
> Table 508.4 shows required separations in mixed occupancies
> For each separation there are fire barrier requirements both for sprinklered (S) and non-sprinklered (NS) buildings
> For a "non-sprinklered" building, the separation of B-Business and R-Residential is two hours
> would it be true then that 903.2.8 is void?
> 903.2.8 AN AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER SYSTEM INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 903.3 SHALL BE PROVIDED THROUGHOUT ALL BUILDINGS WITH A GROUP R FIRE AREA.
> No exceptions are noted
> 
> a fire area is defined as
> FIRE AREA. The aggregate floor area enclosed and bounded by fire walls, fire barriers, exterior walls or horizontal assemblies of a building. Areas of the building not provided with surrounding walls shall be included in the fire area if such areas are included within the horizontal projection of the roof or floor next above.
> 
> By Others: Aggregate Floor Area” shall mean the sum of the gross horizontal areas of all of the floors on a lot measured from the exterior faces of exterior walls or from the center line of party walls.
> The code does not define aggregate floor area and there are many interpretations of aggregate
> 
> I say a sprinkler is not required, at all, for an R-fire area in a "separated" mixed occupancy because the occupancies are safely and properly separated for a *non-sprinklered* (NS) building, in accordance with table 508.4,  and the Group R fire area is not really a fire area unless it is included in an "unseparated" mixed occupancy.
> 
> What say ye all?


I am in a similar situation. Farmer's market (B) with a R-3 farmstay/AirBnB upstairs in Michigan. What did you end up having to do?

They're wanting me to put in a NFPA 13R upstairs and no sprinkling on the main floor (thank God). We have a 2-hour fire wall/barrier between the floors, creating separate occupancies. 

I was really hoping for a 13D upstairs as I'd have to have a 300-400 gallon tank but with 13R I've had to enclose a covered porch to create space for a 2,500 gallon tank, cut and replace concrete, change building plans, etc. Originally they wanted me to have 25,000 gallons stored in a giant bunker under ground and would have cost me $120k; the pump itself is about $65k. We don't have municipal water at our farm...It's been a nightmare trying to get this build finished. 

Thanks!


----------



## mtlogcabin

Is this new construction or a remodel of an existing building?

Provided you have created a complete and separate fire area (vertical and horizontal) for the R-3 Occupancy and it is new construction you should be allowed to install a 13-D Residential system

2018 IBC
[BF] FIRE AREA. The aggregate floor area enclosed and bounded by fire walls, fire barriers, exterior walls or horizontal assemblies of a building. Areas of the building not provided with surrounding walls shall be included in the fire area if such areas are included within the horizontal projection of the roof or floor next above.

SECTION 420
GROUPS I-1, R-1, R-2, R-3 AND R-4

420.1 General.
Occupancies in Groups I-1, R-1, R-2, R-3 and R-4 shall comply with the provisions of Sections 420.1 through 420.10 and other applicable provisions of this code.

[F] 420.4 Automatic sprinkler system.
Group R occupancies shall be equipped throughout with an automatic sprinkler system *in accordance with Section 903.2.8.* Group I-1 occupancies shall be equipped throughout with an automatic sprinkler system in accordance with Section 903.2.6. Quick-response or residential automatic sprinklers shall be installed in accordance with Section 903.3.2.

[F] 903.2.8 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. *

[F] 903.2.8.1 Group R-3.
An automatic sprinkler system installed* in accordance with Section 903.3.1.3* shall be permitted in Group R-3 occupancies.

[F] 903.3.1.3 NFPA 13D sprinkler systems.
Automatic sprinkler systems installed in one- and two-family dwellings;* Group R-3*; Group R-4, Condition 1; and townhouses shall be permitted to be installed throughout in accordance with NFPA 13D


----------



## Rick18071

mtlogcabin said:


> [F] 903.2.8 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. *


I am sure when it says a sprinkler system shall be installed throughout the building it means that a sprinkler system shall be installed throughout the building.
13 on first floor and 13, 13R, or 13D in R-3 area


----------



## Rick18071

But then I found this by SteveRay:

A common question is whether a mixed occupancy
building which contains a Group R occupancy could
still use NFPA 13R for the design. If one of the mixed
use occupancies would require a sprinkler system
throughout the building in accordance with NFPA 13,
then a 13R system would not be allowed. If, however,
the only reason a sprinkler system is being installed
is because there is a Group R fire area within the
building, then an NFPA 13R system would be an
appropriate design choice.

2012 IBC commentary....

I guess this would go for 13D systems too?


----------

