Are sprinklers req'd in a mixed use 2 story bldg with R-2 above under 2006 IBC?

[Grizzlybare]

Are sprinklers always necessary in a two story commercial building whenever R-2 is involved upstairs in a newly classified mixed use occupancy?

I have acquired a 100+ yr old building in an area of town that the city is trying to revitalize. Many of the store fronts, like 100's of mid-America towns, have upstairs that they would like to convert to apartments. Mine is five store fronts with approx 6000 sq ft on the ground floor and 5500 on the second floor. All the store fronts on the ground floor have approximately a foot thick brick wall separation between each.

The rub comes in whenever the apartments are planned upstairs where historically were offices. In the 2006 IBC (which is what our city uses) I find in table 508.3.3 that a mixed use occupancy must have a one hour separation with a sprinkler system and a two hour fire rated separation without sprinklers. Which leads me to believe that if there is a horizontal system providing a 2 hr fire separation, no sprinkler is required between a B and R-2 classes.

Of course my building inspector says that under 903.2.7 Group R. An automatic sprinkler system shall be provided throughout all buildings with a Group R fire area.

But Section 903.2 says "Where required. Approved automatic sprinkler systems

in new buildings and structures shall be provided in the locations described in this section." (emphasis added)

His return is Section 3406.1 "Conformance. No change shall be made in the use or occupancy of any building that would place the building in a different division of the same group of occupancy or in a different group of occupancies, unless such building is made to comply with the requirements of this code for such division or group of occupancy. Subject to the approval of the building official, the use or occupancy of existing buildings shall be permitted to be changed and the building is allowed to be occupied for purposes in other groups without conforming to all the requirements of this code for those groups, provided the new or proposed use is less hazardous, based on life and fire risk, than the existing use." He says that the commentary for that section states that any building changes in classification puts the building as "new."

I would believe that the purpose of the old/new classification is the difficulty in installation of such a system in old buildings as opposed to new construction where it can be planned and suitably constructed. These old building do not lend themselves to such new restrictions.

Is there an out here? My building like many in old downtowns are not vertically challenging as there are foot thick brick walls separating each store front. The ceiling is the only places that will lend to fire penetration. What's up with the sprinkler system requirement throughout the whole building, upstairs and down? It would seem that a two hours fire separation and sufficient fire alarms, or at the most sprinklers only on the lower floor, would be necessary. :banghd

Any ideas out there?

 

[Coug Dad]

Welcome to the board. Change in occupancy requires conformance to current code. Current code requires sprinkler protection throughout any building containing a Group R-2 occupancy. This means the entire building, not just the dwelling units.

 

[permitguy]

Welcome! The inspector is correct - this one is about as cut and dry as it gets. I've never seen a knowledgable code official argue that there was a way to avoid the sprinkler installation in this type of scenario.

These old building do not lend themselves to such new restrictions.

Actually, these buildings tend to be pretty simple to retrofit during renovations (obviously there are exceptions to this). They tend to be stacked rectangles with parallel framing members throughout, and don't generally have a lot of interior partitions to contend with.

 

[Frank]

Yes sprinklers required throughout

 

[mtlogcabin]

What state are you in? Are there local or state ammendments to the codes?

 

[Grizzlybare]

I am in Illinois and the city is preparing to adopt the 2009 code, but are balking due to the requirement therein that pertains to all new residences having to be sprinkled. Is there a way that the city can adopt a code with exceptions such as the sprinkler portion?

 

[RJJ]

YES! But you will need to have input. And then wait for the vote!

How many SF is your building? How many means of egress? Have you approached the AHJ with an approach from Chapter 34 or IEBC?

Those above are correct. I also agree with permitguy that these old building are not that tough to pipe.

 

[mtlogcabin]

Is there a way that the city can adopt a code with exceptions such as the sprinkler portion?

Depends on state law. My state no way can the local ammend what the state has adopted.

 

[rshuey]

The entire building will need sprinkled. The inspector is correct.

 

[brudgers]

Yes, Sprinklers are required unless you can get around them using the Existing Building code or convince the building department not to require them.

However and even though others will disagree, an NFPA 13R system provides an appropriate level of life safety protection for the residents.

 

[FM William Burns]

Well I wouldn't need to worry now. I agree with your inspector and YES they are required with no way out. There are cost effective means and ways to allow exposed piping to look tasteful as we have done here in our 100+ year old historic downtown. You may want to look at it this way, with a sprinkled building you can rent to anyone and have parties on the roof tops for a really sheek ambiance. If your downtown is into it it can thrive, you just need to get past the initial fear and reluctances.