Define this space:

[DwightB]

Florida, 2007 IBC: We have a Type 1B construction, mixed occupancy A-3 and E (church with classrooms). There is a youth wing with 2 levels of activities, including computer games, table games, chat areas, dining areas on two levels. Exits are well handled with enclosed stairways in multiple locations. Additionally, there are 2 open stairs (less than 50%) that happen to connect the two levels for convenience of the users. These two stairs are not needed for exit calculations.

There is a 42' x 74' basketball court on the first level that is surrounded by a glass wall system and accessed via doors at the corners. The top of the glass wall extends above the second floor level and terminates as a handrail at 48" above the floor.

The local fire marshal is having a hard time defining this as an atrium. We're having a hard time trying to figure if smoke control is needed. The only space on the main level that is exposed to the upper level is the court itself, with minimal/zero risk of fire source. It is important to the client to have the upper level open for viewing and ambient atmosphere so that the court activity contributes to the energy of the entire space. That ability would be lost if the court were to be entirely boxed in.

Can the court be a "mezzanine" of the upper level and part of that space, therefore not requiring smoke control?

If those other two stairs are open between levels anyway, as allowed by code, does smoke control over the court contribute a safety factor?

We've seen open courts like this filling other story buildings at racquetball courts, etc., just not sure how to address through FBC.

 

[steveray]

I think the mezz works.....but it might not be just that easy...seperation of uses? i know there are some other questions that I just cannot think of right now.....

 

[DwightB]

We suggested that, it seems to fit the definition, but the local officials seemed to have a hard time thinking that a mezzanine could be below the level of the associated open space.

 

[brudgers]

Florida, 2007 IBC: We have a Type 1B construction, mixed occupancy A-3 and E (church with classrooms). There is a youth wing with 2 levels of activities, including computer games, table games, chat areas, dining areas on two levels. Exits are well handled with enclosed stairways in multiple locations. Additionally, there are 2 open stairs (less than 50%) that happen to connect the two levels for convenience of the users. These two stairs are not needed for exit calculations. There is a 42' x 74' basketball court on the first level that is surrounded by a glass wall system and accessed via doors at the corners. The top of the glass wall extends above the second floor level and terminates as a handrail at 48" above the floor. The local fire marshal is having a hard time defining this as an atrium. We're having a hard time trying to figure if smoke control is needed. The only space on the main level that is exposed to the upper level is the court itself, with minimal/zero risk of fire source. It is important to the client to have the upper level open for viewing and ambient atmosphere so that the court activity contributes to the energy of the entire space. That ability would be lost if the court were to be entirely boxed in. Can the court be a "mezzanine" of the upper level and part of that space, therefore not requiring smoke control? If those other two stairs are open between levels anyway, as allowed by code, does smoke control over the court contribute a safety factor? We've seen open courts like this filling other story buildings at racquetball courts, etc., just not sure how to address through FBC.

You need to look at this from NFPA 101 which tends to dictate specific changes to the FBC rather than the IBC. But there is no way that the lower area can be the mezzanine because there is no headroom under it.

On the other hand, mag holds, fire shutters, and other elements could potentially be used to limit the size of the upper area.

The idea that there is minimal risk of fire is asinine (and professionally irresponsible) - or the first lock-in where some 13 year old decides it would be funny to toss some smoke bombs, or the new youth minister decides to hold a candlelight Christmas service for toddlers in the gym, or let's move the picnic indoors, etc. will show.

 

[Codegeek]

It might be an atrium but fall under the exception of not requiring separation (404.5) since it's less than three floors. It may again fall under the exception for the smoke control as it is connecting only two stories (404.4). The only real need is to make sure the sprinkler system is designed to provide coverage for both floor areas.

 

[DwightB]

We suggested that, it seems to fit the definition, but the local officials seemed to have a hard time thinking that a mezzanine could be below the level of the associated open space.

 

[Builder Bob]

Smoke control is usually only required when you have three or more stories interconnected.....

 

[Codegeek]

We suggested that, it seems to fit the definition, but the local officials seemed to have a hard time thinking that a mezzanine could be below the level of the associated open space.

Here's the definition out of the FBC.

MEZZANINE. An intermediate level or levels between the floor and ceiling of any story and in accordance with Section 505

 

[DwightB]

Atrium: "closed at the top", this is not closed at the top, so not an atrium either? It has a roof, the glass walls do not separate court from second floor. The glass walls (water curtain fire protection) DO separate court from first floor.

 

[Codegeek]

I'm afraid the fire prevention code doesn't help much on definitions either; although atrium is different than the FBC stating that it is covered.

 

[DwightB]

Atrium: "closed at the top", this is not closed at the top, so not an atrium either?

 

[permitguy]

There's a roof. I'd say that closes it at the top (vertically). Atrium separation (horizontally) is something different.

Unless the FBC is dramatically different from the IBC, I don't think you need smoke control or horizontal separation for an atrium that only connects two stories. It's an allowable opening in the second floor in accordance with the shaft enclosure exceptions.

I don't know why we hang on to the 2-story definition for an atrium. In reality, the only time an atrium has special requirements anymore is when it connects 3 or more stories.

 

[Examiner]

There is not an E occupancy if the classrooms are not for educational purposes of grades 1-12. If the classrooms are really used as sunday school rooms they are classified as Assembly (A-3) Occupancy.

 

[JBI]

Agree the court is not a mezzanine; agree that the roof makes it 'closed at the top; also inclined to agree that there is no 'E' occupancy based on the information provided; would suggest that if the term 'mezzanine' is used that it apply to the upper level overlooking the court, but not enough information provided to make a clear call on it; would suggest a thorough reading of your codes provisions regarding 'mezzanines'.

 

[DwightB]

Examiner: This church also has a K-12 school in portions of the building.

 

[JustReid]

I am having a hard time picturing this space; but, in my experience trying to loosely define mezzanines to eliminate a floor (story) designation rarely hold up. If the Florida code is largely based on NFPA 101 then this might be where the requirement is coming from.

NFPA 101(2009) 3.3.24 - Atrium - A large-volume space created by a floor opening or series of floor openings connecting two or more stories that is covered at the top...

A two story space in NFPA 101 can be an atrium. All atriums in NFPA 101 require smoke control (or at least an analysis showing smoke layer height will be maintained). This contrasts IBC's requirements where you can call a two story space an atrium but only require smoke control at three or more stories (code sections quoted by Codegeek above).

The difference in NFPA 101 is the concept of the Communicating Space (Section 8.6.6) which allows a three story space to fall under this definition. Communicating spaces do not require smoke control but you have to fall within the requirements of 8.6.6. Not sure if this is applicable to you or not but worth a try if NFPA 101 concepts are applicable.

 

[brudgers]

Like I said, NFPA 101 typically will be the first choice when the Florida Building Commission has to reconcile the IBC approach and the NFPA approach when aligning the FBC and FFPC...which reminds me, NFPA 101 Florida Edition is applicable. And it is not uncommon for out of state architects to lack printed copies of both codes "because it's available online."

 

[mtlogcabin]

A two story space in NFPA 101 can be an atrium. All atriums in NFPA 101 require smoke control (or at least an analysis showing smoke layer height will be maintained). This contrasts IBC's requirements where you can call a two story space an atrium but only require smoke control at three or more stories (code sections quoted by Codegeek above).

Another example of how codes developed by different organizations may not work well together. The main reason ICC was formed and the Legacy codes went away.

 

[JustReid]

Another example of how codes developed by different organizations may not work well together. The main reason ICC was formed and the Legacy codes went away.

Completely agree. It is like they look at each other’s codes and spend time trying to figure out how to be the same…but different. I deal with this daily being in Department of Defense where we have adopted parts of IBC and Parts of NFPA with our own Criteria on top of that.

NFPA’s “two story Atrium” is probably rarely done though. I imagine many make the claim that it is a “Communicating Space” which can be three stories with no smoke control. So, in a way, NFPA 101’s smoke control requirements kick in at four stories versus IBC’s three.

 

[permitguy]

Would someone please explain where NFPA 101 comes into play in the conversation? I thought the FL codes were derived from the I-Codes. Have they created some sort of a hybrid?

 

[Codegeek]

The Florida Building Code is based on the IBC. The Florida Fire Prevention Code is based on NFPA 1 and 101.

 

[permitguy]

Thank you! That sounds like a great way to slow down development . . .

 

[brudgers]

Another example of how codes developed by different organizations may not work well together. The main reason ICC was formed and the Legacy codes went away.

The reason the FBC was mandated by the legislature was to have everything which regulated building in one book - including statutory and regulatory requirements at the state level...and the ICC has made a bigger mess than the problem they set out to solve (e.g. ADA based on IBC 2003).

 

[brudgers]

Would someone please explain where NFPA 101 comes into play in the conversation? I thought the FL codes were derived from the I-Codes. Have they created some sort of a hybrid?

You've been drinking too much of the ICC Kool-Aid. The FBC is based on Florida Statutes and regulations.

The first version [FBC 2001] was based on SBC 1997 and the South Florida Building Code and the Florida Fire Prevention Code and the Florida Accessibility Code and the Florida Energy Code and agency rules which governed Health Care facilities (AHCA), higher education (SREF) and a host of other crap like health department regulations for swimming pools and stuff like that...

...and lest it fail to be mentioned, it also included specific interventions by the Florida Legislature regarding building code provisions...

...oh, it also includes regulations from the architecture and engineering and building code administrators and inspectors statutes (e.g. the statutory definition of townhouse as a single family dwelling)...

Yes the current version of the building code starts with IBC, but it gets modified the most (e.g. in Florida all fire walls are 4 hours - otherwise you still have one building).

And the fact of the matter is that the State Fire Marshal is elected statewide as the Insurance Commissioner - and in Florida, insurance plays a big role in creating viable development means that nobody gives a fk about following the ICC's dumbass ideas.