• Welcome to the new and improved Building Code Forum. We appreciate you being here and hope that you are getting the information that you need concerning all codes of the building trades. This is a free forum to the public due to the generosity of the Sawhorses, Corporate Supporters and Supporters who have upgraded their accounts. If you would like to have improved access to the forum please upgrade to Sawhorse by first logging in then clicking here: Upgrades

Separated vs. Non-Separated Occupancies

W

WPCI

Registered User
Joined
Aug 16, 2017
Messages
6
Location
Florida
The State of Florida recently issued a Declaratory Statement on Section 6.1.14.4 of the Florida Fire Prevention Code. (excerpt below)

The Petition requests a determination as to: 1) Whether the proposed buildings must be considered mixed occupancy or separate occupancy if the building plans show occupancies having separate outdoor exits; and 2) Whether separate occupancies are subject to the fire resistant assembly requirements of the Florida Fire Prevention Code (FFPC).The Department concludes pursuant to section 6.1.14.4, FFPC, the buildings must be considered separate occupancy because the building plans show occupancies having separate outdoor exits; and 2) Pursuant to section 6.1.14.4.1, FFPC, separate occupancies are subject to the fire resistant assembly requirements of the FFPC.

Can someone direct me to the section of NFPA 1 or NFPA 101 or the FFPC that the State Fire Marshall would be referencing to determine that the separated occupancy provision of the code must be complied with if separate exits are provided for each occupancy? I would seem that this interpretation severely limits the option to use the non-separated occupancy provision of the code.
 
That is an interesting requirement.

I think there are a couple of Floridians on the forum.

I am not sure if the Florida building and fire code are online to see free??

Do you have a link if they are ?
 
Maybe the term is:;

3.3.152.11 Multiple Occupancy. A building or structure in which two or more classes of occupancy exist.
 
I think you're over thinking here. They use "separate" occupancies and not "separated" occupancies, of which the latter infers fire separation through the application of fire barriers.

I believe the reference is more related to means of egress. If each occupancy is provided its own means of egress, then individual means of egress for each occupancy must comply with the (read, "separate") requirements specific to that occupancy group. If multiple occupancy groups share a common means of egress (read, "mixed"), then the common means of egress elements must comply with the most restrictive requirements of all occupancies using it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JBI
Now that I have read the detail, it appears that I was a little off target in my earlier posting.

FFPC Section 6.1.14.1.1 states "Multiple occupancies shall comply with the requirements of 6.1.14.1 and one of the following: (1) Mixed occupancies --6.1.14.3 (2) Separated occupancies -- 6.1.14.4"

Thus, it is the designer's option to select which method to use. However, as I stated in my earlier post, the application of "mixed" occupancies is based on the mixing of means of egress from one occupancy through, or combined with, another occupancy per FFPC Section 6.1.14.1.2. In this case, the project must be considered a mixed occupancy. But even as a mixed occupancy, FFPC Section 6.1.14.3.2 states "The building shall comply with the most restrictive requirements of the of the occupancies involved unless separate safeguards are approved." I take this to mean that separate exits for each occupancy would be considered a "separate safeguard" and thereby not requiring the application of "separated occupancies."

How they can determine that separate means of egress requires separated occupancies is beyond me. This is why I have a problem mixing NFPA codes with ICC codes (except for the NEC) -- they just do not play well together.
 
The particular building in question is a 50' x 140' 7,000 sf pre-engineered metal building. The Architect designed the building for B - Business, M - Mercantile, F-1 Moderate Hazard Fabrication and S-1 Storage. The Architect designated the building as Mixed / Non-Separated Occupancy. Each occupancy has a separate/direct egress out of the building so the Fire Marshall reasons the the building must comply with the separated provisions of the code. The Fire Marshall wants a two hour fire barrier separating any B or M occupancy from F-1 or S-1 occupancy even though the building is designed to comply with the provisions of the most restrictive occupancy.

508.1 FBC and 6.1.14 FFPC provide three options for Mixed Occupancies: Nonseparated, Separated and Accessory. The way I read them, only one of the three options is required to be applied or all three methods may be utilized in the same building at the option of the Owner/Designer.

I cannot find where egress is mentioned in the code in regard to nonseparated and separated occupancies and the Fire Marshall was unwilling to clarify other than stating that he was the Authority Having Jurisdiction and he gets to make the decision. I requested, via the Fire Chief, to allow the State Fire Marshall to make a determination and he/she/they agreed with the local Fire Marshall but I am no closer to understanding their reasoning.
 
Your state Fire Marshall is not the AHJ. He and you should follow the state law when there is a conflict between the building code and the fire code. The Florida Building Commission needs to be in agreement also

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes...tute&URL=0500-0599/0553/Sections/0553.73.html


(d) Conflicting requirements between the Florida Building Code and the Florida Fire Prevention Code and Life Safety Code of the state established pursuant to ss. 633.206 and 633.208 shall be resolved by agreement between the commission and the State Fire Marshal in favor of the requirement that offers the greatest degree of lifesafety or alternatives that would provide an equivalent degree of lifesafety and an equivalent method of construction. If the commission and State Fire Marshal are unable to agree on a resolution, the question shall be referred to a mediator, mutually agreeable to both parties, to resolve the conflict in favor of the provision that offers the greatest lifesafety, or alternatives that would provide an equivalent degree of lifesafety and an equivalent method of construction.
 
The question was representative of one specific case; however it has now established the law in this particular jurisdiction and could possibly affect designs though out the state of Florida. I plan to appeal, but was hoping to gain some insight into their reasoning. The closest I could come was as RGLA stated:

"mixing of means of egress from one occupancy through, or combined with, another occupancy per FFPC Section 6.1.14.1.2. In this case, the project must be considered a mixed occupancy."

But I don't believe the inverse is also true. By their reasoning, if you added a separate means of egress to the building referred to in the above quote. the building must now be considered a separated occupancy.

Any recommendations for the appeal would be appreciated.
 
WPCI said:
I plan to appeal, but was hoping to gain some insight into their reasoning. The closest I could come was as RGLA stated:

"mixing of means of egress from one occupancy through, or combined with, another occupancy per FFPC Section 6.1.14.1.2. In this case, the project must be considered a mixed occupancy."
Click to expand...
I want to be clear that my statements do not support the reasoning of the Fire Marshal. There is a requirement that forces the use of the "mixed occupancies" option, but there is nothing that would require the use of the "separated occupancies" option. How they derived their decision is not openly evident.
 
It is absolutely our intention to follow the state law. We do not want the liability of designing/building/owning a building that is not in compliance with the code. Our national tenants and insurance company would not allow it.

Section 633.01Florida Statutes states:

(5) It is the intent of the Legislature that there are to be no conflicting requirements between the Florida Fire Prevention Code and the Life Safety Code authorized by this chapter and the provisions of the Florida Building Code or conflicts in their enforcement and interpretation. Potential conflicts shall be resolved through coordination and cooperation of the State Fire Marshal and the Florida Building Commission as provided by this chapter and part IV of chapter 553.

It is clear to me that this ruling conflicts with the FBC 508.1 (same as IBC) but I am not as familiar with the NFPA and FFPA.

A mediator may be the way we have to go if the appeal fails, but I have already built this building to the AHJ's requirements and it is occupied so it is not in by best interest to spend more money than it cost to build the additional fire barriers. I do have eight more building to build in this project though so there is a future cost involved.
 
WPCI said:
The question was representative of one specific case; however it has now established the law in this particular jurisdiction and could possibly affect designs though out the state of Florida. I plan to appeal, but was hoping to gain some insight into their reasoning. The closest I could come was as RGLA stated:

"mixing of means of egress from one occupancy through, or combined with, another occupancy per FFPC Section 6.1.14.1.2. In this case, the project must be considered a mixed occupancy."

But I don't believe the inverse is also true. By their reasoning, if you added a separate means of egress to the building referred to in the above quote. the building must now be considered a separated occupancy.

Any recommendations for the appeal would be appreciated.
Click to expand...


Hire a fire protection engineer or good code consultant to analyze all the ways the code allows the building to be built, to include the ruling.
Prepare a report and present it.

If there is more than one way to build the building, the ahj should not have anything to argue about.
 
No Sprinklers. A one story building of 7000 sf is permitted for all the proposed occupancies and fire sprinklers are not required.

I have retained a fire protection engineer the appeal the ruling.

I have been reading codes for 30 years myself. This Declaratory Statement is so vague, it's difficult to make a effective argument against it without understanding their reasoning.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cda
WPCI said:
No Sprinklers. A one story building of 7000 sf is permitted for all the proposed occupancies and fire sprinklers are not required.

I have retained a fire protection engineer the appeal the ruling.

I have been reading codes for 30 years myself. This Declaratory Statement is so vague, it's difficult to make a effective argument against it without understanding their reasoning.
Click to expand...


Good move the money spent, will more than likely save you money
 
Paul Sweet said:
Might they be confusing this with the 1-hour tenant separations required in malls?
Click to expand...


Talking NFPA 101 with a Florida twist

2) Whether separate occupancies are subject to the fire resistant assembly requirements of the Florida Fire Prevention Code (FFPC).The Department concludes pursuant to section 6.1.14.4, FFPC, the buildings must be considered separate occupancy because the building plans show occupancies having separate outdoor exits
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top