Can a designer provide a larger occupant load?

[arwat23]

I would certainly question a kitchen at 15 sq ft per person but if pressed to show where there is a violation I do not think I can show anything in print save that it is not the intent of the code

How about the fact that there's a load factor specifically for commercial kitchens? I mean, sure, the OL can increase to whatever number, but you can't tell me the code explicitly says a kitchen is 15 net. Unless this is more of a break room-type area... then 15 net makes perfect sense.

So interestingly enough one point made by the designer is that when a use such as a bar is calculated at 15 sq ft per person and it is under 50 occupants it is considered a "B" occupancy but if over 50 it is an "A" occupancy and the use has not changed - they asked why it would not be the same with a weight room or dance studio...I indicated it was something to consider however I did say that in that example the occupant load factor did not change - it was 15 sq ft and only the size of the space resulted in an occupant load and was not a change from 50 sq ft per occupant (exercise) to 15 sq ft per occupant as they are indicating

Also because code explicitly allows small assembly spaces to not be A. Code is mute on it the opposite is true (that if a B occupancy has an OL of 50+ it becomes an A occupancy), because it's not true. I've had offices with an OL of a couple hundred. That doesn't, by itself, make it assembly.

The designer's logic is flawed. If they used the same logic was the same logic as RLGA, I'd at least understand the reasoning (dance halls and gymnasiums count as A-3, but gymnastics and similar training and skill development is B). But there's nothing in code that I know of that supports what the designer is claiming.

 

[RLGA]

Interesting that you labeled the use as assembly as a general rule - would it (could it) not be exercise? To me a dance "studio" is where practice takes place and the dancers are spread out to allow them to turn, jump, etc...I agree that the designer can select the occupant load factor to a point - I would certainly question a kitchen at 15 sq ft per person but if pressed to show where there is a violation I do not think I can show anything in print save that it is not the intent of the code

I said "assembly purpose." A classroom is an "assembly purpose," but its "function of use" per Table 1004.5 is "Classroom." Whereas a dance studio is an "assembly purpose," but there is no consensus on the "function of use" per Table 1004.5.

The designer's logic is flawed. If they used the same logic was the same logic as RLGA, I'd at least understand the reasoning (dance halls and gymnasiums count as A-3, but gymnastics and similar training and skill development is B). But there's nothing in code that I know of that supports what the designer is claiming.

Section 304.1 for Group B occupancies includes "training and skill development" uses that are "not classified as a Group A occupancy." Thus, it can be interpreted to mean a dance studio is an assembly occupancy, except when it does not comply with the requirements for an assembly occupancy. When the designer increases the occupant load per Section 1004.5.1 to 50 or more, the occupancy is Assembly, and the Group B "training and skill development...where not classified as a Group A occupancy" is no longer valid. It's just another part of Section 1004.5.1 that states, "...provided that all other requirements of the code are met based on such modified number..."

 

[arwat23]

Section 304.1 for Group B occupancies includes "training and skill development" uses that are "not classified as a Group A occupancy." Thus, it can be interpreted to mean a dance studio is an assembly occupancy, except when it does not comply with the requirements for an assembly occupancy.

Ah, I misunderstood. That makes sense.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

So interestingly enough one point made by the designer is that when a use such as a bar is calculated at 15 sq ft per person and it is under 50 occupants it is considered a "B" occupancy but if over 50 it is an "A" occupancy and the use has not changed - they asked why it would not be the same with a weight room or dance studio...I indicated it was something to consider however I did say that in that example the occupant load factor did not change - it was 15 sq ft and only the size of the space resulted in an occupant load and was not a change from 50 sq ft per occupant (exercise) to 15 sq ft per occupant as they are indicating

As I commented in a previous post, there is a specific code provision that allows that. There is no specific or implied code provision that goes the other way.

Interesting that you labeled the use as assembly as a general rule - would it (could it) not be exercise? To me a dance "studio" is where practice takes place and the dancers are spread out to allow them to turn, jump, etc...I agree that the designer can select the occupant load factor to a point - I would certainly question a kitchen at 15 sq ft per person but if pressed to show where there is a violation I do not think I can show anything in print save that it is not the intent of the code

The occupant can propose the occupant load factor -- the building official has to review that, and accept it or reject it. But that's not the point. Use and occupancy classification are determined in Chapter 3. We don't get to calculating the occupant load until Chapter 10. I know we (both code officials and design professionals) tend to think of the occupant load factor being based on the occupancy classification, but ... it's not. Table 1004.5 discusses occupant load based on the "function" of the space. Is "function" synonymous with "use"? Yes, in ordinary speech I'd say it is. So then why does Table 1004.5 use the word "Function" when it could just as easily have said "Use"?

My answer is that the intent is clearly to NOT pin the occupant load factor directly to the use and occupancy classification. So the IBC deliberately uses a different word in the table.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

I said "assembly purpose." A classroom is an "assembly purpose," but its "function of use" per Table 1004.5 is "Classroom." Whereas a dance studio is an "assembly purpose," but there is no consensus on the "function of use" per Table 1004.5.

I respectfully disagree. A dance studio is, first and foremost, an educational purpose, and secondarily perhaps an exercise purpose. The general category of Assembly uses is for the gathering of people:



If a dance studio were in a high school, it would be an Educational occupancy. But the code says educational uses for persons beyond grade 12 are Business occupancies, so unless a dance studio specifically limits the clientele to grade 12 and younger -- it's a B use and occupancy. For occupant load factor, the closest function to a dance studio in Table 1004.5 is Exercise Room, with a factor of 1 person per 50 s.f.

 

[Joe.B]

it's a B use and occupancy. For occupant load factor, the closest function to a dance studio in Table 1004.5 is Exercise Room, with a factor of 1 person per 50 s.f.

What if they occasionally have recitals, or shows in there? We have one of those here, ~2500 sq. ft., 99% of the time it's just classes with less that 50 people. 3-4 times a year though they have a show or a party and they could have over 200 people in there. What then?

 

[arwat23]

What if they occasionally have recitals, or shows in there? We have one of those here, ~2500 sq. ft., 99% of the time it's just classes with less that 50 people. 3-4 times a year though they have a show or a party and they could have over 200 people in there. What then?

I assume this:

 

[Joe.B]

I assume this:
View attachment 17177

I agree. But what if they don't want to call it that? You get a submittal, they call it a B with 49 max occupancy, but you know they're going to have an event there? True story...

 

[Henchalwoog]

True enough - as part of the discussion it was mentioned that the dance "studio" was renamed then I would consider that but a weight room and golf simulator area was not going to be approved based on a 15 sq ft per occupant load factor - moot point really since they need all of those areas to be assembly to meet the 10% maximum.

 

[arwat23]

I agree. But what if they don't want to call it that? You get a submittal, they call it a B with 49 max occupancy, but you know they're going to have an event there? True story...

One of my clients had to write and sign a letter stating they would only use the space as, for example, a business space, and will not use it as an assembly space and wouldn't have more than xx number of people in the room at any one time. Doesn't necessarily stop them, but, as my client found out, the city can slap you with some pretty hefty fines. In my case, the city knows this dude is a repeat offender and does whatever he wants, so they keep a close eye on him.

 

[RLGA]

I respectfully disagree. A dance studio is, first and foremost, an educational purpose, and secondarily perhaps an exercise purpose.

Not necessarily. Group B includes "Training and Skill development not in a school or academic program..."

The project in the OP sounds like a community center and not part of a school. If it were a part of a school, then you would be correct. However, outside of a school or academic program, it is an Assembly occupancy unless it can be classified as a Business occupancy.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

One of my clients had to write and sign a letter stating they would only use the space as, for example, a business space, and will not use it as an assembly space and wouldn't have more than xx number of people in the room at any one time. Doesn't necessarily stop them, but, as my client found out, the city can slap you with some pretty hefty fines. In my case, the city knows this dude is a repeat offender and does whatever he wants, so they keep a close eye on him.

We had an application from someone who may have been like that. A young woman came in with an application to rent a space that had previously been two retail stores. She wanted to rent it as "flexible event space," meaning people could rent it for whatever -- parties (she would not provide catering -- she said), classes, receptions ... anything at all. The space was big enough that if you used an occupant load factor of 1:15 it was something like 185 and if you used 1:7 it was over 400. There was sufficient exit capacity for 495 people BUT not enough plumbing fixtures.

She didn't want to do ANY work other than some paint, so she got an architect to submit an application to establish the occupant load at (IIRC) 150, which was a number small enough that one male and one female water closet and one male and one female lavatory would suffice. But she claimed that she didn't "actually" except to ever have more than 1200 people in there. I didn't like it. My boss didn't like it. The fire marshal didn't like it. I met her on the site with one of the fire inspectors and we broke all the rules and suggested multiple ways the plan could be tinkered with to reduce the size of the actual event space, such as erecting a one-sided stud wall to create an area for storing unused tables and chairs, which would then be counted as Storage at a greatly reduced occupant factor.

She wasn't having any of it. She remained adamant that she wasn't going to spend ANY money. She claimed she had a similar operation in a nearby municipality and that they didn't have any problems with it. (Ever hear that before?) I knew the BO in that municipality, so I called him and asked about it. "Never heard of her, never heard of an operation like that. That address is a hair salon."

She promised to sign an agreement to never allow more than 50 people in the space. We asked how she would enforce that. Crickets. The fire marshal said he didn't have the manpower to keep sending people over to check how many people were using her space. Basically, IMHO she was a scammer. She wasn't even going to manage the place personally; she was going to just send "someone" over with the keys to unlock the doors when someone was scheduled to hold an event. There would have been no control whatsoever over how many people were in there.

We felt that we were willing to meet her halfway if she would just build that simple wall to create a storage space but she wouldn't agree to that. The last I knew, we were told that she canceled her lease on the space and bailed. I've always wondered if the architect got paid. My guess is probably not.

 

[Tim Mailloux]

If that's the case, it's the owner's (and thereby the designer's) responsibility to properly declare the assembly use in the construction documents.

It sounds like that's exactly what the RDP did, they are including these rooms as part of the assembly occupancy but the OP is arguing that the spaces should be an accessory B occupancy. TBH I am not sure what the issue here really is.

 

[steveray]

Given an unlimited area building of A-3 occupancy utilizing the provision 507.6 of the 2015 IBC due to size (50,000 sq ft gym area - multiple courts), sprinkled and requisite 60'-0" yards and includes accessory areas (mostly B occupancies - offices, dance studios, etc)...given type IIB const the designer has also labeled some of these spaces as "A" occupancies with an increased occupant load factor (dance studios were given a 15 sq ft / occ label in lieu of 50 sq ft per occupant to increase the load to over 50 occupants) - this allowed them to "add" them to the main A-3 occupancy (large gym) so the other accessory occupancies fall under the 10% allowance...is this kosher? They have designed the spaces with the panic devices, etc however it seems to run counter to the intent of the code which would only allow A-3 occupancy...thoughts?

So basically you need to blend 507.4 and 507.6 which 507 really doesn’t do or explain well…

 

[Henchalwoog]

It sounds like that's exactly what the RDP did, they are including these rooms as part of the assembly occupancy but the OP is arguing that the spaces should be an accessory B occupancy. TBH I am not sure what the issue here really is.

My question would be is it the intent of the code to allow a designer to apply an occupant load factor to a space that does not fit - 15 sq ft for a weight room for instance - to allow an assembly occupancy label FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE of allowing the area of said weight room to be classified under the main "A" occupancy rather than a part of the accessory occupancy provisions to allow other spaces to fit under the 10% cap allowed for accessory occupancies...same with golf simulation

 

[steveray]

My question would be is it the intent of the code to allow a designer to apply an occupant load factor to a space that does not fit - 15 sq ft for a weight room for instance - to allow an assembly occupancy label FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE of allowing the area of said weight room to be classified under the main "A" occupancy rather than a part of the accessory occupancy provisions to allow other spaces to fit under the 10% cap allowed for accessory occupancies...same with golf simulation

I see no code reason to not have a weight room or golf simulator as part of an A3…but again…There is not a hard tie between occupancy classification and occupant load…

 

[Tim Mailloux]

I guess am missing the problem here. Could the designer categorize these spaces as an accessory B occupancy, sure the code allows that as an option as to not impose the more restrictive requirements of an A occupancy when you have small occupant loads. But the designer has included them in the A occupancy and imposed a higher occupant load than the bare minimum required. To me it seems like the designer has gone well above code minimums here.

 

[Henchalwoog]

I guess am missing the problem here. Could the designer categorize these spaces as an accessory B occupancy, sure the code allows that as an option as to not impose the more restrictive requirements of an A occupancy when you have small occupant loads. But the designer has included them in the A occupancy and imposed a higher occupant load than the bare minimum required. To me it seems like the designer has gone well above code minimums here.

I think that I am not being clear - the designer wants to use type IIB construction for the building (A-3 - large open structure with several BBall courts) and as such he is limited in area by the code however he utilized the unlimited area building option to allow the size...he also has several other spaces he wants to include in the project (weight room, gold simulator, dance studios, offices, etc) utilizing the accessory occupancies option (no rated separations) but the area of the desired spaces exceeds the 10% limit of the main occupancy (main gym area)...so to increase the area of the A-3 occupancy he has applied 15 sq ft occupant loas factor to some of these spaces to increase their occupant load to exceed 50 and classify it as "A" and not have it contribute to the 10% accessory occupancy limit...that is what I am questioning...say he had 50,000 sq ft of the main gym but he also has 10,000 sq ft of other spaces - this would be 20% of the main occupancy and exceed the 10% limit...however if he classifies some of the spaces that comprise the 20% as "A" in lieu of "B" then the spaces do not contribute to the accessory space limit and in fact raise the ceiling for the allowable area on the main occupancy...hope that explains it better - it just seems to run counter to the intent of the code

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

My question would be is it the intent of the code to allow a designer to apply an occupant load factor to a space that does not fit - 15 sq ft for a weight room for instance - to allow an assembly occupancy label FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE of allowing the area of said weight room to be classified under the main "A" occupancy rather than a part of the accessory occupancy provisions to allow other spaces to fit under the 10% cap allowed for accessory occupancies...same with golf simulation

That's the crux of the question, and my answer is "No, the code does not allow that."

 

[steveray]

How far off of the 10% are you? Can you post a code sheet?

 

[Henchalwoog]

 

[Tim Mailloux]

Except for the red circled accessory office area, I see no issue including everything else into the Main A3 occupancy.

 

[RLGA]

That's the crux of the question, and my answer is "No, the code does not allow that."

View attachment 17180

Can you call a 1,000 sq. ft. room a storage space when it will be used for assembly? Of course not, because they are of different hazards.

Can you call a 749 sq. ft. room an office when it will be used as a conference room? No, because of the different occupant loads.

Can you call a 1,000 sq. ft. room used for assembly an assembly occupancy when the occupant load is less than 50 based on one load factor and more than 50 based on another, even though neither load factor definitively describes the actual use? I would say yes.

Section 1004.5 states that the BO shall establish the function when an intended function is not listed. The BO says it is "exercise" — Fine. Thus, the RDP cannot use an occupant load that is less than what the BO has established (unless approved via the exception). However, the RDP may increase the occupant load (a greater hazard) per Section 1004.5.1, without BO approval, provided everything complies with the higher occupant load, including reclassifying the occupancy group based on the higher occupant load. The occupant load is the only thing (and, to some degree, the floor area) that differentiates a Group A occupancy from any other assembly use in a building. Why?

The main purpose of a building code is to protect the health, safety, and welfare of occupants. The structure and its contents are secondary. The code requires separation between Group A and all other occupancy groups because of the potential fire load of adjacent occupancies to an occupancy with a high occupant load (Group A occupancies have their own fire load issues depending on the specific assembly use, such as stages). So, when the occupant load of a space is voluntarily increased without any change to anything else, should they be lumped with occupancies with a higher fire load? Or should they be separated from other occupancies, such as the building's main occupancy (Group A)?

My other suggestion, in addition to the one I suggested previously, is to call these "Multipurpose Rooms." They can be used for dance, martial arts, birthday parties, lectures, etc., and would be classified as Group A occupancies based on the most restrictive "anticipated" use. The fact that they might only use them for dance is irrelevant and does not change a thing, and is perfectly legal (is the fire marshal going to cite them for under-occupying a room?

 

[arwat23]

Except for the red circled accessory office area, I see no issue including everything else into the Main A3 occupancy.

That's the odd part. The designer is arguing that the only reason those areas (I believe green, purple, yellow) are A-3 is because of their OL. Even if you're right, the designer clearly disagrees (or the OP told the designer prior to the current submittal to not use A-3), because the OL is their only justification for it being A-3.