• 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

1017.4 for 2009 IBC

rktect 1

rktect 1

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 20, 2009
Messages
1,116
Location
Illinois
I was at a business license inspection for a new tenant in an existing space. They are a very small operation and space. They basically are one of these places that sells mini figures for playing role playing games. As well, they have an open area for 24 people to actually sit there and play a role playing game. The store space is about 1200 sq. ft. I called the use "assembly" but actually B for the exception for under 50 occupants with one required exit. But for the seating they had three 8'x30" wide tables with 4 chairs per side of table. These tables were pushed all the way up against the wall at the short edge creating aisles and had very little space between the backs of the chairs. I told the owner that he needed to do one of two things.

1. Pull all the card tables away from the wall and create an aisle accessway at that end. Probably 18"

or

2. Create more space between the tables so that they had a min. of 19"+19"+12"=50" from edge of one table to the other.

He chose the #2 option. It was not hard at all to achieve this. Option #1 would have been difficult.

But I got another inspector questioning my decision at the office. I keep looking at the code section and the diagram in the code commentary. I don't see how this is not the solution for these types of folding card table arrangments. I was also informed that many places have card tables just pushed up against the wall. Not only that but they will make runs of these tables, maybe two or three tables long, like for BINGO night or something. Not permanent applications.
 
I believe you are correct and you should visit the "many places" that are in violation and educate them as to the difficulty of getting out in an emergency
 
rktect 1 said:
I was at a business license inspection for a new tenant in an existing space. They are a very small operation and space. They basically are one of these places that sells mini figures for playing role playing games. As well, they have an open area for 24 people to actually sit there and play a role playing game. The store space is about 1200 sq. ft. I called the use "assembly" but actually B for the exception for under 50 occupants with one required exit. But for the seating they had three 8'x30" wide tables with 4 chairs per side of table. These tables were pushed all the way up against the wall at the short edge creating aisles and had very little space between the backs of the chairs. I told the owner that he needed to do one of two things.1. Pull all the card tables away from the wall and create an aisle accessway at that end. Probably 18"

or

2. Create more space between the tables so that they had a min. of 19"+19"+12"=50" from edge of one table to the other.

He chose the #2 option. It was not hard at all to achieve this. Option #1 would have been difficult.

But I got another inspector questioning my decision at the office. I keep looking at the code section and the diagram in the code commentary. I don't see how this is not the solution for these types of folding card table arrangments. I was also informed that many places have card tables just pushed up against the wall. Not only that but they will make runs of these tables, maybe two or three tables long, like for BINGO night or something. Not permanent applications.
Click to expand...
Where does the 12" come from? I suspect from 2009 IBC section 1005.1, but what about 1017.2? 19"+19"+28"= 66"
 
I am with mt. Just because something has not been actively, or consistently, enforced at final inspection does not mean that behavior needs to continue. Typically what I see on plan review, does not translate to final inspection. For smaller businesses that are assembly occupancies (or mercantile), and don't require an RDP, we typically won't see a furniture layout plan, let alone one dimensioned or to scale. For these, we copy the aisle sections for both assembly and mercantile and attach them to the plans with a comment that compliance will be verified at final inspection prior to C.O.
 
*

How does one ensure that the minimum egress minimums actually

[ remain ] in place once the inspector has left?.....In this case, that

the card tables won't end up back in the desired locations for

customer use?

*
 
Not a "M" occupancy??

Would inform the business of egress safety, not sure without seeing what you saw would actually write something
 
north star said:
*How does one ensure that the minimum egress minimums actually

[ remain ] in place once the inspector has left?.....In this case, that

the card tables won't end up back in the desired locations for

customer use?

*
Click to expand...
Supposedly through our twice annual fire inspections.
 
The 19" dimension is the required length from edge of table to back of chair. Times two in this case as there are two tables back to back. Because the length of the tables was greater than 6 feet but not greater than 12 feet, a min. of 12" is required between the two backs of the chairs.
 
I am just pluggin along in my old 2006, but I would use 1014.4.3 for seating at tables which requires the 19 inches, and 1014.4.3.2 for table and seating accessway width requiring 12 inches.
 
north star said:
*How does one ensure that the minimum egress minimums actually

[ remain ] in place once the inspector has left?.....In this case, that

the card tables won't end up back in the desired locations for

customer use?

*
Click to expand...
You can't but you have educated the owners/operators as to the requirements. Once we walk away anything can be changed
 
I initially thought I would agree with your assessment, but in looking at Section 1014.4.3 of the '06 IBC, I'm not sure the 12" aisle accessway would be required - the Exception to Section 1014.4.3.2 eliminates the need for an aisle accessway width when the aisle accessway has a lenght not exceeding 6 feet. For an 8' table projecting from a wall, the furthest seat would likely be barely more than 6 feet travel from the end of the table (that is, assuming the occupant of the furthest chair exits to the side of the chair AWAY from the wall)... I can see both sides of this. If I were inspecting and found this situation, I doubt I would have pushed the issue.
 
rshuey said:
Should be a M use. Tell them to hire a design professional. Change of Use.
Click to expand...
They will be sitting there playing games at the tables for up to 6 or 8 hours. Yes there is a Mercantile portion to the tenant space but also an Assembly portion. The Assembly outweighs the Mercantile, specifically for this main room of the business.
 
so how much of the 1200 sq ft is M and how much is the "A"?

if you say the assembly outwieghs the M , than it soumds like the occupancy is an "A"
 
IJHumberson said:
I initially thought I would agree with your assessment, but in looking at Section 1014.4.3 of the '06 IBC, I'm not sure the 12" aisle accessway would be required - the Exception to Section 1014.4.3.2 eliminates the need for an aisle accessway width when the aisle accessway has a lenght not exceeding 6 feet. For an 8' table projecting from a wall, the furthest seat would likely be barely more than 6 feet travel from the end of the table (that is, assuming the occupant of the furthest chair exits to the side of the chair AWAY from the wall)... I can see both sides of this. If I were inspecting and found this situation, I doubt I would have pushed the issue.
Click to expand...
Your jurisdiction must have modified chapter 1 to include common sense.
 
cda said:
so how much of the 1200 sq ft is M and how much is the "A"?if you say the assembly outwieghs the M , than it soumds like the occupancy is an "A"
Click to expand...
B occupancy for occupancies less than 50 occupants. Could also do a mixed-use, un-separated, designing the space to the most restrictive occupancy. I used to visit an old 24-hour Highway Diner, where you could get the best greasy spoon meal and a dishwasher, t-shirt, biography on Starkweather, or any other you-name-it. It was still an "A-2" occupancy.
 
brudgers said:
Your jurisdiction must have modified chapter 1 to include common sense.
Click to expand...
Reading the code passage sometimes gets in the way of common sense. Like right now. The exception is for portions of an aisle accessway having a length not exceeding 6 feet AND used by a total of not more than four persons.
 
There are situations which create life safety hazards.

Then there are a dozen nerds sitting around card tables on Saturday afternoon.

In the worst case, any violation is trifling.
 
I'm not quite following you here.

Are you saying that common sense means to ignore section 1017.4 because there are 12-24 nerds playing D&D?

What if they were 12-24 lawyers sitting down at a restaurant eating crab legs? Common sense or section 1017.4?

Again, this did not create any sort of hardship. The guy moved the tables and "poof" it was a code compliant solution. No loss of patrons.
 
What I am suggesting is that you are not exercising it.

It's not a restaurant.

It's not an assembly occupancy.

But more importantly, it's not even a hazard.
 
brudgers said:
What I am suggesting is that you are not exercising it. It's not a restaurant.

It's not an assembly occupancy.

But more importantly, it's not even a hazard.
Click to expand...
No, the real hazard are the twelve sided die that will be all over the floor in an emergency. Those assembled, regardless of the occupancy type, should still comply with code...otherwise, common sense wants to know why we have it if it isn't an important part of exit access.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top