1997 Building Code Requirements for Restaurant

[Glennman CBO]

Recently I was doing a T.I. inspection where they had removed the drywall from the wall separating the permitted space from a restaurant next door. The first thing I thought of is whether the restaurant was actually a "B" or an "A-2", since the new space was going to be an "M", but not necessarily a change of occupancy from the previous use. The plans didn't mention what the next space's use was.

After going next door, I found out the occupant load was 92, thus making it an A-2 (A-3 in the UBC world).

Problem... (maybe)

1. They only have one exit

2. They have no rated walls on either side (front and rear are exterior with plenty of distance)

3. They (as I found out later) were approved to expand into the mezanine in 2002 (43 up and 49 down)

Question... did the 1997 UBC (adopted code in 2002) allow such a thing as this for an A-3? Our plans examiner says that the occupant load in regards to the single exit is OK according to the UBC, and there were no ratings required on either side, but I don't know anything about the UBC. Our current adopted code is the 2006 IBC, and there are no sprinklers in the building.

Thanks all.

 

[Coug Dad]

Re: 1997 Building Code Requirements for Restaurant

1997 Uniform Building Code required two exits from a restaurant with more than 50 persons.

 

[Big Mac]

Re: 1997 Building Code Requirements for Restaurant

Coug Dad is correct.

In addiiton, the occuapncy separation requirements for the 1997UBC can be found in Table 3-B

There was no fire separation required betwen A-3 and B or A-3 and M

 

[Glennman CBO]

Re: 1997 Building Code Requirements for Restaurant

Is there a separation between a B and a M in the '97 UBC? The reason I ask is that in order to comply, they will need to reduce their occupant load to the point to where they become a B again due to the single exit. I'm not sure if I would call that a change in occupancy, since they never should have become an A-3 to start with.

Thanks Coug Dad and Big Mac.

 

[Coug Dad]

Re: 1997 Building Code Requirements for Restaurant

I do not have my 97 UBC at home, but I would doubt there is a separation requirement between B and M. Prior to the standardization of the codes leading to the IBC, UBC Group B-2 included both retail and office.

 

[gvictor]

Re: 1997 Building Code Requirements for Restaurant

No requirement between a B and M, unless there is some local amendment to the table.

 

[Big Mac]

Re: 1997 Building Code Requirements for Restaurant

No fire resistive separation was required between a use group 'B' and a use group 'M' in the 1997UBC. How are you going to get the occupant load below 50. Are they going to remove the mezzanine?

 

[Glennman CBO]

Re: 1997 Building Code Requirements for Restaurant

Big Mac,

Actually it's a long story. At the time of the discovery, it appeared that they had simply moved tables and seating onto the mezanine without approval. In their property record file it indicated that the mezanine was not approved to be used for seating. It just happened to be there when they leased the space, but was to be left empty. There were no permits ir approvals on file that allowed them to occupy the mezanine.

After the buzz of it went around the office, there were people that remembered approving it back in 2002. Then we found the permit and approval in the computer file, but the plans and paper copies of the permit have since disappeared. Strange...

Since all this has come up, the B.O. decided to let it continue as such since it was mistakenly approved in '02.

I was giong to have them vacate the mezanine, but now I have been over ruled. I do however have that as a matter of record.

Oh well...

 

[Big Mac]

Re: 1997 Building Code Requirements for Restaurant

I never cease to be amazed at how the powers that be are so adverse to enforcing Sections 110.1 and 110.4. It seems that they have forgotten that our charge, as code officials and public servants, is to protect the health and welfare of the public, not the applicant. Section 101.3.

Are they really so convinced that they should never have to appolgize for an error in judgement that they are willing to potentially endanger the lives of others in an effort to avoid looking bad. Wait until the 5 o'clock news gets ahold of that.

Or is the news there prohibited from airing anything that makes th politicians look bad. Seems like that is the case here far too often.

 

[Coug Dad]

Re: 1997 Building Code Requirements for Restaurant

The sections you reference need to be weighed against 102.6 and evaluated if an distinct hazard to life or property exists as specified in the Fire Code. That is why the "Powers" get the corner offices and the big bucks.

 

[Big Mac]

Re: 1997 Building Code Requirements for Restaurant

Coug Dad. Please read that section again. It says "legal occupancy". This was never a "legal occupancy" as a Use Group A-2.

 

[Coug Dad]

Re: 1997 Building Code Requirements for Restaurant

Regardless of the perceived or assumed legacy standard of "legal", I think a strong case can be made that 92 persons with a single exit in a non sprinklered restaurant is a "distinct hazard to life"

 

[Big Mac]

Re: 1997 Building Code Requirements for Restaurant

le·gal? ?/?lig?l/ Show Spelled[lee-guhl] Show IPA

–adjective

1.permitted by law; lawful: Such acts are not legal.

2.of or pertaining to law; connected with the law or its administration: the legal profession.

3.appointed, established, or authorized by law; deriving authority from law.

4.recognized by law rather than by equity.

The Building Code is law when adopted by the athority having jurisdiction

 

[Coug Dad]

Re: 1997 Building Code Requirements for Restaurant

"Legal" is for lawyers. "Distinct hazard to life or property" is in the purview of building and fire officials. I make a deal with lawyers, they determine what is "legal" and I'll determine what constitutes a hazard.

 

[Big Mac]

Re: 1997 Building Code Requirements for Restaurant

Coug Dad, I think we are on the same page with this one, though it is sometimes hard to tell. Allowing this use for 50 or more persons with one exit is fool hardy, at best.

 

[Coug Dad]

Re: 1997 Building Code Requirements for Restaurant

I love it when we are in heated agreement :lol:

 

[Big Mac]

Re: 1997 Building Code Requirements for Restaurant

And just so you know, i don't think the ability to discern the intent or interperet the building codes and/or legal issues has anything to do with why the people that occupy the corner offices get the big bucks.

 

[Coug Dad]

Re: 1997 Building Code Requirements for Restaurant

Heated agreement again! One cannot always equate "ability" with "responsibility". :lol:

 

[Glennman CBO]

Re: 1997 Building Code Requirements for Restaurant

Believe me guys...If I was the B.O. they would be vacating the mez.

 

[FM William Burns]

Re: 1997 Building Code Requirements for Restaurant

I would reduce the upper seating since documentation exists that the seating was added after CO when single exit design criteria and occupant load limits were documented and on file. The issues of legally existing or existing building sections hold no weight since they increased the OL and thus endangering the 43 occupant’s ability to egress from a fire below them creates a distinct hazard. Where renovations exist that affect the safe egress of occupants within the structure, the fire code official has the juice to remedy the deficiency even in existing buildings legally in existence at the time of the code applicable. [102.6, 3401.3, to IFC 1027.1 Exception] and I don’t know of too many fire code officials who would not see this as a distinct egress hazard for fire and their options would be to eliminate the mezzanine/balcony seating or provide a secondary exit........just MHO.