A use group or B use group

[Codegeek]

I have a food establishment whose primary focus is delivery. However, they have an area at the front of their space with seats which allow for people to pick up their orders. If one applies 7 square feet per person for the waiting area as there are chairs and 200 square feet per person in the kitchen area, I calculate an occupant load of 35. I say it can qualify as a B use group due to the total occupant load.

Because it can qualify as B use group, I have someone that wants to apply the 100 square feet per person to the entire tenant space, including the pick-up area and the kitchen. I've tried to explain my rationale but they won't budge. In terms of life safety, I think you have to assume the worst case scenario which involves people standing around waiting for their food.

Would anyone else apply the 100 square feet per person to the entire space? If so, why?

Anyone have other thoughts??

 

[Mac]

You have "someone" that wants to apply a different occupant load? How much difference is there?

Unless the patrons are eating in the space, I think its all a B use. If they are eating, it's still a "B" with a small "A" area.

The yellow angle drill (at left) reminds me of a penguin in a windbreaker.

 

[Codegeek]

The reason I ask is because we've done this tenant layout in various jurisdictions. Most of the jurisdictions come back with applying the 7 square feet per person for the waiting area which increases the occupant load.

In terms of determining plumbing fixtures, the use of the 7 square feet per person to determine occupant load makes a huge difference.

 

[rshuey]

Its an A, divided by 7 = 35 occupants, which is under 50, so its a B. Your math is now done. you can't recompute after that.

 

[Codegeek]

Its an A, divided by 7 = 35 occupants, which is under 50, so its a B. Your math is now done. you can't recompute after that.

I understand that. Try telling a building owner that their occupant load warrants two bathrooms when they want to base their calculation on 100 square feet per person. I know that I'm correct in my assessment. I was looking for guidance and additional support for my argument.

It sounds like I got it.

 

[cda]

302.1 General. Structures or portions of structures shall be classified with respect to occupancy in one or more of the groups listed below. A room or space that is intended to be occupied at different times for different purposes shall comply with all of the requirements that are applicable to each of the purposes for which the room or space will be occupied. Structures with multiple occupancies or uses shall comply with Section 508. Where a structure is proposed for a purpose that is not specifically provided for in this code, such structure shall be classified in the group that the occupancy most nearly resembles, according to the fire safety and relative hazard involved.

Maybe bump it to 15??

Are you the ahj???

 

[Codegeek]

No, I'm not the AHJ, I'm working with the designer. We had a fire marshal come back on a previous project wanting to apply 7 square feet since there are chairs and no tables. I know we can't please everyone all the time, so I'm trying to help come up with a plan that will function for the most part in most jurisdictions.

I think the space needs to be examined for how it is intended to be used and that is for the potential to have folks assembled. Granted, there will probably never be more than 5-8 folks waiting to pick up their food as most will want it delivered. I have suggested to the building owner that they provide documentation through statistics to show that there is never a large amount of people waiting and ask to have their "design occupant load" reduced.

Instead of listening to that argument, they want to argue that it will always be a B use group and apply the 100 square foot per person which won't work when an AHJ says 7 or 15 square feet and now the occupant load has at least doubled, if not tripled.

 

[gbhammer]

If you have the commentary, it clearly describes the way to calculate the design occupant load of a space. Photocopy and highlight the areas that would help the owner understand. The commentary also makes it clear that the design occupant load needs to be used to determine the water closet fixture counts.

 

[Codegeek]

If you have the commentary, it clearly describes the way to calculate the design occupant load of a space. Photocopy and highlight the areas that would help the owner understand. The commentary also makes it clear that the design occupant load needs to be used to determine the water closet fixture counts.

As a former AHJ, I offered that as a solution as I would have bought it. The owner still wants to argue that it is a B use group and apply the 100 square feet per person no matter what.

You have all confirmed I've been correct. I appreciate the feedback.

 

[gbhammer]

Commentary: The number of occupants that will occupy a space is the actual number and is only limited by Section 1004.2. If the construction documents indicate that the actual occupant load of a space exceeds that determined by Sections 1004.1.2 and 1004.1.3, then the actual number is to be used as the design occupant load of that space. Where the actual number is less than the occupant load determined in accordance with Section 1004.1.2 or 1004.1.3, the largest number must be used in the egress design. For example, if a proposed conference room has a calculated occupant load – using 15 net square feet (1.39 m²) per person, for assembly without fixed seats, unconcentrated tables and chairs (see Table 1004.1.2)- of 55, but the owner indicates that the actual number of occupants will not exceed 25, the design occupant load of the room is 55. Therefore, in accordance with Table 1014.1 at least two means of egress must be provided from the conference room. Conversely, if the actual occupant load planned for is 65, the design occupant load is then 65.

Commentary: The design occupant load is the number of people that are intended to occupy a building or portion thereof at any one time; consequently, the number for which the means of egress is to be designed. It is the largest number derived by the application of sections 1004.1 through 1004.1.3. There is a limit to the density of occupants permitted in an area to enable a reasonable amount of freedom of movement (see Section 1004.2). The design occupant load is also utilized to determine the required plumbing fixture count (see commentary, Chapter 29).

Commentary (Chapter 29): Table 2902.1 establishes the minimum number of plumbing fixtures required for each building (note that this is the same as Table 403.1 in the IPC). The occupant load used for calculating the number of fixtures required is the same occupant load used for determining egress. Methods for calculating occupant loads are found in Section 1004.1. By using the means of egress occupant loads, there is a consistency in occupant load calculations for the application of the number of plumbing fixtures and the means of egress provisions. The means of egress occupant loads do not always reflect typical day-today occupant loads; the table takes this into account by modifying the values for determining the number of fixtures.

 

[Codegeek]

Thanks gb, I gave all that same language to the owner.

 

[permitguy]

As per Table 1004.1.1, occupant loads are based on the "Function of Space", NOT the occupancy classification.

You are calculating correctly based on the specific uses you describe. If the AHJ is willing to approve a lower occupant load than calculated per the exception to section 1004.1.1, then so be it. I know you have no problem sticking to your guns!

 

[brudgers]

"[P] 2902.1 ...The number of occupants shall be determined by this code. Occupancy classification shall be determined in accordance with Chapter 3."

There's some wiggle room.

"Occupant Load" is defined exclusively in terms of the design of the means of egress.

If the code had meant for the calculation to be based on the occupant load, it would have said "occupant load."

But it doesn't.

It says "number of occupants."

And determining the number of occupants based upon B occupancy, is in accordance with the code.

Specifically, 303.1 exception 2.

To put it another way, what hazard is being addressed by a second bathroom?

And if there is such a hazard, is it greater than the health hazard posed by doubling the surface areas on which feces and urine are likely to accrue, and thereby doubling the area which requires sanitation given that this is a food service establishment?

In other words, is the public more or less protected when you double the amount of area which requires cleaning to protect against food contamination given the level of resources available in a small food service establishment?

 

[brudgers]

Commentary (Chapter 29): Table 2902.1 establishes the minimum number of plumbing fixtures required for each building (note that this is the same as Table 403.1 in the IPC). The occupant load used for calculating the number of fixtures required is the same occupant load used for determining egress. Methods for calculating occupant loads are found in Section 1004.1. By using the means of egress occupant loads, there is a consistency in occupant load calculations for the application of the number of plumbing fixtures and the means of egress provisions. The means of egress occupant loads do not always reflect typical day-today occupant loads; the table takes this into account by modifying the values for determining the number of fixtures.

Commentary is not the code. And is incorrect.

Because the number of occupants, not the occupant load SHALL be used to calculate the number of fixtures.

Consistency is not the same thing as being correct.

Sorry, but once again, the commentary is a crutch for mental laziness.

 

[Big Mac]

I typically calculate the kitchen or food prep area at 1:100 / the cueing and waiting area at 1:7 / the dining area at 1:15 / if there is a display or retail function, I typically calculate it at 1:30. If the retail area is just a display shelf, I will typically apply that occupant load to no more than a 4' swath in front of the display shelf. I believe that is the intent of the code.

For example Starbucks typically has all of these different areas and the occupant load gets calculated inthis fashion. It often creates a situation that requires two exits which sometimes doesn't sit to well with them. So sorry, I am more concerned about safe exiting that making Starbucks happy. Same situation for toilet rooms. If the occupant load as determined by Chapter 29 requires separate facilities, so be it.

 

[mtlogcabin]

If one applies 7 square feet per person for the waiting area as there are chairs

If they did not have chairs would you be using 5 sq ft for standing space?

It is not an "A" or "B" occupancy

200 Sq ft per person for the food prep area and 30 sq ft per person for the take out area.

They are selling a product to a retail customer. Call it merchantile and let it go.

[P] 2902.2 Separate facilities.

Where plumbing fixtures are required, separate facilities shall be provided for each sex.

Exceptions:

1. Separate facilities shall not be required for dwelling units and sleeping units .

2. Separate facilities shall not be required in structures or tenant spaces with a total occupant load , including both employees and customers, of 15 or less.

3. Separate facilities shall not be required in mercantile occupancies in which the maximum occupant load is 50 or less.

 

[permitguy]

Because the number of occupants, not the occupant load SHALL be used to calculate the number of fixtures.

You say tomato . . .

 

[permitguy]

Mercantile Group M. Mercantile Group M occupancy includes, among others, the use of a building or structure or a portion thereof, for the display and sale of merchandise and involves stocks of goods, wares or merchandise incidental to such purposes and accessible to the public.

This isn't an M.

 

[brudgers]

You say tomato . . .

I say find a way to approve the plans. You say...

 

[permitguy]

I say find a way to approve the plans. You say...

. . . apply the code.

Since restrooms are so frequently a topic of debate, how many who are so hell-bent on trying to let owners wiggle out of the requirements have suggested a code change or a local amendment for these types of facilities? Passing the adopting ordinance and then bending over backwards to let people out of requirements seems counter-productive. If you don't like it, change it before you adopt it. There's plenty of that phenomenon going around these days . . .

 

[Big Mac]

Permitguy - I didn't say or even insinuate that this was an 'M' occupancy. What I said was that a portion of the space might be for such a use. I even went so far as to indicate that if it was a single display shelf, I would allocate no more than a 4' swath in front of the display shelf to that classification. I know that such an allocation for a small space is perhaps splitting hairs, but if this distinction makes a legitimate case for fewer exits or toilet rooms, I'm okay with that. However if this small distinction makes no difference, then the applicant cannot make the argument that I didn't persue every avenue to try and give them relief from code requirements, if appropriate.

 

[brudgers]

. . . apply the code. Since restrooms are so frequently a topic of debate, how many who are so hell-bent on trying to let owners wiggle out of the requirements have suggested a code change or a local amendment for these types of facilities? Passing the adopting ordinance and then bending over backwards to let people out of requirements seems counter-productive. If you don't like it, change it before you adopt it. There's plenty of that phenomenon going around these days . . .

Film of your building department? www.youtube.com/watch?v=LxQ6olQjebg

 

[gbhammer]

Commentary is not the code. And is incorrect.

Because the number of occupants, not the occupant load SHALL be used to calculate the number of fixtures.

Consistency is not the same thing as being correct.

Sorry, but once again, the commentary is a crutch for mental laziness.

To say that the commentary is not the code is absolutely correct. It does however help to teach the intent behind the code. To ignore that intent is the first step towards nonfeasance if not misfeasance or malfeasances.

As a design professional it should be you’re first goal to inform you’re client what is required by the code not so you can figure out ways to get around it but to properly apply it.

codegeek has gone the right route and I say bravo.

Just like permitguy said the design occupant load is determined by the function of the space not the use group classification, and to do it otherwise is a deliberate misuse of table 1004.1.1

As far as 2902.1 is concerned the part about occupancy classification is just to determine which area of the table is relevant for fixture counts, it has nothing to do with determining the occupant load and brudgers you should know better. Maybe you’re just getting some mental laziness and need a stronger crutch.

 

[mtlogcabin]

If you don't like it, change it before you adopt it

A lot of us do not have that option as it is done at a state level and passed down

My suggestion of a "M" is not far fetched. When I walk into my local Little Ceasers the pizza and everything else on the menu is sitting in warmers on display. I am there no more than 5 minutes. The requirement to have 2 seperate restrooms based on a OL of 15 or 30 is a big difference and I think the amount of time a customer spend in the facility is a factor. Take out is just that, get it and go, the customer is not as important a factor when calculating fixture loads for this type of business as the number of employees who will be there for hours.