A use group or B use group

[Big Mac]

PermitGuy - I may owe you an apology. I missed the posting by logcabin suggesting an 'M' use. I am going to assume you were responding to him and not me. My bad.

Put succinctly, if the overall occupant load of the space is less than 50 it should be considered a 'B' occupancy. That is however different that the actual uses inside the space where the occupant load (number of occupants) should be considered based on the accual use of each area within the space.

Remember just because the occupant load of the space is less than 50, it doesn't necessarily mean that two exits are not required. Common pathof travel could still be an issue.

 

[gbhammer]

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

I have to agree that a Little Cesar’s would fit in the M use group category, and would most definitely allow one to be classified that way so that one bathroom would be all that is required.

 

[brudgers]

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.

The commentary offers a single interpretation of the code. Nothing more.

Nothing less.

The only justification it offers for using occupant load rather than determining the number of occupants, is consistency (aka "convenience").

It is absurd to interpret the code as if people will be crowded at one per seven feet when determining fixture count.

It's not a concert hall where people will be spending and evening and there will be a rush at intermissions.

Instead, people are spending five to fifteen minutes waiting to pick up food.

Again, more restrooms realistically means less time cleaning each one.

And that leads to an actual public health hazard.

Never mind that if the owner installs one small table in the pickup area, occupant load drops to 1/15 square feet.

Stop the dance party.

 

[brudgers]

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.

Sensibly, NFPA uses M for restaurants with occupant loads under 50.

 

[Big Mac]

Brudgers, your opinions seem to vary like the wind. One minute you can give no creadence to the Commentary, you must use the building code and building code language. Now since the Building Code doesn't give you the answer you want, we should use NFPA. The fact is that code language stipulates that occupancies used for assembly purposes, with an occupant load of less than 50 should be classified as 'B' occupancies. Section 303.1, exception #1.

This is something that the building code specifically addresses.

 

[brudgers]

Brudgers, your opinions seem to vary like the wind. One minute you can give no creadence to the Commentary, you must use the building code and building code language. Now since the Building Code doesn't give you the answer you want, we should use NFPA. The fact is that code language stipulates that occupancies used for assembly purposes, with an occupant load of less than 50 should be classified as 'B' occupancies. Section 303.1, exception #1. This is something that the building code specifically addresses.

I wasn't suggesting applying NFPA to this situation. Or that this was in any way a group M occupancy.

Instead, as always, I am suggesting that the NFPA is a far better set of codes than the IBC.

For example, it recognizes that restaurants are a different hazard than group B, and that the occupant loads of small restaurants are also more similar to those of group M than group B.

Thus, if you put a restaurant in among a bunch of offices, occupancy separation comes into play.

Treating a small restaurant the same as a large meeting room is, IMO, stupid though consistent.

However, all that aside, the IBC does offer opportunity for a reasonable interpretation in this case.

It just breaks up the dance party.

 

[georgia plans exam]

I often use the exception to 1004.1.1 (2006 IBC) for plumbing fixture count. I think it is reasonable to use an occupancy load factor of 30 in this case.

GPE

 

[georgia plans exam]

Meaning, of course, for the pick up area.

GPE

 

[Papio Bldg Dept]

I often use the exception to 1004.1.1 (2006 IBC) for plumbing fixture count. I think it is reasonable to use an occupancy load factor of 30 in this case.GPE

1004.1.1 has been a huge help in achieving Milton's first rule for me...of course, I still spend half of my review time discussing with the RDP how to use this Section of Chapter 10.

 

[Codegeek]

Sensibly, NFPA uses M for restaurants with occupant loads under 50.

Brudgers, is that NFPA 1 or 101 and which edition?

This might help my argument for fixture counts to stay at one for the tenant space as well as meet egress requirements.

Common path of travel is met with one MOE, but we've provided two.

 

[imhotep]

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.

Conflating having to pee with ability to flee is just asinine.

 

[permitguy]

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

So they adopt the codes in their entirety without making any amendments? A law is a law. Regardless of who implemented it, there is a process to change it. You could change it at the national level through ICC, you could vote legislators who disagree out of office, you could raise public awareness against it (the state Chamber of Commerce would probably love to see it change), etc.

If the occupant load which requires two restrooms is too low, or if there should be some time factor included, or if there should be some exception to allow building official discretion, then take the proper steps to change the law. Don't start calling it something that it isnt as a work-around. That's all I'm saying.

Honestly, I don't FEEL they need two restrooms for this scenario. Last time I checked, the way I FEEL has little to do with what the code requirements are.

 

[cda]

Put in fixed seats and go by the number of fixed seats in the waiting area???

 

[gbhammer]

So they adopt the codes in their entirety without making any amendments? A law is a law. Regardless of who implemented it, there is a process to change it. You could change it at the national level through ICC, you could vote legislators who disagree out of office, you could raise public awareness against it (the state Chamber of Commerce would probably love to see it change), etc. If the occupant load which requires two restrooms is too low, or if there should be some time factor included, or if there should be some exception to allow building official discretion, then take the proper steps to change the law. Don't start calling it something that it isnt as a work-around. That's all I'm saying.

Honestly, I don't FEEL they need two restrooms for this scenario. Last time I checked, the way I FEEL has little to do with what the code requirements are.

Yep. :agree I also can very easily see the M use group logic when it comes to hot n ready little Caesar stores. That does not mean that every little restaurant delivery place has their product prepared, on display, and ready to sell instantly to the customer. Most make you wait if you’re a walk in customer, and if you have the room for more than fifteen people and employees to be waiting around then two bathrooms are required.

 

[FM William Burns]

Agree with B but 101 would call it a M

 

[Big Mac]

Structures, or portions of structures, shall be classified with respect to occupancy in one or more of the groups listed below. Section 302.1"Or more", accounts for spaces where there are different uses or occupancies in the same space or building. In Table 2902.1, they also have varying requirements based on the various uses (occupancies) that may be housed in the same structure or portion of structure.

If you use the assembly requiremnts for the assembly portion, which is likely the most restrictive, then the requirements for the remainder of the space is likely to be satisfied. However, that may not be the case if the Group B portion, or the potential Group M portion is considerable larger than the Group A portion.