A2 occupancy and fire sprinkler system

[spaceart]

There is a strip mall building with no fire sprinkler system that contains three restaurants, each with an occupancy load of fewer than 100. Each restaurant is enclosed by 2-hour rated walls. Does this setup comply with the building and fire codes? Are the 100 occupancy limit and 5000 square foot limit applicable to the entire building, or can they be considered separately if the spaces are divided by fire barriers? Thanks in advance.

 

[RLGA]

The need for fire sprinklers is based on three conditions:

1. Number of occupants.
2. Size of fire area.
3. Story level of the Group A-2 occupancy.

I'll address these in reverse order:

3. I assume this is a single story building, so this condition does not apply.​

2. With 2-hour fire barriers around each restuarant, each restaurant is considered a separate fire area. I assume the floor area within each restuarant is less than 5,000 sq. ft., so this condition would not trigger the installation of a fire sprinkler system.​

1. Since each restaurant is a fire area per #2 above, and you stated that the occupant load for each restaurant is less than 100, then this condition would also would not trigger the installation of a fire sprinkler system.​

​

To answer your question more directly, all conditions are based on fire area, which could mean an entire building or a portion of a building depending on how the building is divided using fire-resistive assemblies to create the fire areas.

 

[spaceart]

Thank you so much for your prompt answer! That’s what I thought—a fire barrier can define a fire area instead of requiring a fire wall from foundation up. I am happy with this answer.

The reason I asked this question is that I had a restaurant project in Aurora, CO. The restaurant owner planned to install a fire sprinkler system in the restaurant itself and use a 2-hour wall to separate it from the neighboring space. Although the building department approved this plan, the fire department insisted on sprinkling the entire building. In the end, the restaurant owner abandoned the project and lost a lot of money.

 

[spaceart]

I have another project underway—a former restaurant over 5000 square feet without a fire sprinkler system was briefly converted to an M occupancy. Since the kitchen remained untouched, a new restaurant owner now wants to reopen it as a restaurant. Due to the occupancy change, a sprinkler system is now required, which is unfortunate for the owner.

 

[mtlogcabin]

Although the building department approved this plan, the fire department insisted on sprinkling the entire building.

Who determined that the Fire Department had the authority to require more than what the building code required?
The Fire Department is not authorized to issue or require building permits. They are authorized to issue construction permits for 25 specific systems/items.

901.4.3 Fire areas.
Where buildings, or portions thereof, are divided into fire areas so as not to exceed the limits established for requiring a fire protection system in accordance with this chapter, such fire areas shall be separated by fire barriers constructed in accordance with Section 707 of the International Building Code or horizontal assemblies constructed in accordance with Section 711 of the International Building Code, or both, having a fire-resistance rating of not less than that determined in accordance with Section 707.3.10 of the International Building Code.

903.2 Where required.
Approved automatic sprinkler systems in new buildings and structures shall be provided in the locations described in Sections 903.2.1 through 903.2.12.

and lost a lot of money.

He should sue the Fire Department and the city for his losses because of them exceeding their authority.

 

[spaceart]

Who determined that the Fire Department had the authority to require more than what the building code required?
The Fire Department is not authorized to issue or require building permits. They are authorized to issue construction permits for 25 specific systems/items.

901.4.3 Fire areas.
Where buildings, or portions thereof, are divided into fire areas so as not to exceed the limits established for requiring a fire protection system in accordance with this chapter, such fire areas shall be separated by fire barriers constructed in accordance with Section 707 of the International Building Code or horizontal assemblies constructed in accordance with Section 711 of the International Building Code, or both, having a fire-resistance rating of not less than that determined in accordance with Section 707.3.10 of the International Building Code.

903.2 Where required.
Approved automatic sprinkler systems in new buildings and structures shall be provided in the locations described in Sections 903.2.1 through 903.2.12.


He should sue the Fire Department and the city for his losses because of them exceeding their authority.

Unfortunately, if a fire dept doesn't approve the plans, the building dept wouldn't issue the permit.

 

[steveray]

I have another project underway—a former restaurant over 5000 square feet without a fire sprinkler system was briefly converted to an M occupancy. Since the kitchen remained untouched, a new restaurant owner now wants to reopen it as a restaurant. Due to the occupancy change, a sprinkler system is now required, which is unfortunate for the owner.

Yep...tough choice to give up an A as it is generally much harder to get back.....

 

[mtlogcabin]

Unfortunately, if a fire dept doesn't approve the plans, the building dept wouldn't issue the permit.

The issue is the Fire Department was wrong in their decision and they need to be educated on that issue. The building code and the fire code say the same thing with regards to Fire Areas and not requiring a fire suppression system. A fire suppression system was not required by either code. Therefore the building department should have issued the permit because there was no requirement for a fire suppression system be installed in the entire building only the Fire Area.

A lot of Fire Departments see the term "installed throughout" in the NFPA 13 standards and think it overrides the building code. It doesn't, the building code always overrides a standard.

A] 102.4.1 Conflicts.
Where conflicts occur between provisions of this code and referenced codes and standards, the provisions of this code shall apply.

[A] 102.4.2 Provisions in referenced codes and standards.
Where the extent of the reference to a referenced code or standard includes subject matter that is within the scope of this code or the International Codes listed in Section 101.4, the provisions of this code or the International Codes listed in Section 101.4, as applicable, shall take precedence over the provisions in the referenced code or standard.

You should have started with the IEBC to determine if a fire suppression system was required for that project.

1011.1.1.2 Change of occupancy classification with separation.
Where a portion of an existing building is changed to a new occupancy classification or where there is a change of occupancy within a space where there is a different fire protection system threshold requirement in Chapter 9 of the International Building Code, and that portion is separated from the remainder of the building with fire barriers having a fire-resistance rating as required in the International Building Code for the separate occupancy, that portion shall comply with all of the requirements of Chapter 9 of this code for the new occupancy classification and with the requirements of this chapter.

 

[spaceart]

Yes, the issue with the second restaurant is that it was temporarily changed to an M occupancy for a few months. Now, as the owner wants to revert it back to a restaurant, the city considers it a change of occupancy, which means a fire sprinkler system is required, even though the kitchen remained unchanged. I tried to persuade the city to grant a waiver, but I was unsuccessful.

 

[steveray]

Did they actually issue a C of O for the M use?

 

[mtlogcabin]

it was temporarily changed to an M occupancy for a few months.

Why was it a temporary M occupancy? Was it a seasonal use?

 

[spaceart]

The M business was shut down by state regulations because they failed to meet certain requirements.

 

[spaceart]

Did they actually issue a C of O for the M use?

Yes, there is a C of O for M and F1 use.

 

[mtlogcabin]

The M business was shut down by state regulations because they failed to meet certain requirements.

If they where required to get state approval for the use and the state would not grant approval then the permit and CO where issued in error and should be revoked.

[A] 105.6 Suspension or revocation.
The building official is authorized to suspend or revoke a permit issued under the provisions of this code wherever the permit is issued in error or on the basis of incorrect, inaccurate or incomplete information, or in violation of any ordinance or regulation or any of the provisions of this code.

[A] 111.1 Change of occupancy.
A building or structure shall not be used or occupied, and a change of occupancy of a building or structure or portion thereof shall not be made, until the building official has issued a certificate of occupancy therefor as provided herein. Issuance of a certificate of occupancy shall not be construed as an approval of a violation of the provisions of this code or of other ordinances of the jurisdiction.

[A] 111.4 Revocation.
The building official is authorized to, in writing, suspend or revoke a certificate of occupancy or completion issued under the provisions of this code wherever the certificate is issued in error, or on the basis of incorrect information supplied, or where it is determined that the building or structure or portion thereof is in violation of any ordinance or regulation or any of the provisions of this code.

 

[steveray]

If they where required to get state approval for the use and the state would not grant approval then the permit and CO where issued in error and should be revoked.

[A] 105.6 Suspension or revocation.
The building official is authorized to suspend or revoke a permit issued under the provisions of this code wherever the permit is issued in error or on the basis of incorrect, inaccurate or incomplete information, or in violation of any ordinance or regulation or any of the provisions of this code.

[A] 111.1 Change of occupancy.
A building or structure shall not be used or occupied, and a change of occupancy of a building or structure or portion thereof shall not be made, until the building official has issued a certificate of occupancy therefor as provided herein. Issuance of a certificate of occupancy shall not be construed as an approval of a violation of the provisions of this code or of other ordinances of the jurisdiction.

[A] 111.4 Revocation.
The building official is authorized to, in writing, suspend or revoke a certificate of occupancy or completion issued under the provisions of this code wherever the certificate is issued in error, or on the basis of incorrect information supplied, or where it is determined that the building or structure or portion thereof is in violation of any ordinance or regulation or any of the provisions of this code.

Thats some out of the box stuff right there....I've never thought of pulling an "incorrect" CO to make it easier on the next guy.....

 

[mtlogcabin]

We can't issue permits unless the state approves access to the site if it accesses of of their highway, DEQ approves the water and sewer main installations, can't issue a CO unless the state approves the alcohol license to go with the business.

In this case it is not the intent to make it "easier" on the next guy. It is to correct an error, it does not matter who made the error, the fact remains it did not meet all the local, state or federal laws that applied to the use or location.

Since the kitchen remained untouched, a new restaurant owner now wants to reopen it as a restaurant.

If the kitchen equipment had been removed then I would probably jump into the box with you.