another bowling alley ?

[BSSTG]

Greetings all,

So we have a bowling alley that was built in 1967. It's always been a bowling alley although it has been closed up a few years. Building const. would be IIA, no sprinklers. The place is being renovated and it will effectively have the same usage; bowling, game area, small cafe and bar for burgers and beer etc. Addtionally the building has been effectively gutted except for the lanes. Originally there were 16 lanes and they are cutting back to 10 lanes and adding more arcade area.

09 Codes apply here. Would you require it to have sprinklers since there is no real change of usage? One of my code guru buds says yes. I'm inclined to disagree since there is no appreciable change of usage other than the swap for 6 lanes for arcade. His thoughts are that they have added the arcade area which means change of usage. I'm having a hard time with that.

I might add that this town is sorely needing amusement. There is a real possibility that I could get stoned to death if I kill this deal. And I mean rocks not pot!

You all have a wonderful day!

BS

 

[fatboy]

Was the bar/grill a previous use? If not, the sprinklers could be an issue. Otherwise, I'd agree, not a change of use for code purposes.

 

[Examiner]

Still Assembly in all cases as I see it. Change of use has not occurred. However, what does you ordinances and code changes state about buildings closed up for more than 6-months? Some Cities have amendments to their Codes for buildings that are vacant for so long.

 

[globe trekker]

BSSTG,

Agree with Examiner! No real change of use, ...still an A-3! What is the square footage of

the new bar/cafe area? Also, ask your "code guru buds" to provide you with the code

sections that would require sprinkling, ..even if it is your AHJ ordinances.

 

[RLGA]

My interpretation would be probably yes, they are required. This would be considered an alteration.

IBC Section 3404.1 states, "Except as provided by Section 3401.4 or this section, alterations to any building or structure shall comply with the requirements of the code for new construction." If the building would be required sprinkleres per Section 903.2.1, which I think it would, then a sprinkler system is required, whether they existed previously or not. There are no exceptions for sprinkler systems in Section 3401.4 or in Section 3404.1.

If The IEBC is used, the Prescriptive Compliance Method is very similar to Chapter 34 of the IBC, as described above, and would likely require sprinklers. If the Work Area Compliance Method is used, then this would be considered a Level 3 Alteration, which, in Section 804.1, requires compliance with Section 704.2. Section 704.2 requires sprinkler systems in Group A occupancies (among other occupancies) if three conditions exist: 1) the work area is required to be sprinklered per the IBC, 2) the work area exceeds 50% of the floor area, and 3) there is sufficient municipal water supply.

I think conditions #1 and #2 are applicable to this project, but only the city can verify #3. Therefore, sprinklers are probably likely with this method, too.

 

[Mac]

If the newly "repurposed" arcade area is an A3, and the OL is over 100, then...

 

[mtlogcabin]

I agree with RLGA but I must add the other option under the IEBC is using CHAPTER 13

PERFORMANCE COMPLIANCE METHODS. I believe if the design proffessional follows this a sprinkler system may not be required. You may have to install automatic fire detection and notification systems as a "trade off" when trying to meet the point system.

Remember something in chapter 34 or the IEBC has to send you to chapter 9 of the IBC before you can require a sprinkler system be installed in an existing building.

 

[RLGA]

The Performance Compliance Method (Compliance Alternatives in the IBC) is typically acceptable for buildings constructed prior to the initial adoption of a building code in the jurisdiction.

Per IEBC Section 1301.2 (Section 3412.2 of the IBC), the jurisdiction is supposed to identify a date that permits buildings constructed prior to that date to use the scoring process provided by this method. According to the commentary for the IEBC, "The date that construction was first regulated through a comprehensive building code in the jurisdiction is recommended because buildings predating any building regulationare often not equipped with the types of systems and features that modern codes require."

 

[mtlogcabin]

I forgot about that section since we do not use it.

We allow the section to be used for all buildings we do not have original construction drawings for. A major flood in the records storage room resulted in a loss of about 18 years worth of plans and permits.

1967 may work if your city did not have an adopted building code at that time or it was not in the city limits at the time it was constructed.

Until 2001, Texas (as a state) had not adopted a building code but municipalities were and did adopt one of the various building codes to guide their construction and inspectors. In 2001 the State of Texas adopted the IBC codes, most specifically the IRC (International Residential Code) and the NEC (National Electric Code) for all areas of Texas. Until this time, the unincorporated areas of the State effectively had no code requirements. This rule covers all of Texas

http://www.tpreia.com/historyofcodes.html

 

[Frank]

The answer here would be in the the administrative sections adopted in your jurisdiction.

Is there a significant increase in hazard or occupant load?

If not then I would say it is an existing condition and pay attention to adequate exits.

 

[Big Mac]

Event hough there may not be a change in Type of Use, there sure seems to be a change in the intnesity of the use. Larger occupant load, perhaps a larger restaurant/bar area. You need to take a close look at this. if for example the bar area previously had a occupant load of 40 and now has an occupant load of 75, it has gone from a Group B to a Group A-2. If the Group A-2 is over 100, Sprinklers