Assembly alteration?

[FM William Burns]

Scenario: National Chain Fast Food Restaurant conducting a Level 2 Alteration via addition and reconfiguration of existing play area adding additional dining area.



Question 1: Does the addition and reconfiguration increasing the occupant load above 100 call for sprinklers now since it is an A-2?



Question 2: Does 3401.5 to 704.2.2 [2] trump the sprinklers because the area of work does not exceed 50% of the floor area?



We have one permitting now and just wondering if this is their out for sprinklers.

 

[gbhammer]

I believe they have to meet all three of the items listed in IEBC 704.2.2 to kick in the requirement for the sprinkler

 

[mtlogcabin]

Agree all 3 have to be met

shall be provided with automatic sprinkler protection where all of the following conditions occur:

 

[FM William Burns]

Thanks guys! That's what I thought but wanted to let the new administrator know how they get out of the sprinkler requirement when additions and alterations are made.

 

[steveray]

If they are crossing the 100 person threshold as part of the addition, I would have to take a closer look at that.....otherwise they could just keep doing small additions and never sprinkler?....Sounds funny to me....

 

[mtlogcabin]

Where is the code section that states that?

 

[steveray]

Didn't have one MT.....or I would have put it....just seems a little funny that you can add 99 people at a time forever and not have sprinklers....

 

[mtlogcabin]

Yes it does but the code allows the increase without requiring sprinklers.

This is a hard subject to grasp about when to sprinkler an existing building and when not and the IEBC seems to jump you all over the codes to try and find an answer.

It would be easy to overlook a specific requirement

 

[FM William Burns]

Sounds funny to me....

Yea me too at first but got to thinking there had to be a catch. The OL for the existing building is >100 but less than the old 300, so I guess they are good to go to 300 or keep adding increments <50%of the floor area.

Hypothetically speaking....how is it viewed when they get over the original occupant threshold of 300 from a legacy code? Do they still get a free pass of sprinklers?

 

[gbhammer]

You can maybe take the stance that if they have no separation, or more realistically if the space is open to the new addition, then the existing floor space/sq. footage is affectively apart of the level 2 alteration.

The arguments I have heard or seen always kind of go like this: "If you put a wall just off the middle of a space to create a new office area then how do you figure the sq. footage of the alteration? The new office is just under 50% of the floor area, but was the old office area affected by the wall?"

 

[peach]

did you adopt the IEBC is the first question. If not you can't just randomly enforce it. I vote no sprinkler if the building was built when 300 was the magic sprinkler number.

 

[mtlogcabin]

did you adopt the IEBC is the first question. If not you can't just randomly enforce it. I vote no sprinkler if the building was built when 300 was the magic sprinkler number.

The IEBC is a more of a designers tool

He/she has 3 options to choose from it is not the BO choice as to which option shall be used

Even if the jurisdiction did not adopt the IEBC the IBC recoqnizes it as an alternate method of compliance to the IBC Chapter 34

3401.5 Alternative compliance.

Work performed in accordance with the International Existing Building Code shall be deemed to comply with the provisions of this chapter

 

[Yikes]

Does anyone know if IEBC 704.2.2 [2] has an equivalent in the California Existing Building Code (Chapter 34)?