Change of Occupancy vs Level 2 Alteration

[ACDC]

I am working on a small cafe tenant improvement project being reviewed under the 2018 IBC and 2018 IEBC, project is in Minnesota. Previous use was a cafe serving coffee, tea, and smoothies. New use is a cafe serving coffee, tea, smoothies, and sandwiches. Both uses are considered A-2 restaurant occupancy. I'm attaching a pdf of the existing and proposed plan. The only work involved is new kitchen equipment, new finishes, and relocating one wall.

I am considering this a Level 2 Alteration, but the code official is claiming this should be a change in occupancy and should require the addition of a second restroom. Code requires a second restroom for over 25 occupants. (Overkill in my opinion for such a small space). The additional seating area results in an additional 3 occupants for the space.

From the definitions section:
[A] CHANGE OF OCCUPANCY. A change in the use of a building or a portion of a building that results in any of the following:
1.A change of occupancy classification.
2.A change from one group to another group within an occupancy classification.
3.Any change in use within a group for which there is a change in application of the requirements of this code.

I am not seeing how the proposed scope of work would qualify for a change of occupancy.

From the IEBC Level 2 Alterations section:
809.1 Minimum fixtures.
Where the occupant load of the story is increased by more than 20 percent, plumbing fixtures for the story shall be provided in quantities specified in Minnesota Rules, Chapter 1305, based on the increased occupant load.

Previous occupancy = 25 3/25 = 12% increase in occupant load. Since we are increasing the occupant load by less than 20%, we should not be required to provide plumbing fixtures in quantities per IBC TABLE 2902.1

What am I missing here - am I wrong?

 

[RLGA]

It is not a change of occupancy for the following reasons:

1. There is no change of occupancy classification (it remains a Group A classification).
2. There is no change from one group to another within the same classification (it remains a Group A-2).
3. Nothing you are doing triggers the application of other requirements in the code. The original occupant load already exceeded the maximum 15 occupants for the single toilet facility exception, and the additional 3 occupants does not alter that fact--the project is grandfathered in under the previous code that allowed the single toilet facility. If the original occupant load was 13 and you added 3 occupants (i.e., more than a 20% increase) to make the total 16, then that would trigger the compliance for adding separate toilet facilities.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

By removing a wall, you are increasing the seating area and thereby increasing the occupant load. Your proposed plan says the occupant load of the dining area alone is "25 +/-". There are no plus or minus occupants, and the code says that any fractional occupant counts s are rounded up to the next whole integer. So 25.03 occupants is 26 occupants.

 

[ACDC]

By removing a wall, you are increasing the seating area and thereby increasing the occupant load. Your proposed plan says the occupant load of the dining area alone is "25 +/-". There are no plus or minus occupants, and the code says that any fractional occupant counts s are rounded up to the next whole integer. So 25.03 occupants is 26 occupants.

Yankee, I agree I am increasing the occupant load by relocating the wall. My "25+/- seats" note is misleading and is referring to number of seats provided, not actual occupancy calculated by the area. I am adding 3 additional occupants for a total of 28 (12% increase)

 

[ACDC]

It is not a change of occupancy for the following reasons:

1. There is no change of occupancy classification (it remains a Group A classification).
2. There is no change from one group to another within the same classification (it remains a Group A-2).
3. Nothing you are doing triggers the application of other requirements in the code. The original occupant load already exceeded the maximum 15 occupants for the single toilet facility exception, and the additional 3 occupants does not alter that fact--the project is grandfathered in under the previous code that allowed the single toilet facility. If the original occupant load was 13 and you added 3 occupants (i.e., more than a 20% increase) to make the total 16, then that would trigger the compliance for adding separate toilet facilities.

Thank you sir. Your explanation of point 3 is very helpful, I will use that in my argument with the reviewer.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

Yankee, I agree I am increasing the occupant load by relocating the wall. My "25+/- seats" note is misleading and is referring to number of seats provided, not actual occupancy calculated by the area. I am adding 3 additional occupants for a total of 28 (12% increase)

How did you arrive at that number? It doesn't appear correct to me. Even if it is correct, an increase of even three is an increase, which could justify triggering condition #3 of the definition of "Change of Occupancy."

 

[steveray]

By removing a wall, you are increasing the seating area and thereby increasing the occupant load. Your proposed plan says the occupant load of the dining area alone is "25 +/-". There are no plus or minus occupants, and the code says that any fractional occupant counts s are rounded up to the next whole integer. So 25.03 occupants is 26 occupants.

But still not a 20% increase.....

I might call it a COO (because of the addition of cooking I assume), but I would likely try not to as the energy code basically makes it infeasible....

 

[Tim Mailloux]

the code says that any fractional occupant counts s are rounded up to the next whole integer.

where exactly does the code say this?

 

[steveray]

where exactly does the code say this?

He may be speaking of bathroom stuff specifically:
[P] 2902.1.1 Fixture Calculations
To determine the occupant load of each sex, the total occupant load shall be divided in half. To determine the required number of fixtures, the fixture ratio or ratios for each fixture type shall be applied to the occupant load of each sex in accordance with Table 2902.1. Fractional numbers resulting from applying the fixture ratios of Table 2902.1 shall be rounded up to the next whole number. For calculations involving multiple occupancies, such fractional numbers for each occupancy shall first be summed and then rounded up to the next whole number.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

where exactly does the code say this?

Nowhere in chapter 10 does the IBC says that, exactly. I've been a licensed architect for 50 years and also licensed as a building official for 30 years. That's the way I have always seen it taught and seen it enforced. While section 2902.1.1 (which is repeated in IPC 403.1.1) it does say to round up, I believe that's talking about rounding up the fixture numbers, not the occupant load numbers.

Nonetheless, fractional occupants have always been rounded up, not down. In my entire half century of doing this, the first time I ever encountered someone saying they round down was a post by RLGA on this site a day or two ago.

 

[RLGA]

But still not a 20% increase.....

I might call it a COO (because of the addition of cooking I assume), but I would likely try not to as the energy code basically makes it infeasible....

I agree about the 20% part.

However, #3 specifically states a "change in use within a group for which there is a change in application of the requirements of this code." "This code" refers to the IEBC and not the IBC. As a Group A-2, it is automatically assumed cooking would likely occur. Therefore, adding cooking equipment to an existing Group A-2 does not change the application of the IEBC, unless IEBC Sections 1008.1, 1009.2, and 1009.3 apply regarding kitchen ventilation, plumbing in food-handling establishments, and interceptors, respectively. Since the change in use only involves the addition of preparing sandwiches, I doubt any of these apply if they did not already exist. Yes, the installation of any equipment must comply with the requirements for new construction, but that does not change the application of the IEBC on the project--all new work, regardless of type, is automatically required to comply with the provisions for new construction per IEBC Section 302.5 (some exceptions do apply for repairs and alterations).

This example shows what #3 is trying to accomplish: A Group B office building is converted into a Group B ambulatory care facility. That example is a more direct and obvious application (especially since Section 1002.1 explicitly requires changes from any occupancy into ambulatory care facilities to be considered a change of occupancy and comply with the IBC).

However, a change in use subject to #3 could be more subtle, such as changing an office storage room within a Group B occupancy (considered part of the Group B occupancy per IBC Section 311.1.1) into a new office. The new office (i.e., a new use within a Group B occupancy, but not a new classification) must comply with the IBC light and ventilation requirements per IEBC Sections 1008.1 and 1010.1.

 

[steveray]

I don't believe that A2 assumes cooking as in a nightclub or bar do not necessarily/ typically have them....

For the OP purposes, I may agree with you (under 2018), but #2 is where it's at as clarified in 2021:

[A] CHANGE OF OCCUPANCY. Any of the following shall be considered as a change of occupancy where the current International Building Code requires a greater degree of safety, accessibility, structural strength, fire protection, means of egress, ventilation or sanitation than is existing in the current building or structure:

1. Any change in the occupancy classification of a building or structure.
2. Any change in the purpose of, or a change in the level of activity within, a building or structure.
3. A change of use.

 

[RLGA]

I wouldn't say I like that definition. What constitutes a "change in level of activity"?

Is the situation where a conference room, which was previously used only for monthly staff meetings, is planned to be used for weekly staff professional development educational sessions considered a "change in level of activity"? One could easily interpret it that way.

In my opinion, Group A-2 is for food and/or drink consumption--it could be one, the other, or both. Just because you add a little more of one and not the other should not be a massive trigger that throws the project into a whole other level of building code compliance. Adding a simple item such as sandwiches to a menu should not push the owner into extensive remodeling under the color of "Code compliance." Reasonable and common sense interpretation of the code needs to take place. Think of the intent of the code--would adding sandwiches to the menu really impact life safety? Maybe it does from a health department perspective, but not a building department perspective.

 

[steveray]

I wouldn't say I like that definition. What constitutes a "change in level of activity"?

Whatever I say........touch the badge feel the power.....

I am kidding a bit....I know it when I see it? Introducing cooking to an A2? Start painting cars in a repair garage? Add a fryolator to a cookline with just an oven?......At some point the BO needs to have and use judgement....The word "approved" is used 771 times in the 2024 IBC.....And that means approved by me so you better trust my judgement or at least be able to discuss and come to an agreement...

used only for monthly staff meetings, is planned to be used for weekly staff professional development educational sessions considered a "change in level of activity"? One could easily interpret it that way.

Both are B (or B/A) I don't care....

Ron, there are a lot of changes to COO....But if the use does not actually change, it is not really that big of a deal......Remember, 1011 is all built on hazard change or thresholds, which in the sandwich example there likely isn't other than maybe cooking so maybe a hood and ANSUL that would end up there anyway as "new".

The biggie is really this POS that they put in the energy code which i think got fixed in 2024:https://up.codes/viewer/connecticut/iecc-2021/chapter/CE_5/ce-existing-buildings#C505.1

C505.1 General
Spaces undergoing a change in occupancy that would result in an increase in demand for either fossil fuel or electrical energy shall comply with this code. Where the use in a space changes from one use in Table C405.3.2(1) or C405.3.2(2) to another use in Table C405.3.2(1) or C405.3.2(2), the installed lighting wattage shall comply with Section C405.3. Where the space undergoing a change in occupancy or use is in a building with a fenestration area that exceeds the limitations of Section C402.4.1, the space is exempt from Section C402.4.1 provided that there is not an increase in fenestration area.

 

[RLGA]

I agree on the IECC small trigger/big impact issue.

However, IEBC Section 1011 applies only when there is a change in classification. A "change in use" COO (i.e., it does not involve a change of occupancy classification) only requires compliance with Chapter 6 (2021 IEBC; Chapter 5 in the 2018 edition) and IEBC Sections 1002 through 1010 per IEBC Section 1001.2.1. Since the OP's project does not involve a change of occupancy classification, IEBC Section 1011 does not apply.

What also bothers me about the 2021 IEBC is the added definition of change of use. Not the addition of the term itself, but the wording of the definition. Instead of "this code" that was used in the 2018 IEBC definition for change of occupancy, the change of use definition states "the code." Which code!? If "the code" includes the entirety of the codes adopted by the jurisdiction, then any minor change could bring in a whole slew of code compliance items the owner must contend with which otherwise would have been grandfathered.

 

[ACDC]

Good discussion here, I really appreciate all the comments. They are helpful as I craft my argument to the code official. FWIW, I am waiting to hear back from the reviewer and I think his issue is not with adding sandwiches to the menu, but rather that adding the additional area & increasing occupant count constitutes a "change in application of the requirements of this code." Also, the only cooking appliance being added is a convection oven that does not require an exhaust hood.

Another thought I've been having is that the existence of IEBC 809.1 under Level 2 Alterations implies that there are certain situations where you will increase the occupant count without triggering a change of occupancy. Otherwise they would not have written section 809.1 at all. It seems to me that this is the type of situation the section was written for.

Also agree with RLGA that the new 2021 COO definition does not seem any clearer than the previous to me!

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

Is the situation where a conference room, which was previously used only for monthly staff meetings, is planned to be used for weekly staff professional development educational sessions considered a "change in level of activity"? One could easily interpret it that way.

Correctly.