• Welcome to the new and improved Building Code Forum. We appreciate you being here and hope that you are getting the information that you need concerning all codes of the building trades. This is a free forum to the public due to the generosity of the Sawhorses, Corporate Supporters and Supporters who have upgraded their accounts. If you would like to have improved access to the forum please upgrade to Sawhorse by first logging in then clicking here: Upgrades

Change of Use?

C

Chad Pasquini

Registered User
Joined
Nov 4, 2009
Messages
211
Existing movie theatre, wanting to provide an expanded menu for concessions, including beer & wine. Occupancy Group A-1 for existing, would you call this a change of use because of adding beer and wine to an A-2? if so would require a fire sprinkler system, however the building is listed as historic, so now a fire alarm system? mind you, this came at me within a week with an opening per applicant of 4/20, as he already signed an agreement for film festival. This project has morphed so many times it is hard to keep track of what applicant really intends to do. Building shows application to sell beer and wine with a type 41 license, restaurant? your thoughts are appreciated.
 
I am thinking only if they have a separate dining/ drinking area!!!

Fantastic question!!!!

I go to one of these all the time and never thought about it before. The one I go to has a very small dining drinking area. I take it more for waiting area for the movie or for some to get a few drinks before they are dragged to a lousy movie.
 
Very good question......I would really have to do some digging on that one. Gut says yes, but seems unreasonable.....Level of eating and drinking would be very important to know..
 
CBC section 508.3.1 Nonseparated occupancy's the most restrictive shall apply per chapt. 9. mtlogcabin, i have been all over the codes day and night on this one.Good observation:) applicant was going to change seating using a recliner and remove every other row, now with (Planning Director) all on board with project and type 41 beer and wine license going smoothly, applicant is keeping existing seating. Occupant load is 430 he proposed 239. Oh i might add applicant informed me that previous tenant did not remove any of the seats, not a true statement as previous tenant removed all balcony seats. so now i have a balcony with no seats and beer and wine for everyone. Oh and applicant states no changes now as i requested he submit plans for tenant improvement. I have done my research and not all agree with me, i was hoping for more of a (That is How i Interpret The Code) from others more localized. It is a Change of Occupancy in my eyes. Now i get to inform applicant, but just want to give city manager a heads up first
 
You are using the building code when you should be using the Existing Building Code.

Chapter 9 Automatic Sprinkler Systems Section 903.2 Where required is for new buildings. Not existing buildings or for change of use unless you can find language somewhere in the code directing you to Chapter 9.

It is a difficult to navigate at times.

1001.3 Change of occupancy classification.

Where the occupancy classification of a building changes, the provisions of Sections 1002 through 1012 shall apply. This includes a change of occupancy classification within a group as well as a change of occupancy classification from one group to a different group.

1001.3.1 Partial change of occupancy classification.

Where a portion of an existing building is changed to a new occupancy classification, Section 1012 shall apply.

1012.2.1 Fire sprinkler system.

Where a change in occupancy classification occurs that requires an automatic fire sprinkler system to be provided based on the new occupancy in accordance with Chapter 9 of the International Building Code, such system shall be provided throughout the area where the change of occupancy occurs.

I would argue the main use is still a movie theater A-1 use and not an A-2 use simply because there is beer and wine being served. All movie theaters serve food and drinks for consumption and we do not classify them as an A-2 because the main purpose is viewing a movie not eating or drinking.
 
You are using the building code when you should be using the Existing Building Code.Chapter 9 Automatic Sprinkler Systems Section 903.2 Where required is for new buildings. Not existing buildings or for change of use unless you can find language somewhere in the code directing you to Chapter 9.

It is a difficult to navigate at times.

1001.3 Change of occupancy classification.

Where the occupancy classification of a building changes, the provisions of Sections 1002 through 1012 shall apply. This includes a change of occupancy classification within a group as well as a change of occupancy classification from one group to a different group.

1001.3.1 Partial change of occupancy classification.

Where a portion of an existing building is changed to a new occupancy classification, Section 1012 shall apply.

1012.2.1 Fire sprinkler system.

Where a change in occupancy classification occurs that requires an automatic fire sprinkler system to be provided based on the new occupancy in accordance with Chapter 9 of the International Building Code, such system shall be provided throughout the area where the change of occupancy occurs.

I would argue the main use is still a movie theater A-1 use and not an A-2 use simply because there is beer and wine being served. All movie theaters serve food and drinks for consumption and we do not classify them as an A-2 because the main purpose is viewing a movie not eating or drinking.
Click to expand...
Agree!!!.....
 
CBC section 508.3.1 Nonseparated occupancy's the most restrictive shall apply per chapt. 9. mtlogcabin' date=' i have been all over the codes day and night on this one.Good observation:) applicant was going to change seating using a recliner and remove every other row, now with (Planning Director) all on board with project and type 41 beer and wine license going smoothly, applicant is keeping existing seating. Occupant load is 430 he proposed 239. Oh i might add applicant informed me that previous tenant did not remove any of the seats, not a true statement as previous tenant removed all balcony seats. so now i have a balcony with no seats and beer and wine for everyone. Oh and applicant states no changes now as i requested he submit plans for tenant improvement. I have done my research and not all agree with me, i was hoping for more of a (That is How i Interpret The Code) from others more localized. It is a Change of Occupancy in my eyes. Now i get to inform applicant, but just want to give city manager a heads up first[/quote']Not sure what part of California you are in,

But if you go to Dodger or insert your favorite adult sports facility it is sometimes a A-5....

Just because they sell adult beverages in the seating area does not make it a A-2.

Once again great question. Never thought about it before. Have done where there are actual two separate occupancys
Click to expand...
 
CBC Chapter 34 Section 3408. Sorry guys i do not have a lot of time on my hands as i am a one person dept. and we are slammed, of course that does not include this project. the above section applies for me. I do have the complete backing of fire chief. Are the codes left to interpretation - you bet. but when i have a building that did not serve beer before and now is proposing to, that is a change - sloping floors, dimly lighted areas, 450 peaple, and the applicant over and over telling me he cannot make the business work as a theatre, unliess he can serve beer and wine, he wants a bar not a theatre. I will error on the side of safety for this one.
 
I go to one of these all the time

The drinkers are in the minority and have not seen anyone falling down drunk.

So are you going to treat every place that sells alcohol as a A-2????
 
And not sure what kind of seats added or left or changed matters.

I like the recliners in the one I go to.
 
CDA, what i am most concerned with, we are a college town, very small but have a saturation of bar/tavern within a two to three block area, the applicant has stated the theatre will not survive without beer and wine, he has morphed his plans so many times, and whether it being a planning road block or building, changes at the drop of a dime. why does the code leave out alcohol for A-1? but appears in an A-2? looks like a change to me. i am all about development/ keeping business's open and thriving, but they should be compliant. We have a theatre that remodled 7 years ago that is thriving, they have live music, comedy shows, the whole bit, guess what they did, yep they added a fire sprinkler system, now new applicant has made statements to local paper and radio shows that he will be providing some of these same features. I have kept all paper clippings of what he is telling them and when we meet it is a different story. Man, i really did not see this kind of response coming from this group.
 
Just never thought about the mixed use before.

As someone else stated the major use is a theater.

I was just seeing what the consistency test would bring. As long as you call another business a A-2, than you are being consistent.

Yes I would get everything documented on this one, so you can walk in and say hey you are doing something outside the scope of what has been documented.

And the same goes for any occupancy, if they are doing an accessory occupancy, the entire building is not that occupancy.
 
It is not the serving of alcohol that determines an A-2 use. It is "Assembly uses intended for food and/or drink consumption including, but not limited to:" The intended use is a theater when the revenue from the sale of food and drink exceeds the admission revenue then I would agree you have a reason to believe the intended use has changed. Being a college town/area I totally understand your concerns and wanting to CYA especially with that large of an OL.

We had one of these 30 years ago when I lived in Ft Lauderdale. Pizza, hot dogs, nachos,beer and soda was all I remember on the menu. Closed down after about a year.
 
CDA' date=' what i am most concerned with, we are a college town, very small but have a saturation of bar/tavern within a two to three block area, the applicant has stated the theatre will not survive without beer and wine, he has morphed his plans so many times, and whether it being a planning road block or building, changes at the drop of a dime. why does the code leave out alcohol for A-1? but appears in an A-2? looks like a change to me. i am all about development/ keeping business's open and thriving, but they should be compliant. We have a theatre that remodled 7 years ago that is thriving, they have live music, comedy shows, the whole bit, guess what they did, yep they added a fire sprinkler system, now new applicant has made statements to local paper and radio shows that he will be providing some of these same features. I have kept all paper clippings of what he is telling them and when we meet it is a different story. Man, i really did not see this kind of response coming from this group.[/quote']I have been a lone wolf before ,

Code has to mean this.

Sometimes I am right, most of the time wrong
Click to expand...
 
Thanks cda, have not called ICC, but have checked with County BO,funny he had already heard of the priject and my interpretation, he said he did not have an issue with my interp, but also said could go the other way. I also checked with my outside plan check company, pretty much same response, i guess if you do not have to deal with it, you really do not look to closely at it.? There is always the possibility for applicant to appeal my decision. I totally agree with your lone wolf response, with my last post i had written ( wow i must not be very good at my job) with how the responses were coming back, but i deleted it:)
 
  • Like
Reactions: keh
Well even though the book is in black and white,,, but is not clear all the time,, sometimes seems like all colors.

Just need to use common sense and be consistent with th calls. If you do it this way today, make sure you do it the same way in the future.
 
Had them too in my old jurisdiction in south Florida and they didn't last for more than 5 years in addition to the "Dogs & Suds" laundry and food and beer. The changes in "all" the codes for sprinklers in assembly occupancies are due to the ALCOHOL consumption and lessening one's abilities to egress. The facility in question is proposing a change in use and liabilities are a mother! If it becomes a political football with the old argument "practical" and someone's interpretation...............document and move on but DOCUMENT. The existing building code provisions will meet the criteria under MOE again due to ALCOHOL.......in my humble opinion. Sorry is someone else covered the alcohol issue previously............
 
Had them too in my old jurisdiction in south Florida and they didn't last for more than 5 years in addition to the "Dogs & Suds" laundry and food and beer. The changes in "all" the codes for sprinklers in assembly occupancies are due to the ALCOHOL consumption and lessening one's abilities to egress. The facility in question is proposing a change in use and liabilities are a mother! If it becomes a political football with the old argument "practical" and someone's interpretation...............document and move on but DOCUMENT. The existing building code provisions will meet the criteria under MOE again due to ALCOHOL.......in my humble opinion. Sorry is someone else covered the alcohol issue previously............
Click to expand...
Yes and no

You can have a A-2 restaurant that does not serve alcohol ,,

And still require fire sprinklers
 
Sounds like the insurance and law suits will close him down fast if they don't monitor the client's behavior/ drink consumption.

Don't think it is a big deal.... the theater already serves food and drinks ---- and being a college town I am sure that beer and liquor have been consumed on site prior to having the legal liquor license.

Don't think that it is an issue that isn't already in process.
 
Thanks FM William Burns. The type of alcohol & food license they have a applied for is for a "Restaurant", but their menu does not require a type 1 hood. I sent my letter to the applicant this week, with the support of city manager, city attorney, & fire cheif. It is a change of use and i am requiring a sprinkler system, however the building is registered as "Historic" so the applicant will be able to appeal to the state and may apply for an alternate system. CDA i have several other links to other cities as well, some have sprinklers and some do not. Not very techy, but i tried to attach code section 3408 that i also based my determination on, hope you all can see it. Thanks for all of the replies

View attachment 2184

CBC Section 3408 Change of Occupancy.pdf

CBC Section 3408 Change of Occupancy.pdf
 
Thanks FM William Burns. The type of alcohol & food license they have a applied for is for a "Restaurant"' date=' but their menu does not require a type 1 hood. I sent my letter to the applicant this week, with the support of city manager, city attorney, & fire cheif. It is a change of use and i am requiring a sprinkler system, however the building is registered as "Historic" so the applicant will be able to appeal to the state and may apply for an alternate system. CDA i have several other links to other cities as well, some have sprinklers and some do not. Not very techy, but i tried to attach code section 3408 that i also based my determination on, hope you all can see it. Thanks for all of the replies[/quote']Well as long as you apply same requirements on future similar businesses

Still don't see the seat I set in and drink

A beer at the baseball ballpark an A-2.?????
Click to expand...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top