Flexo
Registered User
Friends, I have received construction documents for review, proposing a conversion of an assembly area of an existing building formerly used for dances or receptions, into an apartment. I have told the Architect that sprinklers are required and he tends to disagree with this. I told him that I would ask for some peer review of the situation. We are on the 2012 International Code series.
His stance is cut and pasted below
"proposed change of use in an existing building from an A-3 use to a R-2 use A-3 occupant load = 2147sf 1 occ/15sf 2147 ÷ 15 = 143 occupants R-2 occupant load = 2147sf 1 occ/200sf 2147 ÷ 200 = 11 occupants reducing the occupant load of a space increases its level of relative safety and decreases the likely hood of a fire event while also decreasing the time for all occupants to exit a building in the event of a fire or other life / safety incident.
Per section 1004.1 of the IEBC “Fire protection requirements of Section 1011 (IEBC) shall apply where a building or portions thereof undergo a change of 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 IBC.” Per chapter 9 of the IBC the A-3 use would require a sprinkler because it is “located on a floor other than a level of exit discharge” _ IBC §903.2.1.3-3. Also, in chapter 9 “an automatic sprinkler system in accordance with Section 903.3 shall be provided in all buildings with a group R fire area.” _IBC §903.2.8 So, Chapter 9 of the IBC has the same fire protection system threshold requirement for both occupancies, therefore because the requirement thresholds are not different the requirements of Section 1011 do not apply.
Further, and this is just hypothetical situation explaining here: If we decided to not change the occupancy classification of this space and keep it an assembly space and have a small dance party on the third floor every Friday night and invite 130 people to join the party that would be fully allowed within the code without a fire sprinkler or any changes to the means of egress. But because we want to change the use of this space and reduce the occupant load and the likelihood of a life safety event and ultimately reduce the load on the means of egress system and the time it will take to fully exit the building, a sprinkler is required. It feels like an excessive tax on the Owner for making decisions that will increase the safety of an existing structure while trying to preserve a significant and vital building along main street."
What is your finding?
Thanks
His stance is cut and pasted below
"proposed change of use in an existing building from an A-3 use to a R-2 use A-3 occupant load = 2147sf 1 occ/15sf 2147 ÷ 15 = 143 occupants R-2 occupant load = 2147sf 1 occ/200sf 2147 ÷ 200 = 11 occupants reducing the occupant load of a space increases its level of relative safety and decreases the likely hood of a fire event while also decreasing the time for all occupants to exit a building in the event of a fire or other life / safety incident.
Per section 1004.1 of the IEBC “Fire protection requirements of Section 1011 (IEBC) shall apply where a building or portions thereof undergo a change of 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 IBC.” Per chapter 9 of the IBC the A-3 use would require a sprinkler because it is “located on a floor other than a level of exit discharge” _ IBC §903.2.1.3-3. Also, in chapter 9 “an automatic sprinkler system in accordance with Section 903.3 shall be provided in all buildings with a group R fire area.” _IBC §903.2.8 So, Chapter 9 of the IBC has the same fire protection system threshold requirement for both occupancies, therefore because the requirement thresholds are not different the requirements of Section 1011 do not apply.
Further, and this is just hypothetical situation explaining here: If we decided to not change the occupancy classification of this space and keep it an assembly space and have a small dance party on the third floor every Friday night and invite 130 people to join the party that would be fully allowed within the code without a fire sprinkler or any changes to the means of egress. But because we want to change the use of this space and reduce the occupant load and the likelihood of a life safety event and ultimately reduce the load on the means of egress system and the time it will take to fully exit the building, a sprinkler is required. It feels like an excessive tax on the Owner for making decisions that will increase the safety of an existing structure while trying to preserve a significant and vital building along main street."
What is your finding?
Thanks
