Determining Occupant load for a Gym

[Meadowbend99]

Hi all,

I have a client that is converting a warehouse space into a gym. Think cross between cross-fit and traditional gym. So lots of equipment and open spaces for flipping large tires, etc. Some of the equipment is rather large. Some of these more cross fit areas take up a lot of space. When running occupant load with 50 gross for exercise it comes to a really high amount, approx. 450. He's been operating over a year, and has never had over 100 occupants. He only has parking for 100 vehicles. The high occupant load will trigger him needing to upgrade the building from a category risk II to III and we'd like to avoid that.

I've reached out to the fire marshal asking for recommendations on how to determine occupant load that is more reflective/realistic for how they use the space, and was unfortunately told they would only consider the 50 gross for exercise.

Does anyone have any suggestions? Have you been able to use other means of measuring spaces that don't exactly fit the load factors. LIke counting equipment/stations?

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

Where did you come up with an occupant load factor of 50 gross? "Gymnasium" is not one of the occupancy types listed in IBC Table 1004.5.

I remember that many years ago (more than 20), our State Building Inspector's office said to use a net square footage for gymnasia, deducting the floor space occupied by equipment such as treadmills, universal gyms, etc. Unfortunately, I don't recall what the square footage factor was that they said to apply to the net remaining floor area. If the equipment is large, try using 50 but base it on the new rather than the gross and see how that works.

And, of course, you can always ask the Building Official to approve a non-standard occupant load. If the owner can provide verifiable occupancy numbers over the course of a year, that plus the lack of parking for anywhere near 450 people might be persuasive.

 

[Codeguy49]

So he's converting a warehouse to a gym but has been operating for over a year? If this is the case then the project is already one the AHJ isn't likely going to be flexible with because the space is already out of compliance and in operation.

I have had the same experience as a BO; specifically an S-1/S-2 change of occupancy to an A-3. They were attempting to open a crossfit like business in a 3,000 sq ft warehouse space and this brought with it many issues because they only wanted to use a portion, and just leave the rest open. They also claimed they would only ever have 25 people at a time in an attempt to get out of added plumbing facilities, means of egress issues, increased risk category, etc - and they wanted to use the exception to Section 1004.5 to do it, which I declined, and they found place in another jurisdiction.

I'm a private code consultant now but when I was a BO, I never authorized the actual occ load for buildings when people were the hazard, only when commodities were the hazard. The IBC commentary explains the reasoning for this exception and to use it "sparingly".

The occupant load factor for "exercise rooms" uses gross sq ft for determination so deducting area for the equipment isn't possible but you could ask to use the more restrictive 15 net factor for Assembly function of space, which will allow deductions for equipment, even though the required area per person will be much smaller. Maybe calculate this and see what you come up with. It might provide you with the numbers you're looking for and in a way the code would allow (in my opinion).

The only other possible solution I can see to use is to Chapter 13 of the IEBC but it will be expensive and multiple elements need to be looked at so it might not work anyway. I have done one of these in my career and it was a lot of work for the architect as well as the jurisdiction but it is a possibility, when all other options are gone.

"1301.1 ​

The provisions of this chapter shall apply to the alteration, addition and change of occupancy of existing structures, including historic structures, as referenced in Section 301.3.3. The provisions of this chapter are intended to maintain or increase the current degree of public safety, health and general welfare in existing buildings while permitting, alteration, addition and change of occupancy without requiring full compliance with Chapters 6 through 12, except where compliance with the prescriptive method of Chapter 5 or the work area method of other provisions of this code is specifically required in this chapter."

"1301.2 ​

Existing buildings in which there is work involving additions, alterations or changes of occupancy shall be made to conform to the requirements of this chapter or the provisions of Chapters 6 through 12. The provisions of Sections 1301.2.1 through 1301.2.6 shall apply to existing occupancies that will continue to be, or are proposed to be, in Groups A, B, E, F, I-2, M, R and S. These provisions shall also apply to Group U occupancies where such occupancies are undergoing a change of occupancy or a partial change in occupancy with separations in accordance with Section 1301.2.2. These provisions shall not apply to buildings with occupancies in Group H, I-1, I-3 or I-4."

Please understand that this involves a scoring process for certain building elements and at the end of the scoring you'll know if it's possible. the catch is that the analysis work needs to occur in order to do the scoring and this includes a pretty robust structural analysis. If there is no fire sprinkler system and fire alarm system then know these will likely need to be added also.

I hope you find a solution that works.

 

[princeofpen]

Propose a tabular occupant load for egress and design occupant load for everything else? Otherwise you're stuck with +400 and deal with what else comes

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

I have had the same experience as a BO; specifically an S-1/S-2 change of occupancy to an A-3. They were attempting to open a crossfit like business in a 3,000 sq ft warehouse space and this brought with it many issues because they only wanted to use a portion, and just leave the rest open. They also claimed they would only ever have 25 people at a time in an attempt to get out of added plumbing facilities, means of egress issues, increased risk category, etc - and they wanted to use the exception to Section 1004.5 to do it, which I declined, and they found place in another jurisdiction.

We had one like this, too, but it was a former store that a woman wanted to convert into a rental, flexible party space. In other words, not a banquet hall or catering hall, she wanted to just rent the space and the clients would use it however they wanted. I don't remember the numbers but at a ratio of 1:15 the occupant load was around 225 and at 1:7 it was around 475. The space didn't have enough plumbing fixtures, and she really REALLY didn't want to spend any money to add them -- and neither did the landlord. We (both the building department and the fire marshal's office) wasted a lot of time meeting with her, both in the office and at the site, trying to reach a workable compromise. One of the two existing toilet rooms was a single-occupant space, and changing that would have meant blowing out the walls and changing the overall floor plan. The second toilet room had one water closet and one lavatory but was very over-sized, so an additional water closet could have been added easily. She wanted to just promise that she would never EVER rent the space for parties bigger than 100 people. We asked that she just build a simply wall and enclose a space for storing the unused tables and chairs -- it could have been sheetrocked on only one side -- as a way of reducing the assembly area and reducing the occupant load.

She wouldn't even agree to that. She literally expected to just slap a coat of paint on the walls and move it. In the end, after something like 8 or 12 months of wasted time, she got the landlord to let her out of the lease.

The problem is that there's no way to enforce promises that "We'll never have more than ___ people in there, NEVER." Our fire marshal said he didn't have the manpower to send someone out every time she rented her space for a party so he could check how many people were in the space. It either had to work by code, or neither the building department nor the fire marshal was going to sign off.

 

[Codeguy49]

"She wanted to just promise that she would never EVER rent the space for parties bigger than 100 people" - promises like this should never be entertained in my opinion. As you indicated, there's no mechanism in the code for "promises" and, to me, an arrangement to verify the space each and every time it is used, moves the AHJ closer to a "special relationship" liability which they should aim to avoid at all cost. Further, how is this tracked to the next tenant who would be afforded the same allowances provided they use the space similarly?

Imagine trying to defend such a decision on the stand.

I applaud the flexibility attempt.