• 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

Existing Building and Sprinklers

N

ndtolearn

Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2010
Messages
11
Hi All,

We have an existing restaurant that is 4,674 square feet. Building was built under the 1991 UBC and was not required to be sprinkled. The owner now wants to add approximately 500 square to the building. We are now using the 2009 IBC and my understanding is if they add the addition they will either need to sprinkle the entire building or separate the addition from the existing with fire walls. The owner and his contractor think this is absurd. I have to admit I some what agree. Are there other options available that I'm not aware of? I've glanced through Chapter 34 and am not to familiar with it but didn't really see any other options. We have not adopted the IEBC and do not have a copy but would probably be willing to accept using it as an alternative method. Please set me straight.
 
Have the design proffessional work through compliance alternatives Section 3412. Have had pretty good results with small additions. One project had to add some emergency exit lighting and another had to add fire alarm system.
 
They only need a fire barrier to create separate fire areas (not a fire wall). They could also build a smaller addition, or no addition at all. Any design professional worth their salt could find a way to make this comply without adding sprinklers.
 
JMORRISON said:
Have the design proffessional work through compliance alternatives Section 3412. Have had pretty good results with small additions. One project had to add some emergency exit lighting and another had to add fire alarm system.
Click to expand...
Agree there are ways to avoide sprinklers with small additions and 3412 is one way.

3403.1 General.

Additions to any building or structure shall comply with the requirements of this code for new construction. Alterations to the existing building or structure shall be made to ensure that the existing building or structure together with the addition are no less conforming with the provisions of this code than the existing building or structure was prior to the addition . An existing building together with its additions shall comply with the height and area provisions of Chapter 5.

You have a 500 sq ft addition which equates to an occupant load of 34 which does not trigger sprinklers for the addition under todays code.

Now use 3412 to make sure the addition does not negatively impact the existing life safety and fire issues in the existing building.

Exiting, travel distances, accessibility, notification appliances, are a few areas that come to mind. If you do not meet the point scale then sprinklers throughout the entire building may be required if there are no other trade offs available.
 
permitguy said:
They only need a fire barrier to create separate fire areas (not a fire wall). They could also build a smaller addition, or no addition at all. Any design professional worth their salt could find a way to make this comply without adding sprinklers.
Click to expand...
However, there are a few code officials unworthy of theirs who would hold the permit hostage.
 
Thanks for all the input. I forgot to mention this is Small Town USA and there probably will not be an architect involved. I don't like, but that's the way it is here. Anyway I will dive into section 3412 and see what happens. It's unfortunate but we do end up doing more hand holding for the public than we should. But if we required an architect on every small project they would tar and feather us.
 
Yeah, why bother with an architect.

It's only an assembly occupancy and alcohol is involved.

What could possibly go wrong?

And besides, it's not like they're city folk.
 
In most states sealed construction documents by a design professional would be mandatory under the state Arch/ Engineer laws for this use.

The addition is pushing the size of the building above the current 5000 sq ft fire area threshold for sprinklers for A-2 uses.

What is the use of the proposed addition? Is it seating area increasing the occupant load or storage with minimal increas in occupant load? If there is an increase in the occupancy load then you are making an existing nonconforming building over 100 occupants, unless ammended (VA went to the 100 threshold only for nightclubs and kept 300 for restaruants) check your local adoptions, worse when the occupant load is increased.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top