Fire Proofing at existing building

[John DeBruyne]

A complex question (hence the bullet points to try and help with clarity):

• I have a client who purchased an existing A-3 indoor family amusement center (athletic field, laser tag, arcade, bounce house, gym, etc.) in 2011.
• The original building was constructed in 1998 (1993 BOCA) as a 2-story fire-suppressed Construction Type 2A building. Steel structure, open web steel roof joists, metal roof deck, precast concrete second floor, and non-bearing masonry infill exterior walls. 2A required to comply with Table 503 area limitations.
• The 2nd floor is open to the spaces below and is too big to be a mezzanine.
• The original plans indicated that the second floor was a "future use and plans would need to be submitted for permits and occupancy".
• One continuous roof at the same elevation covers the entire building. To comply with Table 602 roof construction requirements, the original plans indicated that the roof construction over the second floor was required to be protected with fire proofing. The roof construction over the roller hockey rink was high enough to not require fire proofing. The rest of the structural members are protected with fire proofing.
• For some reason that is unclear (municipality hasn't provide a clear reason), fire proofing was never provided at the roof above the second floor. Those who were involved in that decision are no longer available and records are not helpful. The only thing found was a report from the municipality noting that permits are required for second floor occupancy.
• In 2005, an intermediate building owner bought the building and submitted interior renovation plans which included occupancy of the second floor with laser tag. Permits were granted but no requirements for fire proofing the roof were noted. A temporary C of O was granted while permits were being closed out. The intermediate owner then went out of business in 2007 and permits were never closed out.
• Our client and current owner resumed occupancy when they bought the building in 2011, unaware of previous owner's permitting and occupancy issues.
• As building owner do, they made some relatively minor layout changes and changed the 2nd floor occupancy from laser tag to batting cages.
• The municipality became aware of the changes in 2024 and required our client to submit for permits. During a walk through, the municipality realized that fire proofing was never provided and is now requiring our client to provide it.
• Calculations using current 2015 Michigan Building Code would still require the building to be Type II-B and would require fire proofing.

We have submitted for a Construction Board of Appeals hearing as our client does not wish to provide the fire proofing. Obviously occupant safety is priority #1, but over 25 years have passed since the building's original construction and occupancy. I'm not a fire spread expert, but I find it interesting that even if occupancy of the second floor was a future use that fire proofing would be allowed to be initially omitted, especially since both floors share a continuous volume of interior space and share the same roof.

Understandably, "grandfathered" construction needs to comply with the codes in effect at the time of construction, but any insight on this 25 year lapse or occupancy being allowed on the first floor without proper overall building fire-proofing would be appreciated. I don't think the 2015 Michigan Rehab Code provides any guidance.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

Basically, what you have is a client who purchased a 25-year standing violation.

Under BOCA, construction type 2A was "Non-combustible, protected" construction. This means that all structural elements are non-combustible materials, AND they are fire-protected to the levels indicated in the table. At the time of original construction, the code officials may have allowed them to omit to fireproofing on the underside of the roof because the second floor was to be unoccupied, and therefore there would presumably be no fuel load present on the second level to generate heat that could affect the roof structure.

As soon as the second level was occupied -- for any occupancy or use -- the roof should have been fireproofed. At this point, the only certificate of occupancy the second floor had was a temporary, which expired more than 15 years ago. So, as I'm reading it, as of today there is NO legal occupancy for the second floor, and NO certificate of occupancy for the second floor. Assuming you are a design professional (architect?), you should discuss with the AHJ whether they will allow the owner now -- today -- to bring the building up to what the original design called for, or if putting a new occupancy on the second floor is going to trigger compliance with current codes.

The Michigan Rehab Code is based on the 2021 IEBC. Chapter 10 addresses changes of occupancy. You need to start there. Just keep in mind that the IEBC is written from the premise that the existing building complied with whatever code was in effect when it was originally constructed. Your building did not, so that must always be kept in mind.

BTW -- I don't know how you got from construction type 2A under BOCA to type II-B under the IBC, but type II-B does not require any fireproofing. In general, BOCA type 2A typically translates pretty directly to IBC type II-A.

 

[John DeBruyne]

Basically, what you have is a client who purchased a 25-year standing violation.

Under BOCA, construction type 2A was "Non-combustible, protected" construction. This means that all structural elements are non-combustible materials, AND they are fire-protected to the levels indicated in the table. At the time of original construction, the code officials may have allowed them to omit to fireproofing on the underside of the roof because the second floor was to be unoccupied, and therefore there would presumably be no fuel load present on the second level to generate heat that could affect the roof structure.

As soon as the second level was occupied -- for any occupancy or use -- the roof should have been fireproofed. At this point, the only certificate of occupancy the second floor had was a temporary, which expired more than 15 years ago. So, as I'm reading it, as of today there is NO legal occupancy for the second floor, and NO certificate of occupancy for the second floor. Assuming you are a design professional (architect?), you should discuss with the AHJ whether they will allow the owner now -- today -- to bring the building up to what the original design called for, or if putting a new occupancy on the second floor is going to trigger compliance with current codes.

The Michigan Rehab Code is based on the 2021 IEBC. Chapter 10 addresses changes of occupancy. You need to start there. Just keep in mind that the IEBC is written from the premise that the existing building complied with whatever code was in effect when it was originally constructed. Your building did not, so that must always be kept in mind.

BTW -- I don't know how you got from construction type 2A under BOCA to type II-B under the IBC, but type II-B does not require any fireproofing. In general, BOCA type 2A typically translates pretty directly to IBC type II-A.

Thank you for the feedback... reinforces what we know but valuable nonetheless.

II-B in my conclusion was a typo... I meant II-A. Thanks for that!

 

[steveray]

Would the building work as IIB? Unlimited area? Probably not with the A, but worth a look....

 

[John DeBruyne]

Would the building work as IIB? Unlimited area? Probably not with the A, but worth a look....

Thanks for the thought... we do not have the 60' open area around the building.