Individual tenant spaces

[chris kennedy]

The following is from the FBC. Note #7 which does not not appear in the IBC.

708.1 General. The following wall assemblies shall complywith this section:

1. Walls separating dwelling units in the same building.

2. Walls separating sleeping units in occupancies in Group

R-1 hotel, R-2 and I-1 occupancies.

3. Walls separating tenant spaces in covered mall buildings

as required by Section 402.7.2.

4. Corridor walls as required by Section 1016.1.

5. Elevator lobby separation as required by Section

707.14.1.

6. Residential aircraft hangars.

7. Wall separating individual tenant spaces.

Q1 Aren't 3 and 7 redundant???

Q2 I have an install that would fall under #3 and/or #7 above. Tenant spaces 202 and 203 have a 1hr partition between them. Now same tenant is leasing both spaces and a door with a 1hr rating is being installed to provide access between the spaces. Are 202 and 203 still considered 'individual tenant spaces'? I see no def of tenant space or individual tenant space in either the IBC or FBC.

Thanks.

 

[fatboy]

#3 is strictly a covered mall, by definition, whereas #7 speaks to strip malls, attached, separate occupancies.

And no, I would consider the two as a single tenant space now.

Separate leases, separate spaces.

JMHO

 

[cda]

The Easter bunny agrees with fatboy

 

[chris kennedy]

The Easter bunny agrees with fatboy

Oh yeah, Happy Easter Everyone.

 

[fatboy]

Back atcha!

 

[brudgers]

The list is their for editorial completeness.

Believe it or not, some people only read part of the code during review.

If it's one tenant, it's one tenant space.

What might be required in the future is another matter.

BTW, once 3 applies, 7 is irrelevant because the requirements for covered malls are more specific.

 

[chris kennedy]

What might be required in the future is another matter.

I can't wire for the the future, this question stems from wiring methods used to add outlets in the existing partition.

BTW, once 3 applies, 7 is irrelevant because the requirements for covered malls are more specific.

Why is 7 not in the IBC?

 

[cda]

Because no seperation is Normaly required in strip malls, offices if like occupancies

Guess the ibc did not need to apply to Jesus's tomb

 

[brudgers]

Why is 7 not in the IBC?

Because it is not as well written?

 

[Big Mac]

Brudgers, I'm shocked you would say such a thing. I agree with you this time, I just shocked you would post such a comment in a public forum. OK, maybe shocked is the wrong word.

 

[mtlogcabin]

Why is 7 not in the IBC?

Because it would contradict Section

508.3 Nonseparated occupancies.

 

[Big Mac]

Oh thats right, sprinklers are magic. I keep forgetting. Particularly in those earthquake prone areas where the infrastructure will be destroyed when the big one hits.

 

[mtlogcabin]

Chris asked, I answered from a code perspective.

And sprinklers are not what drives 508.3 it is similar uses and height and area requirements.