• Welcome to The Building Code Forum

    Your premier resource for building code knowledge.

    This forum remains free to the public thanks to the generous support of our Sawhorse Members and Corporate Sponsors. Their contributions help keep this community thriving and accessible.

    Want enhanced access to expert discussions and exclusive features? Learn more about the benefits here.

    Ready to upgrade? Log in and upgrade now.

Install Sprinklers? Help Resolve Friendly Disagreement!

P

permitguy

REGISTERED
Joined
Oct 17, 2009
Messages
583
Location
Metro Denver, CO
Given: 6,200 square foot single-story building, constructed under the '97 Uniform Codes. The building consists of four tenant spaces which have all been restaurants since constructed. The '97 UFC did not require sprinklers, as neither of the separated A-3 occupancies exceeded 5,000 square feet. One of the spaces sat vacant for 1-1/2 years, and now has another restaurant tenant going in. The general size, configuration, and occupant load of the space remains unchanged. The current code ('09 IFC) classifies this as an A-2, and would require sprinklers because the occupant load exceeds 100.

Would you classify this as a change of use and/or occupancy?

Would you make them install sprinklers so they comply with the current code?
 
Would you classify this as a change of use and/or occupancy? No. Just because a building or portion there of was vacant for a time does not mean it is a change of use with a new tenant

Would you make them install sprinklers so they comply with the current code? No. If any tenant serves alchohol in that building then I would make sure the one-hour occupancy requirements of UBC 904.2.3.1 have not been breached.
 
What mtlogcabin said. I am a big sprinkler advocate but it's not a change of use.
 
From what you are describing it is not a change of use.

Evaluating the work as an "alteration," consider 2009 IBC Section 3404. This section does not require the building to be brought up to current code, just the alterations to be per current code provided the building or structure is no less complying than it currently is. Therefore, the addition of sprinklers should not be required for the TI to comply with current code.
 
One of the spaces sat vacant for 1-1/2 years, and now has another restaurant tenant going in. The general size, configuration, and occupant load of the space remains unchanged. The current code ('09 IFC) classifies this as an A-2, and would require sprinklers because the occupant load exceeds 100.
Click to expand...
In my humble opinion regardless of the classification 1.5 years ago being and A-3 once the new tenant moves in or plans to move in causing the change in OL >100 one has no other alternative than to move the plan to the A-2 [Criteria 2] inacting the sprinkler requirement. Just because it was and accepted A-3 previously, once the space becomes an applicable A-2, due to the OL provision all bets are off regardless of the EBC. The proposed increase in the OL classifies the space as an A-2 so therefore sprinklers would be required. The only other option would be to have them reduce the OL below 100 by means of additional NET decreases within the space.

If I'm not seeing something other than an increased area due to a new OL calculation for a new tenant, then the existing A-3 criteria stands......JM take on it as we would evaluate the new tenant's increase in their OL...sorry since this is and a decending opinion. Boils down to a planed OL increase >100 thus kicking in the additional protection and change in use since the fire area meets 1-2 of [903.2.1.2]. It's not an either or it's a matter of meeting two of the three criteria which I see as a change in use.
 
Sorry, IMHO, this is not a change of use, the classification based on newer codes may have changed, but the use remains the same. (BTW, I'd love to throw my heart into sprinklers)
 
Fm

What if the occupant load was say 125 with the old A-3 and with the new A-2 it remains 125???

Does that change your answer???

Or if an ahj was under the uniform code and a place was classified a "B" and they move out and same type of business moves in under the I code and is classified A " M".

Is that a change of occupancy type and new business would have to meet M requirements????
 
The proposed increase in the OL classifies the space as an A-2 so therefore sprinklers would be required.
Click to expand...
I should have clarified that the occupant load has been >100 since construction. Since that is the case, it seems your answer is the same as everyone else so far. Am I correct?
 
Under the UBC which this was permitted an A-2 was over 300 and an A-3 was under 300. If alchohol is served in an A-2 or A-3 occupancy and the Sq Ft exceeds 5,000 sq ft then sprinklers where required or one-hour separation between spaces or tenants. Similar to fire areas under the I-Codes.

OL calculations where Gross under the UBC and are Net under the IBC. I would make sure the new use does not exceed the old OL and call it good.

The building and fire code allow a change of use without the new use being required to meet all the new codes.
 
How much of an alteration is the new tenant doing? could be enough to require compliance with current codes.
 
The general size, configuration, and occupant load of the space remains unchanged.
Click to expand...
I should have clarified that the occupant load has been >100 since construction. Since that is the case, it seems your answer is the same as everyone else so far. Am I correct?
Click to expand...
Yep........should have read it more clearly first time out and not after 3 tall Elliot Ness'. For some reason as previously noted <<<<< I was hung up with an impression that the OL was < 100 and and now the new tenant was going to renovate to increase it above 100 so without any tall ones and after clearing my head in the 21 degree woods this afternoon..........I'm inclined to agree with:

Under the UBC which this was permitted an A-2 was over 300 and an A-3 was under 300. If alchohol is served in an A-2 or A-3 occupancy and the Sq Ft exceeds 5,000 sq ft then sprinklers where required or one-hour separation between spaces or tenants. Similar to fire areas under the I-Codes.
Click to expand...
Yea I know....TMI :oops:
 
Great Lakes Eliot Ness

COMMERCIAL DESCRIPTION

Deep Amber red color, with a fragrant malt aroma. Flavorful notes of rich caramelized malt and noble hop flavors harmonize on the palate leading to a crisp clean finish. Named after one of Cleveland’s most respected safety directors, who frequented the brewpub’s bar during his tenure from 1935-1941 and, according to popular legend, was responsible for the bullet holes still evident today.
 
Just went thru similar one here--as long as it does not become more nonconforming it can remain unpsprinklered.

Increasing the occupant load would trigger the sprinkler requirement as it would be worse.

Note that this is based on Virginia Administrative provisions--yours may vary.
 
How much of an alteration is the new tenant doing? could be enough to require compliance with current codes.
Click to expand...
Typical tenant improvement work - the space is being altered to meet their needs, but will be configured in the same general way. All work being performed will comply with current requirements. The question is whether they have to do additional work they weren't planning on. What would you consider to be the threshold to "require compliance with current codes"? Do you have a local amendment, or are you basing it on an interpretation of the code as-written?
 
2009 IBC

3410.2.4 Alterations and repairs.

An existing building or portion thereof, which does not comply with the requirements of this code for new construction, shall not be altered or repaired in such a manner that results in the building being less safe or sanitary than such building is currently. Same type of use as the previous use, no increased occupant load, no reduction in exits or other life safety issues how can you make a decision it is less safe and therefore requires sprinklers.

If, in the alteration or repair, the current level of safety or sanitation is to be reduced, is it reduced? that is the "threshold" that would drive current code requirements. the portion altered or repaired shall conform to the requirements of Chapters 2 through 12 and Chapters 14 through 33.
 
No sprinkler required:agree

Our code commission has made us amend the 09 to keep the 300 occupant load exception instead of dropping to 100. It is nothing more than political posturing since the fire districts did not make the amendment.
 
As a RI Architect prior to being the infamous Station Night Club

the facility was an A-3 Restaurant

it was changed to an A-2 Night Club a couple of owners prior to the final owners

it sat vacant in between the A-3 to A-2 use change the application said previous use vacant

so vacant to A-2 Night club was determined no change of use (ouch)

what was required as an A-3 to A-2 by building code (5B) H&A and occupant count - fudged 300 UNfudged 500 in music adds

fire supression even so stated in public hearing after the disaster.
 
Does state law affect this? I know that a little known state law in SC could require the building that is vacant for over a year could be made to meet current codes.....

D. Existing Buildings.

1. Existing buildings, structures, or premises shall be permitted to continue in operation under the code the buildings, structures, or premises were constructed unless addressed by these regulations or state statute.

2. Alterations, repairs, additions, and rehabilitation to an existing building or structure, shall fully comply with the current codes for new construction when one of the following occurs:

a. The cost of construction exceeds fifty percent of the building value before the construction.

b. The building is damaged by fire, natural disaster, or otherwise, in excess of fifty (50) percent of the building value before such damage.

c. The building is moved into or within the state, excluding modular structures regulated by the Manufactured Housing Board.

3. Buildings, structures, or premises reopened after being vacant for more than one (1) year shall be considered new construction and must conform to the current codes for new construction.

4. If the occupancy classification or sub-classification of an existing building changes, the building shall conform to the current code for new construction.
 
Colorado does not have state-wide codes. It's every AHJ for themselves.

How does SC interpret that law if only one tenant space is vacant for the prescribed time? In this case, the building has never been completely vacant.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top