Level 1 or 2 alteration in this instance?

[texas transplant]

Using 2006 IEBC and the rest of the code family.

-5400 sq. ft. gross floor area.

-Would consider this a VB construction type.

-A-2 use (restaurant both before and after)

-Unsprinklered, built probably 1970 before there were any codes at all in this area.

-Occupancy before and after renovation 125 persons.

-Pizza restaurant before, application is to convert to Japanese Style Steak House.

-Installing 8 of the cook at the table grills commonly found in a Japanese Steak House, each one has it own hood and suppression system. These are basically modular units with a pole type chase to bring gas and electric to the grills in each location.

-Except for floor and wall coverings, they are removing about 30 feet of interior partions, removing the pizza oven and replacing it with a wok type stove with a hood and suppression system.

Reason for the debate on whether this is a level one or level two renovation is with an A-2 occupancy of over 100, current code would require sprinklers. If this is a level one alteration we can't require a sprinkler system and level two (if it exceed 50% of the work area) allows us to make that requirement.

Anyone have an opinion? Level one or two?

My opinion is while there is some level two work being performed it does not exceed 50% of the floor area. So 704.2.2 condition 2 is not met.

Gotta make sure the right and defendable call is made on this one, a council member has taken an interest in the project and due to some weird circumstances the water for the sprinkler system is going to be expensive to get up on the property do a a stupid thing the building owner did a few years ago in a property sale and transfer.

Thanks in advance for your input.

 

[docgj]

If it is level 2 alteration...Would 704.2.2 apply? #3 condition might exempt the sprinkler system. Municipal water?

Being an A-2 I would try to push for sprinklers especially with all those grills at the tables.

Are they pushing not to sprinkle?

docgj

 

[texas transplant]

Yes, part of the problem is they wouldn't mind installing sprinklers, but the city water main location and a couple of other factors make the water service for sprinklers cost as much or more than the rest of their renovation and they would need an easement from a private party to get there, plus cross 7 lanes of state highway. So they are very reluctant.

I personally would like to see the sprinklers, but this isn't the one to push for anything I don't have the absolute right to require. Made to much progress in this place of "you can't tell me what I can do with my property" town to set myself back by being stupid.

And after spending a little time with the devil with a tie this morning, looks like no sprinkler requirement.

Thanks for your response docgj.

 

[Mac]

"they are removing about 30 feet of interior partions"

Can you elaborate a little about hte partitions? Thinking it could be level 3 depending on a couple of other factors...

 

[texas transplant]

The 30 feet of interior partitions are existing non-bearing walls that provided screening and spacial separation of exisiting dining areas. They don't effect exiting or stucture. They are 5 separate lengths of wall with large gaps inbetween the walls.

 

[TJacobs]

Have they researched all the sprinkler options like a pressure tank?

I think based on your description I'd be inclined to let the sprinklers go but require full monitored detection as an alternative, if they don't have it already.

 

[Mac]

Sounds like the 30" of walls were used to provide alcoves for dining tables and not separate rooms - porbably not a level 3!

 

[texas transplant]

TJacobs, Full detection is going to be required, I agree and thanks for the reinforcement. On the pressure tank, still trying to school folks on all the options, its kinda the wild wild west here at times.

Mac, That right, the walls could have been folding screens for what purpose they served.

Thanks for the feedback guys.

 

[jar546]

Level 2 without a doubt. Does not sound like a level 3 alteration.

 

[ewenme]

I think I could consider it a Level One: no structural reconfiguration of the space. Partitions, non-bearing walls are moved/removed, but the space itself remains the same, and more open. With the individual hoods and suppression systems, the danger is probably not increased. I would give them the benefit of the doubt and would confer with the fire marshal if any doubt remained.

 

[JBI]

There is no substitute for actual code text...

SECTION 403 ALTERATION—LEVEL 1

403.1 Scope.

Level 1 alterations include the removal and replacement or the covering of existing materials, elements, equipment, or fixtures using new materials, elements, equipment, or fixtures that serve the same purpose.

SECTION 404 ALTERATION—LEVEL 2

404.1 Scope.

Level 2 alterations include the reconfiguration of space, the addition or elimination of any door or window, the reconfiguration or extension of any system, or the installation of any additional equipment.

SECTION 405 ALTERATION—LEVEL 3

405.1 Scope.

Level 3 alterations apply where the work area exceeds 50 percent of the aggregate area of the building.

CHANGE OF OCCUPANCY. A change In the purpose or level of activity within a building that involves a change in application of the requirements of this code.

Based on the above I don't see how it could be anything less than level two. Level one does not account for the recofigured system (Pizza oven out, new wok setup in), nor for the newly installed systems and equipment (the eight new cooking units and associated equipment). That a level two project will typically include level one work is probably one reason that level two requires compliance with chapter 6 as well (I'm sure another is to obviate the need to reprint all of those requirements in two chapters...). I also wonder if the 'level of activity' provision for Change of Occupancy would trigger additional requirements. That each cooking station will incorporate its' own suppression system could reasonably be considered 'safer' might allow the AHJ to not consider this a Change of Occupancy, I don't see how it could qualify as anything less than level two.

Regarding the sprinklers;

704.2.2 Groups A, E, F-1, H, I, M, R-1, R-2, R-4, S-1 and S-2.

In buildings with occupancies in Groups A, E, F-1, H, I, M, R-1, R-2, R-4, S-1, and S-2, work areas that include exits or corridors shared by more than one tenant or that serve an occupant load greater than 30 shall be provided with automatic sprinkler protection where all of the following conditions occur:

1. The work area is required to be provided with automatic sprinkler protection in accordance with the International Building Code as applicable to new construction;

2. The work area exceeds 50 percent of the floor area; and

3. The building has sufficient municipal water supply for design of a fire sprinkler system available to the floor without installation of a new fire pump.

Exception: Work areas in Group R occupancies three stories or less in height.

As I read the requirements, the project would need to reach all three thresholds in order to require the sprinklers. Not only have you stated unequivicollay that it is LESS than 50% of the aggregate floor area, it doesn't sound as though the building has 'sufficient municipal water supply for design of a fire sprinkler system...', so lacking a better code reference sprinklers won't be required. JMHO

 

[texas transplant]

Knew I missed you on here for a reason JBI. Thanks

 

[peach]

Level 2 no sprinklers

 

[RJJ]

I would also consider it a level 2 based on info provided.