"Loophole" that I don't like

[jar546]

Whether Ch 34 or IEBC I can't really see any way to tighten this up:

Existing 2 story, 6 unit residential structure, type VB with 4 2nd floor apartments and 2 on the first floor in the rear. The front is split into 2 businesses, left and right. Old stone foundation since it was built way back when and has existed for years.

One of the 2 store fronts has been empty for about a year and was last known to be a beauty salon. No renovations were done since we have adopted the I-Codes almost 6 years ago.

Now someone wants to put a pizza shop where the beauty salon once was. Mostly take out and since it was a B and will be a B, there is not a change of occupancy classification. Occupancy limit will be limited to 14 due to square footage and layout.

The only work will be some counters and a pizza oven. There is some talk about a stove and a type 1 hood.

My complaint is that since we have an existing structure that is a B and we are not changing the occupancy classification, other than the work they are doing, nothing else can be done.

The building is not accessible, never was and we now have cooking operations below an R occupancy. This is where I never agree that cooking can be in the B classification.

Again, no special ordinances or fire codes, just the adopted I-Codes apply.

See my point or am I missing something?

 

[Builder Bob]

Re: "Loophole" that I don't like

important note---- Occupant load isn't determined by the building's occupancy classification. It is determined by the actual uses of a space.

In this instance, a multitude of occupant load factors could be used:

kitchen- 200 gross

Seating- 15 net and/or 24" butt space in booths

Waiting area/standing area - Counter space (5 net)- go to a fast food joint at lunch rush and let me know if the waiting line exceeds the typical 15 net or 100 gross.

etc., etc.

I see the actual Square footage being 1400 square foot - because 14 OL @ 15 net is only 210 SF.

Something is wrong somewhere.

 

[north star]

Re: "Loophole" that I don't like

Jeff,

Around here, in some of the "B" type occupancies that have now turned in to

a pizza type business, we have required the Type 1 hoods with a fire

supression system and a portable Type K fire extinguisher nearby. Other

than that, we have not had any problems with these type businesses, however,

we have not had any that had other occupancy types and uses above them

either.

To close your loophole, the AHJ could adopt some type of language in to

one of the adopted codes that addresses these type situations, except having

them sprinkle the location. Requiring the sprinkling of small spaces like these

will be cost prohibitive, unless there is already an existing sprinkler riser in the

building somewhere and adding some lateral lines would be feasible.

Also, agree with Builder Bob on the occupant calcs. Might need to re-review

your specific application. Around here, some good P.R. would get an

additional portable fire extinguisher or two installed, but not much else.

There IS some "give and take" involved.

 

[Gene Boecker]

Re: "Loophole" that I don't like

Jeff, regarding the accessibility issue, there are some changes in the 2009 editions of both the IBC, Ch 34 and the IEBC. With the limited amount of work that 's happening, they might still slip under the radar for the level of alteration.

I'd let them know that they may not have any code requirement for accessibility upgrades but that doesn't relieve them from the federal requirement of the ADA to remove existing barriers. A Wendy's franchise in Iowa recently settled with the DoJ over barrier removals that had not happened in the past 17 years. You might remind the architect that although the code doesn't require a thing, doesn't mean that he's not responsible for other requirements by other agencies.

If there are no upgrades for accessibility, the owner (and designer) are open to some serious litigation for civil rights violations.

 

[brudgers]

Re: "Loophole" that I don't like

It's not a loophole.

It's an exception that's based on experience.

In other words, with the required fire suppression and other mechanical equipment there is not an unusual hazard.

However, there's no exception for accessibility.

 

[mtlogcabin]

Re: "Loophole" that I don't like

They can be required to spend money on the accessible route to the primary function area

3409.7 Alterations affecting an area containing a primary function.

Where an alteration affects the accessibility to, or contains an area of primary function, the route to the primary function area shall be accessible. The accessible route to the primary function area shall include toilet facilities or drinking fountains serving the area of primary function.

Exceptions:

1. The costs of providing the accessible route are not required to exceed 20 percent of the costs of the alterations affecting the area of primary function.

 

[jar546]

Re: "Loophole" that I don't like

There is approximately 750 square feet of space. The kitchen takes up the majority with approximately 500 square feet that gives him 3 people for the kitchen.

The 250 square feet that is left includes a hallway to the accessible bathroom. After I subtract the hallway and the bathroom we have about 165 square feet of room in which he plans on having tables with 11 chairs. This just about fits the 15sq/per for tables and chairs giving him 11 people. This is how we are coming up with 14 occupancy limit which I am going to hold him to anyway.

There will be a type 1 hood and a type 2 hood installed. This is not a sprinklered building and there is no rated separation between the B uses on the 1st floor and the R2 above.

I am just thinking that they should at least required a separation for this type of use. I understand not pushing the sprinklers due to the existing building exclusion but not separation.

 

[Mac]

Re: "Loophole" that I don't like

Is it possible the take out pizza place could be an F-1 occupancy? It is food processing, and bakeries are included, too.

 

[JBI]

Re: "Loophole" that I don't like

PRIMARY FUNCTION. A primary function is a major activity for which the facility is intended. Areas that contain a primary function include, but are not limited to, the customer service lobby of a bank, the dining area of a cafeteria, the meeting rooms in a conference center, as well as offices and other work areas in which the activities of the public accommodation or other private entity using the facility are carried out. Mechanical rooms, boiler rooms, supply storage rooms, employee lounges or locker rooms, janitorial closets, entrances, corridors and restrooms are not areas containing a primary function.

Probably the best that Chap 34 has for you is the alterations are affecting the areas of primary function, and the primary function has changed. Just not enough to kick in the sprinklers...

Now if you were in the EBC...

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.

Might have given you a little more to work with. Personally I will never understand adopting BOTH Chap 34 AND the EBC, redundant. Almost as crazy as not adopting a Res Code. (Sorry Californians, I just don't get it. )

 

[kilitact]

Re: "Loophole" that I don't like

I would agree with what Mac said, the kitchen would be classified as an F-1, requires separation between the F-1 and R and fire sprinklers.

 

[mtlogcabin]

Re: "Loophole" that I don't like

It would be a big stretch to call a pizza restaurant a take out an F-1. This is not just take out it has a dining area which with the OL is clearly a B occupancy.

 

[globe trekker]

Re: "Loophole" that I don't like

I agree with mtlogcabin! Trying to assign an F-1 "use of space" to these type of businesses is a stretch. Plus,

if the business owner is considering whether to locate in Jeff's area ( with an F-1 designation ) or go to another

"more business friendly location", what do you think that they are going to do?

Now, if Jeff had an amended code or city ordinance already in-place, that would be a different matter altogether!

 

[kilitact]

Re: "Loophole" that I don't like

Calling a commercial kitchen an F-1, is assigning the correct occupancy classification to this area based on the use. I would agree with the others that getting fire sprinklers is a 'stretch", but at a minimum an occupancy separation would be required.

more business friendly location

What chapter of what code is this in? good old boys club? :roll:

 

[mtlogcabin]

Re: "Loophole" that I don't like

There is a big difference between proccessing a food item and cooking a food item

[edit] Food processing methods

Common food processing techniques include:

Removal of unwanted outer layers, such as potato peeling or the skinning of peaches.

Chopping or slicing e.g. diced carrots.

Mincing and macerating

Liquefaction, such as to produce fruit juice

Fermentation e.g. in beer breweries

Emulsification

Cooking, such as boiling, broiling, frying, steaming or grilling

Deep frying

Baking

Mixing

Addition of gas such as air entrainment for bread or gasification of soft drinks

Proofing

Spray drying

Pasteurization

Packaging

 

[kilitact]

Re: "Loophole" that I don't like

Section 302.1, Structures or portions of structures shall be classified with respect to occupancy in one or more of the groups listed below. A room or space that is intended to be occupied at different times for different purposes shall comply with all of the requirements that are applicable to each of the purposes for which the room or space will be occupied. Structures with multiple occupancies or uses shall comply with Section 508. Where a structure is proposed for a purpose that is not specifically provided for in this code, such structure shall be classified in the group that the occupancy most nearly resembles, according to the fire safety and relative hazard involved.

I’m not seeing where, as code officials we can subordinate the codes, in the interest of being a more business friendly location. If you agree to a modification in accordance with Section 104.10, make sure you have plenty of documentation to justify your action in granting a modification.

 

[mtlogcabin]

Re: "Loophole" that I don't like

Call the kitchen an F-1 change of occupancy require the fire seperation between the F-1 and the R above. That leaves 250 sq ft of B use which is not a change of use and does not require seperation between the kitchen and dining area. You still can't get a complete seperation between the R and the business below.

I don't disagree the seperation would be a great improvement I just don't see a way to require it. This is one of those situations that will take a lot of education to the building owner to try and get a voluntary installation of a horizontal fire seperation assembly.

 

[kilitact]

Re: "Loophole" that I don't like

Call the correct change of use, to a more hazardous use, require a separate fire area separation for the B and F-1 from the R and require early detection for the pizza place in lieu of fire sprinklers?

As a side note; I think that if, as a code official, you base code decisions on if your business friendly, your in the wrong line of work. IMO

 

[globe trekker]

Re: "Loophole" that I don't like

kil,

Some of the jurisdictions out here have their hands and feet tied, whereas they cannot enforce the adopted codes

and ordinances. Unfortunately, " It is what it is !" I, for one, want to remain employed. If that means not

identifying a "use of space" to someone else's interpreatation, opinion or viewpoint, then so be it! The elected

officials in this jurisdiction want things the way they want them. I have learned and will continue to learn to

"pick my battles", and this one just does not warrant an F-1 assignment. There is no way that I could convince

the BO or city officials to go along with this. Mind you, this is ONLY in my location. Other jurisdictions may

have a different viewpoint.

A QUICK STRAW POLL: How many jurisdictions out there would classify this type of take out pizza business

as an F-1 "use of space" ?

 

[kilitact]

Re: "Loophole" that I don't like

globe trekker wrote;

Some of the jurisdictions out here have their hands and feet tied, whereas they cannot enforce the adopted codesand ordinances. Unfortunately, " It is what it is !" I, for one, want to remain employed. If that means notidentifying a "use of space" to someone else's interpreatation, opinion or viewpoint, then so be it! The elected

officials in this jurisdiction want things the way they want them. I have learned and will continue to learn to

"pick my battles", and this one just does not warrant an F-1 assignment. There is no way that I could convince

the BO or city officials to go along with this. Mind you, this is ONLY in my location. Other jurisdictions may

have a different viewpoint.

A QUICK STRAW POLL: How many jurisdictions out there would classify this type of take out pizza business

as an F-1 "use of space" ?

This would be mixed use, so the straw poll should ask if you would classify this as B and F-1. Do you classify all commercial kitchens as B, or just the ones that Uncle Bubba say you need to? :roll:

 

[vegas paul]

Re: "Loophole" that I don't like

Recently returned from Baltimore for the Code Hearings. This subject was part of a proposed code change (approved) that would essentially classify the commercial kitchen associated with a restaurant, cafeteria, dining area, etc. the same classification as said restaurant, etc. (for example, either B or A2). This would NOT apply to commercial kitchens that are not associated with a seating or dining area (e.g. caterers).

So... I would suspect that in the future this will be clarified in the IBC.

Regareding the pizza take-out, we would call it a B. However, we have more strict local amendments for existing buildings, so we would require it to be separated or sprinklered.

 

[kilitact]

Re: "Loophole" that I don't like

vegas paul:

There is approximately 750 square feet of space. The kitchen takes up the majority with approximately 500 square feet that gives him 3 people for the kitchen.

So in this case where the F-1 is approx. 67% of the area, it would be called B occupancy in 2012

seems like a loophole, if I have a commercial kitchen, 1400 sq ft, with a cafeteria, I can claim B occupany classification and no fire sprinklers required?

vegas paul:

Thinking about this, would you post the text of this approved code change, having a 18,000. sq ft bakery with a 200 sq ft B area for the public to come in, buy and eat donuts, and no fire sprinklers required?

 

[JBI]

Re: "Loophole" that I don't like

I have seen 'bakeries' that would easily classify as F-1. The National Biscuit Company (NABISCO) has/had such a place. Only saw it from the outside, but it was HUGE! Friehoffers and Entemanns probably have them as well. My current jurisdiction had a place that made pizza, froze it and shipped it out. Of course they were making thousands of pizza pies every day... THAT would rise to the level of F-1 IMHO.

While I don't disagree that some seperation is warranted, I don't believe I would call a take-out pizza place an F-1.

Opinions will vary...

 

[brudgers]

Re: "Loophole" that I don't like

"Food processing" is not cooking.

If kitchens were intended as F, the code would be explicity.

Any rational reading of Section 306.1 would indicate what is to be covered.

Otherwise, bars would be F-2.

 

[kilitact]

Re: "Loophole" that I don't like

Section 302.1, Structures or portions of structures shall be classified with respect to occupancy in one or more of the groups listed below. A room or space that is intended to be occupied at different times for different purposes shall comply with all of the requirements that are applicable to each of the purposes for which the room or space will be occupied. Structures with multiple occupancies or uses shall comply with Section 508. Where a structure is proposed for a purpose that is not specifically provided for in this code, such structure shall be classified in the group that the occupancy most nearly resembles, according to the fire safety and relative hazard involved.

so enlighten us as to how you "rationalize" a commercial kitchen classification as a B occupancy.