• Welcome to the new and improved Building Code Forum. We appreciate you being here and hope that you are getting the information that you need concerning all codes of the building trades. This is a free forum to the public due to the generosity of the Sawhorses, Corporate Supporters and Supporters who have upgraded their accounts. If you would like to have improved access to the forum please upgrade to Sawhorse by first logging in then clicking here: Upgrades

"Loophole" that I don't like

Re: "Loophole" that I don't like

kilitact said:
so enlighten us as to how you "rationalize" a commercial kitchen classification as a B occupancy.
Restaurants are normally classified as Occupancy Group A, Use Group A-2.

Section 303.1 Exception 1. States: A building or tenant space used for assembly purposes with an occupant load of less than 50 persons shall be classified as a Group B occupancy. [iBC 2006].

Sorry to rain on your parade.

I know it's probably more fun to make stuff up than to actually open the code book.
 
Re: "Loophole" that I don't like

I can say this, the earlier versions of the NYS Code (pre-ICC) required a seperation between a commercial kitchen and the dining room it served. A reduction in fire rating was permitted with sprinklers, but a seperation was still required. Probably comparable to the rating that was required between our eqivalent of an F-1 and a business or assembly occupancy.

Large scale commercial bakeries are very different from a pizza place, but there is always an implied hazard with any commercial cooking equipment. Even without grease laden vapors, the temperatures and hours of operation generate tremendous amounts of heat.

I don't know where the answer lies to making it safe, but I think F-1 is a stretch in this case. If new equipment is installed you can require it due to the increase in hazard...
 
Re: "Loophole" that I don't like

NFPA 101 has classed restaurants with less the 50 occupants as Mercantile.

Makes a lot of sense given the way in which real-estate is typically developed and marketed.

And is typically more restrictive than group B.
 
Re: "Loophole" that I don't like

It is a B and was a B prior even though the previous B was a beauty salon. It is allowed by the IBC and clearly stated that it is to remain a B. Whether I like it or not, it is allowed and that is the hand that has to be dealt.
 
Re: "Loophole" that I don't like

brudgers wrote:

[Restaurants are normally classified as Occupancy Group A, Use Group A-2.Section 303.1 Exception 1. States: A building or tenant space used for assembly purposes with an occupant load of less than 50 persons shall be classified as a Group B occupancy. [iBC 2006].

Sorry to rain on your parade.

I know it's probably more fun to make stuff up than to actually open the code book./quote]

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.

Section 303.1: Assembly Group A occupancy includes, among others, the use of a building or structure, or a portion therof, for the gathering of persons for purposes such as civic, social or religious functions, recreation, food or drink consumption or awaiting transportation.

Nope, doesn’t fit the description of a commercial kitchen.

Section 304.1: Business Group B occupancy includes among others the use of a building or portion therof, for office, professional or service-type transactions, including storage of records and accounts.

Nope, doesn’t fit the description of a commercial kitchen.

Factory Industrial Group F occupancy includes, among others, the use of a building or structure, or portion therof, for assembling, disassembling, fabricating, finishing, manufacturing, packaging, repair or processing operations that are not classified as a Group H hazardous or Group S storage occupancy.

Factory industrial uses which are not classified as F-2 Low Hazard shall be classified as F-1 Moderate Hazard and shall include, but not be limited to the following:

Food processing;

a series of actions or operations used in making or manufacturing or achieving something; From the Oxford dictionary;

Yep; appears to most closely resemble an F-1’s description in accordance with Section 302.1

Table 508.4 footnote d: states that commercial kitchens need not be separated from the restaurant seating area that they serve. I believe that this is a further indication that the dining area, Group A or B, aint a commercial kitchen, which is an F-1 occupancy.

Brudgers: Other than a lame attempted at ridiculing people, by blowing a lot of smoke, what’s your theory based on

I've posted code sections.

I'm used to rain, if you can read the paper you would be aware of the fact, we get rain in Oregon.

Jar546; I would call this a change of use, it's now mixed use F-1 and B, and require a rated separation at a minimum, I use the code sections above as my cite. If someone comes up with code sections that states otherwise, I would like to see them posted, just posters blowing smoke doesn't work for me. I've had this senerio come up more than a few times, but everthing written in the code indicates that a commercial kitchen is an F-1 occupancy.
 
Re: "Loophole" that I don't like

Unfortunately kilitact I cannot agree with you. I would not be able to defend the decision to make the kitchen an F-1. I think you will find thousands of pizza shops across the country that have been classified as a B because that is where we have to put them under the circumstances based on occupant load. I would love to see a pizza shop as an A-2 with less than 50 people but the exception in 303.1 clearly states otherwise. As a matter of fact, it says "shall be", not "can be".

A commercial kitchen for a restaurant is not a factory or industrial. It would be a real stretch. The fact that a commercial kitchen does not require separation between itself and the dining area is further clarification of the intent of the code.

Again, I don't like it but it is what it is. I don't want to see any A-2 with a commercial kitchen bumped to a B but apparently that is the intent. There are other similar situations where an A-2 can be a B due to occupant load and it is appropriate.

My concern is the R above in this situation. Especially since the 2nd floor apartments only have one means of egress, the building is not sprinklered and never has a c of o due to its age and the fact that we did not have statewide building codes prior to 2004.
 
Re: "Loophole" that I don't like

Jar546: can you cite a code section, that would classifiy a commercial kitchen as a B occupancy?
 
Re: "Loophole" that I don't like

Yes, 303.1

A restaurant is classified as an A-2. A restaurant serves food, therefore it makes food in a kitchen. There is not a separate category for commercial kitchens. There are different levels of commercial kitchens. Some only have grills, some have grills, ovens and fryers. They are not factories and not industrial processing facilities, simply a kitchen. There are requirements for hoods, ventilation, makeup air and fire suppression for these applications.

If that is your interpretation and that is how you enforce it in your area then that is fine with me. I cannot however agree with your interpretation.
 
Re: "Loophole" that I don't like

kilitact,

If you are saying that commercial kitchens are suppose to be F-1 for restaurants and restaurants are suppose to be A-2 then:

We would need a 1 or 2 hour fire separation between the two otherwise the code would be in conflict with note "e" of Table 508.3.3 and note "e" only applies to A and E occupancies.

In your opinion, all McDonald's, Wendy's, Burger King's, Subway, and every single pizza joint, restaurant and bar that serves food is built wrong?

I like to watch them make my food, I don't want to stand behind a 2 hour fire rated wall waiting to be served by high dose of cholesterol.
 
Re: "Loophole" that I don't like

No; I'm saying that the code appears to recognize the kitchen as a separate occupancy, Table 508.4 footnote d, states that no separation is required, why make that statement if they were of the same occupancy classification? Table 1004.1.1, for means of egress, shows a commercial kitchen for determining occupant load; again, commercial kitchen, this appears to point out that a commercial kitchens use is different from office or assembly use. This takes me back to Section 302.1, to determine occupancy classification, I choose the classification that the spaces use most closely resembles; commercial kitchen F-1, not required to be separated from the dinning area it serves in accordance with footnote d. Separation is required between an R and F-1 occupancy, and if the F-1 fire area exceeds 12,000 sq ft, fire sprinklers are required.

If theres code sections that allow a commercial kitchens use to be classified as an B or A, please post them

No separations is required between a B and F-1, so along with the footnote d you can continue to watch your burgers burn
 
Re: "Loophole" that I don't like

We will have to agree to disagree. No separation between F1 and B due to offices being located inside the factory but restaurants over 49 occupants are an A so separation is required. That exception is for A and E for obvious reasons such as a school cafeteria and a restaurant which would not make sense to have separation unlike what you seem to be suggesting. There are plenty of factories that are large enough to have cafeterias that would require separation, hence the need for note e.

Anyone else here ever classify a restaurant or pizza shop kitchen as an F1?
 
Re: "Loophole" that I don't like

Jar546: I've no problem agreeing to disagree, but would sure like to see a code section that would allow an residential ® occupancy next to a commercial kitchen (F-1) without a separation, or an commercial kitchen (F-1) with a greater than 12,000 sq ft fire area without fire sprinklers. Which apears to be what your suggesting. Out here, we have to cite when we write, so code sections are required. ;)

Footnote d specifically states, no separation is required between the kitchen and dining area it serves. Again I'm not suggesting that a separation is required between B and or A and the kitchen, but between R occupancied and F-1 (commercial kitchen) occupancies
 
Re: "Loophole" that I don't like

jar546 said:
kilitact,If you are saying that commercial kitchens are suppose to be F-1 for restaurants and restaurants are suppose to be A-2 then:

We would need a 1 or 2 hour fire separation between the two otherwise the code would be in conflict with note "e" of Table 508.3.3 and note "e" only applies to A and E occupancies.

In your opinion, all McDonald's, Wendy's, Burger King's, Subway, and every single pizza joint, restaurant and bar that serves food is built wrong?

I like to watch them make my food, I don't want to stand behind a 2 hour fire rated wall waiting to be served by high dose of cholesterol.
Don't forget Subway requires a fire separation between the food processing area and the dining room.

And the same goes for the funnel cake stand at the fair.
 
Re: "Loophole" that I don't like

brudgers wrote'

Don't forget Subway requires a fire separation between the food processing area and the dining room.And the same goes for the funnel cake stand at the fair.
Try to read and use the code brudgers. Or if you can require what you stated above, than write it. :roll:
 
Re: "Loophole" that I don't like

Seems to me I've seen this conversation play out before... ;)

Kil - You appear to be a lone wolf on this one. I do admire your tenacity, and if people in your jurisdiction comply with your interpretation, BRAVO! The only problem I have is that once again you tell us to cite code, which we do. But you don't like the sections we quote and so tell us again to cite code. The sections have been called out for you repeatedly, go back and read them. :(
 
Re: "Loophole" that I don't like

John Drobysh said:
I do admire your tenacity, and if people in your jurisdiction comply with your interpretation, BRAVO!
BRAVO?

Really?
 
Re: "Loophole" that I don't like

JD wrote:

Kil - You appear to be a lone wolf on this one. I do admire your tenacity, and if people in your jurisdiction comply with your interpretation, BRAVO! The only problem I have is that once again you tell us to cite code, which we do. But you don't like the sections we quote and so tell us again to cite code. The sections have been called out for you repeatedly, go back and read them.
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.

JD; help me out here, show me the specific code section that could classify a commercial kitchen as a B occupancy in accordance with Sec. 302.1. Or are you saying that a commercial kitchen is not a commercial kitchen and instead is an assembly use? I reread the post but didn't see any code sections that could be used to call a commercial kitchen a B occupancy. :)
 
Re: "Loophole" that I don't like

brudgers - Yes, really.

Kil - What others are trying to say is that the kitchen area is a function of the food service establishment and not an occupancy unto itself. I will grant you that in this particular case the 'accessory' (kitchen) area is larger than the 'business' (sales counter) area, and I do agree that some protection is desireable.

I believe that the various references to 'commercial kitchens' are to emphasize that they are not to be treated as seperate (F1) occupancies, but rather that they are to be viewed as a part of the food service - albeit a special risk part that requires some measure of protection.

You read and view that differently, that's OK. As I 've already said, if the businesses in your jurisdiction are willing to comply (or do so begrudgingly?) great. You will have some of the best protected eateries in the U.S.

Prior to the popularity of McD's and the other fast food places, NYS Would have required a deluge system at the counter to seperate the kitchen area from the customer areas. There were specific provisions for diners and limits on the size and type of cooking equipment used outside of the kitchen proper. My personal feeling is that we lost a lot of good stuff when we switched to modified I-Codes. C'est la vie.
 
Re: "Loophole" that I don't like

kilitact said:
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.
A restaurant is most like a restaurant.
 
Re: "Loophole" that I don't like

brudgers - The ability to see more than one side of an issue, or more than one point of view on that isssue is not a 'shame'. The inability to accept another point of view is... :( Kilitact and I have had one or two virtual fistfights over differing opinions. I don't think this one will go that far, but it was usually the result of one or the other (both?) lowering ourselves to personal attacks instead of remaining in the realm of reasoned debate. Reasoned debate is a much better approach.
 
Re: "Loophole" that I don't like

John Drobysh said:
brudgers - The ability to see more than one side of an issue, or more than one point of view on that isssue is not a 'shame'. The inability to accept another point of view is... :( Kilitact and I have had one or two virtual fistfights over differing opinions. I don't think this one will go that far, but it was usually the result of one or the other (both?) lowering ourselves to personal attacks instead of remaining in the realm of reasoned debate. Reasoned debate is a much better approach.
"BRAVO! to incorrect code enforcement" is not a subject which lends itself to reasoned debate.

What's wrong is wrong.

Justifying over-reaching by supposing it increases safety, is no more valid than justifying under-enforcement by supposing that it increases prosperity.

Don't misunderstand me, I'm a big fan of the NFPA codes and the way in which they explicitly provide the AHJ with discretion.

But the I-codes don't do that, and never will because their sole purpose was to remove the variation such discretion creates.

Your comment places "I got the citizen to dance a jig" over "I got it right."

And that is a shame.
 
Re: "Loophole" that I don't like

packsaddle,

Where is your emoticon eating popcorn... :D Seems that we are going to need it some

more.

.

 
Top