• 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.

Pavilion occupant load

Sifu

SAWHORSE
Joined
Sep 3, 2011
Messages
3,391
A new pavilion in an existing park. A3 or U? Open on all sides, paved accessible routes all the way around, not associated with any adjacent occupancies as far as I can tell. Do we get hung up on occupant load?
 
I have one in a park, and I never even thought about it.

And I still won't.

Move along, nothing to see here.
 
They clarified the use, it is an A3, with an occupant load that will contribute to the fixture counts of the B spaces it is accessory to. Not too big a deal, but if the DP could just include the info on the plans it would have saved time.
 
A pavillion sure seems to meet the IBC definition of a building, so I presume it should be regulated by the code.
 
I didn't say it was not in the scope of the code, I said I wouldn't get hung up on the OL for it specifically.

The one I was referring to is an accessory to the park, there are probably 8-10 City-owned facilities around it, and there is a separate restroom structure in the park.
 
I didn't say it was not in the scope of the code, I said I wouldn't get hung up on the OL for it specifically.

The one I was referring to is an accessory to the park, there are probably 8-10 City-owned facilities around it, and there is a separate restroom structure in the park.
Thanks Fatboy. I used the term "hung up" but maybe that is too extreme. I just wanted to make sure they were somehow accounting for the facilities. They could have easily done so in the code analysis, had they provided one. Since they didn't I had to dig a little deeper. It turns out they were. The permit app listed the building as an S-2, but it was in a park so I assumed (correctly) that this was not to be used as a storage facility, so I wanted to know how many people will be using it and for what reason. All good I think.
 
Back
Top