• 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

R-2 Rooftop Patio and Number of Stories

texasbo said:
Brudgers, may I suggest that you stop posting on this board within 2 hours after you begin drinking? With that ridiculous postulate, every building would be reduced in allowable area by the square footage of its roof. You are really desperate and reaching for straws on this one; for the love of God, stop before you embarrass yourself further.
Click to expand...
If it were possible, I would ask you to stop posting while your head is up your ***. Even though the light of day would undoubtedly remove the facial pallor by which children recognize you.
 
texasbo said:
Table 503, Header, "Height limitations SHOWN AS STORIES..."
Click to expand...
"and feet above grade plane." Stories below grade plane are covered at 506.1.1 and 405.
 
brudgers said:
If it were possible, I would ask you to stop posting while your head is up your ***. Even though the light of day would undoubtedly remove the facial pallor by which children recognize you.
Click to expand...
Ya, whatever. You offered no rebuttal, as you are clearly aware of how ignorant your original statement was.

However, your preoccupation with children and rectums frightens me.

Be careful not to exceed the boundaries dictated by your ankle bracelet.

We are all a little dumber because your keyboard is not off limits, although I'm sure certain sites are not available to you by court order, and you are closely monitored by the judicial system...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
brudgers said:
"and feet above grade plane." Stories below grade plane are covered at 506.1.1 and 405.
Click to expand...
The OP never once referenced a height "in feet" bust. That is a strawman you are building to divert attention from a long string of ignorant posts.

Now, a much more intelligent and civilized forum member, Papio, and I have since begun a dialog regarding a hypothetical situation in which height in feet are in play. Are you perhaps participating in that discussion?
 
OK guys, getting out of hand, shut it down in regards to the personal attacks. Keep your remarks limited to the OP, argue away on that.
 
brudgers said:
Residential Occupancies have an occupant load of 1/200 sf. See Table 1004.1.1
Click to expand...
I’m fully aware what R occupant loads are figured at Thanks, however.

No one has asked the original poster what the O/L of the building or the roof top or how many condos are in the building or how many condos are on each floor. Nor if the roof top is part of the common area or owned by one condo owner. The height and size was never a question for the R2 use, so with out knowing how big the place is and what the owners are going to use it as, how can you move forward. I like the comments so far they are great but without the fundaments how can you move forward, how can the replies have any substance.

It was stated "rooftop patio is easily be classified as a Group A-3" however the poster gave no reason why it could be classed that way using the 7s.f. per person.

And also the comment about the Heliport would have stopped all this.

I have looked for days to find where I seen this subject posted I thought it was at ICC but it was on a west coast talk board. Almost the same start as here being the poster did not answer all of the questions given there and it was based on the Calif. Building Code Edition, and it looks like some of the posters from this site post there also.
 
In doing further research, i am afraid that rooftop assemblies do not have an occupant load based upon the definition of floor area.... therefore this concept is outside the scope of the code.

Therefore,this section would apply

The building official shall have the authority to render interpretations of this code and to adopt policies and procedures in order to clarify the

application of its provisions. Such interpretations, policies and procedures shall be in compliance with the intent and purpose

of this code.

The best answer - Check for the interpretations of the local AHJ - The code does not have specific code language that addresses this issue since building area and floor area are not defined for a rooftop assembly.

PONDER THIS FOR A FEW MINUTES - Then post a reply without any knee jerk reaction please - This is posted for discussion without personal attacks.
 
therefore this concept is outside the scope of the code.
Click to expand...
Disagree it is outside the scope of the code

Agree the building official may establish a use on the roof IF one is not already listed in Table 1004.1.1.

Where an intended use is not listed in Table 1004.1.1, the building official shall establish a use based on a listed use that most nearly resembles the intended use.

Any assembly use would meet the definition of "Floor Area Net"
 
thus the question would be.... is an assembly allowed to be located higher or any stories above what is allowable by T503 and footnotes/modifiers?

For example, i can't place a nightclub of type V-B construction above the 1st floor - however, I can place it on the rooftop of a 2 story non-sprinklered business building??? That is how I see some people interpreting this for rooftop assemblies...................

Don't think the code really addresses rooftop occupancies (except for llmited residential applications)
 
Builder Bob said:
For example, i can't place a nightclub of type V-B construction above the 1st floor - however, I can place it on the rooftop of a 2 story non-sprinklered business building??? That is how I see some people interpreting this for rooftop assemblies...................
Click to expand...
BB: nobody has said this.
 
BB

A bit of a trick question since in a Type V-B building there would be only one fire area and the entire fire area would require sprinklers.
 
Although...we have already established that roof top uses are not part of a fire area......on another thread...

Coug Dad said:
BBA bit of a trick question since in a Type V-B building there would be only one fire area and the entire fire area would require sprinklers.
Click to expand...
 
Coug Dad said:
BBA bit of a trick question since in a Type V-B building there would be only one fire area and the entire fire area would require sprinklers.
Click to expand...
The roof (A-3) would have to be separated from the Group R below as required by Table 508.3.3 (1 hour) and the height of the roof would need to be less than permitted by Table 503, with modifications. The roof is not a story.

Also stated in an earlier statement was that rooftop assemblies only had to comply with Chapter 10 for means of egress - thus this scenario (B, Type V-B non-sprinklered) would not include the requirements for chapter 9 since the rooftop does not meet the definitions of fire area....

Can somebody show me where I am wrong in this assumption??? I don't think this is the intent of the code but this is a composite of various opinions that have been presented over the last three pages..... Sounds like a code change is needed with a section in chapter 4 for special occupancies needed. (IMHO)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Coug Dad said:
BB A bit of a trick question since in a Type V-B building there would be only one fire area and the entire fire area would require sprinklers.
Click to expand...
If it was VB then the assembly occupancy would be more than one story above grade plane (even though the roof is not a story) and not allowed. Because the first story above grade plane extends from the finish floor to the top of the ceiling joists or top of rafters by definition.

By the way, type VB construction can have multiple fire areas. And of course, R2 occupancies invariably have them.
 
Also stated in an earlier statement was that rooftop assemblies only had to comply with Chapter 10 for means of egress - thus this scenario (B, Type V-B non-sprinklered) would not include the requirements for chapter 9 since the rooftop does not meet the definitions of fire area....
Click to expand...
How do you sprinkle an open air area?

Historically roof top uses consist of and the code recognizes these uses.

1607.11.2.2 Special-purpose roofs.

Roofs used for promenade purposes, roof gardens, assembly purposes or other special purposes, and marquees, shall be designed for a minimum live load, Lo, as specified in Table 1607.1. Such live loads are permitted to be reduced in accordance with Section 1607.9. Live loads of 100 psf (4.79 kN/m2) or more at areas of roofs classified as Group A occupancies shall not be reduced.

 
brudgers said:
By the way, type VB construction can have multiple fire areas. And of course, R2 occupancies invariably have them.
Click to expand...
brudgers, I agree, but how would R-2 "invariably" have fire areas? Fire partitions required for separation of dwelling units do not create fire areas per the definition of a fire area.
 
mtlogcabin said:
How do you sprinkle an open air area?Historically roof top uses consist of and the code recognizes these uses.
Click to expand...
The code definitely recognizes the use of open roofs, and regulates them in terms of structural design and exits. It does not regulate them in terms of building area, stories, fire area.
 
RLGA said:
brudgers, I agree, but how would R-2 "invariably" have fire areas? Fire partitions required for separation of dwelling units do not create fire areas per the definition of a fire area.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I got carried away.
 
It does not regulate them in terms of building area, stories, fire area.
Click to expand...
Agree a roof top use is not included in those terms

If 508 limits a V-B "A" occupancy to a single story I might concede that an "A" occupancy would be permitted on that building.

However if it was a 2 story mixed use V-B "A" on the 1st floor and a "B" on the second I don't believe an "A" use would be permitted on the roof as it would be above the second story even though it would be less than 40 ft above ground.
 
I agree Mtlog...... however, nothing with a rooftop bar that is open to the atmosphere would require the building to be sprinklered.........elevator and stairways could be used for patrons to use the restroom -----

No story, no fire area ---- and open to the sky.

Still think a special occupancy in chapter 4 needs to be created to address this situation.....

Table addresses allowable stories (rooftop is not a story) and the rooftop bar/pub is less than 40 feet in height above grade,

Would this be allowed per the code as written ?

My opinion is that it shouldn't but the code doesn't specifically disallow this either......

BTW- as previously stated, architects like to split hairs, since I don have many.I think I will try to double the number I have by splitting them....
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I truly have enjoyed all the posts on this thread it reminded me of when I started working as an inspector and when the ICBO building code was only the one volume. I never thought the poster gave enough material to answer the question completely. Just that it was a 5A sprinklered 4 story R2 with a patio that may hold 500 occupants at 7s.f. that could be a A3. I did some figures the first day I seen this. I thought where are they going to park the 250 cars plus for these events on this roof, is the parking on the first floor or underground or out on the street. Do they have side yards or for that fact do they have enough access from the roof to the street via stairs and elevators. And how are they going to comply with ADA requirements if in fact it truly is going to be a A3 occupancy? What was the occupant load elsewhere in this building?

Working off what was given I had this, V A sprinklered building one extra story + 20 feet no exceptions taken from chapter 5, The patio will handle at least 500 occupants at a seven s.f. per person would indicate the roof patio is at least 3500 s.f. (at home I only have a 2003 IBC) , max. 5A is 12Ks.f. with no side yds., roof structures allows same material with type of construction 5A sprinklered, with no storage or habitation (not a penthouse, passing out drunk does not count) allowed and patio is sprinklered and 5A construction (less than 20 ft in height). Without plans to this we have 12K per floor divide the 200 s.f. occupant load factor equals 30 persons per floor X 4 story bldg. = 120 occupants, all on roof top at the same time. I would have no loss of sleep keeping it an area used by the owners in an R2 condo building.

RLGA said:
2009 IBC applies.I'm looking at a 4-story, R-2 condominium building. The architect has provided a rather large rooftop patio that could easily handle up to 500 occupants using a 7 sf/occ. factor for assembly use.

My concern is this, since the architect has identified this as a Type VA building, sprinklered throughout with a NFPA 13 system, the allowable height and area, including increases for both, complies with Chapter 5. However, the rooftop patio is easily be classified as a Group A-3. Table 503 limits Group A-3 to 2 stories (3 stories with sprinkler increase), but since this rooftop patio is technically not a story by definition (no roof above), then is this acceptable?

I know means of egress need to comply with Chapter 10 per Section 1004.8.

Thanks!
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top