Rooftop Patio

[Francis Vineyard]

This patio is above the first floor A occupancy and is on the second floor level. I guess a follow up question would be concerning the internal stair we are using as one of the exits. Would this stair need to be sprinklered? We are sprinklering the first floor Assembly space.

For travel distance and exit arrangement it requires that the building be sprinklered to use the allowance; see Sections 1015.2 (exception 2) and Table 1016.2 footnote a

 

[north star]

~ [ + ] ~

Blake,

Section 705.5 refers to Table 601 & 602 for fire wall requirements.

Do either of these Tables require a fire rated separation for your application ?



~ [ + ] ~

 

[mtlogcabin]

Define the use so an occupancy classification can be identified.

If it is a B use then there are no issues. If calling it an "A" use then identify what makes it an "A" use. Just because it is a large open area does not define the use. Will the "A" use on the 1st floor be using the upper level for gatherings? Will the area be locked and secured when the "B" uses are locked and secured?

To many un-answered questions.

If it is a mixed use on the second floor will it qualify for non-separated mixed uses on that floor?

Do you have a fixture and furniture floor plan for this area?

 

[north star]

# - # - #



From the `12 IBC, Section 302.1 - General:

Structures or portions of structures shall be classified with respect to occupancy

in one or more of the groups listed in this section...........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 structures shall

be classified in the group that the occupancy most nearly resembles, according

to the fire safety and relative hazard involved."

From Section 303.1 - Assembly Group A:

"Assembly Group A occupancy includes, among others, the use of a building

or structure, or a portion thereof, for the gathering of persons for

purposes such as civic,social or religious functions; recreation, food or

drink consumption or awaiting transportation."

I would assign the Occupancy Group as an "A".



# - # - #

 

[mtlogcabin]

for the gathering of persons forpurposes such as civic,social or religious functions; recreation, food or

drink consumption or awaiting transportation."

If this was a hospital and it was an area for patients to get some sun shine and fresh air is it an "A" use? If it is an area for employee's in an office complex to do the same is it an "A" use?

The patio is accessible by the whole building for tenant use with tables/chairs, etc. No cooking and no permanent bar.

Obviously the exiting is not the issue

I think we are ok as far as exiting as we have the required 2 exits. My main concern is whether in a separated mixed-occupancy we have to separate an outdoor space from an interior space.

508.3.1 Occupancy Classification.

Nonseparated occupancies shall be individually classified in accordance with Section 302.1. The requirements of this code shall apply to each portion of the building based on the occupancy classification of that space. In addition, the most restrictive provisions of Chapter 9 which apply to the nonseparated occupancies shall apply to the total nonseparated occupancy area.

Chapter 9 requires sprinklers based on the Fire Area

Is the roof top patio within a fire area? I don't believe it is and therefore a separation would not be required.

 

[north star]

~ $ ~ $ ~

mt,

We may have to "agree to disagree"........I just cannot see how

the Patio Area can be classified as a "B Occupancy", ...especially

since it will have a high occupant load [ 4,228 sq. ft. \ 15 sq. ft.

per person = 282 occupants ], and IMO, it most nearly

resembles an area where a "social atmosphere" [ RE: tables

& chairs, ...not desks, chairs, cubicles, computers, etc. ] will

be versus a "B Occupancy".

~ $ ~ $ ~

 

[mtlogcabin]

1004.5 Outdoor areas.

Yards, patios, courts and similar outdoor areas accessible to and usable by the building occupants shall be provided with means of egress as required by this chapter. The occupant load of such outdoor areas shall be assigned by the building official in accordance with the anticipated use. Where outdoor areas are to be used by persons in addition to the occupants of the building, and the path of egress travel from the outdoor areas passes through the building, means of egress requirements for the building shall be based on the sum of the occupant loads of the building plus the outdoor areas.

Tables and chairs do not define the use.

The fact that it is outdoors, not within a fire area or within the building as defined by the code seems to make the occupancy separation requirement a moot point. Do we require an outdoor pool area "A" use to be separated from the "B" or "R" in a hotel?

I realize the area in question is one level above the ground and egress is back through the building but what is the purpose of occupancy separation? It is to compartmentalize and protect one occupancy from another. How much would a rated wall and opening protection add to the overall protection of the building from the uses on the open area roof and vice versus?

I can see both points but I do not see the "need' for the occupancy separation requirements for this scenario regardless of the classification of the rooftop use.

 

[steveray]

I do like the logic MT, but also I do think the "rooftop" assembly occupancies end up with far too much latitude as they are a bit gray in the IBC. I guess I would have to see the plan and make that call on a much more informed basis....Are we separating it from the occ. below?

 

[JBI]

north star,

The patio is not 'habitable' area as it is not for living, eating, sleeping or cooking. (I know some folks will be eating...)

It is technically not 'occupiable' space either as it is not an 'enclosed room or space'.

It is however a 'public-use area' as that includes exterior spaces.

And it is an Assembly space.

Blake Middleton, Welcome to the board. I don't believe a rating would be required.

 

[mtlogcabin]

Are we separating it from the occ. below?

Not required, same occupancy

Below the roof top patio is an A-2 Restaurant and A-3 Gallery space.

I do think the "rooftop" assembly occupancies end up with far too much latitude as they are a bit gray in the IBC.

The latitude is case by case because each Building Official is the one who decides for the jurisdiction as authorized by the code. One of the reasons we get the big bucks for what we do :lol: :banghd

[A] 104.1 General.

The building official is hereby authorized and directed to enforce the provisions of this code. 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. Such policies and procedures shall not have the effect of waiving requirements specifically provided for in this code.

 

[north star]

& ~ & ~ &

This is a great topic & dialogue.......Keep it going !

So, ...if we have the Patio designated as an "A Occupancy", fire rated

separation would be required as a "specific requirement" [ RE:

Section 705.5 & Table 601 & 602 ]............The OP also stated that all

of the building occupants intended to use it, which IMO, ...furthers

the designated intended use & function of the Patio Area

[ i.e. - Assembly ]

"Not required, same occupancy"

Same as the "A" above !

[A] 102.1 - General:Where there is a conflict between a general requirement and

a specific requirement, the specific requirement shall be

applicable..........Where, in any specific case, different

sections of this code specify different materials, methods of

construction or other requirements, the most restrictive

shall govern.

"[A] 104.1 - General:"The building official is hereby authorized and directed to enforce the provisions of this code.

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..........Such policies and procedures shall not have the effect of waiving

requirements specifically provided for in this code."

IMO, the BO does not have the authority to waive this specific requirement.Again, ...I believe that we have a "specific requirement"..........We may not

like it, but we seem to be mixing apples with oranges.

Thoughts...

Let the beating continue :beatdhrs Maybe this 'ol horsie ain't dead yet !



& ~ & ~ &

 

[mtlogcabin]

Since the designer disagrees with the BO I guess we are off to the appeals board

113.2 Limitations on authority.

An application for appeal shall be based on a claim that the true intent of this code or the rules legally adopted thereunder have been incorrectly interpreted, the provisions of this code do not fully apply or an equally good or better form of construction is proposed. The board shall have no authority to waive requirements of this code.

As a member of the appeals board I would make a motion and finding of fact that occupancy separation requirements do not fully apply between outdoor uncovered areas and the building structure.

 

[steveray]

"Chapter 9 requires sprinklers based on the Fire Area

Is the roof top patio within a fire area? I don't believe it is and therefore a separation would not be required."

Here is the kicker MT....I put a 1000 OL bar on the roof of a dynamite factory or right outside with no roof over it.....Not likely to happen I agree, but should it be allowed?

 

[Francis Vineyard]

That's addressed in the 2015 with the sprinkler requrement.

 

[mtlogcabin]

That's addressed in the 2015 with the sprinkler requrement.

I don't have access to the 2015

Can you provide a link or copy of what it states

 

[Francis Vineyard]

click on the 2012 Virginia Codes link below; click to view the 2012 Virginia Codes. Go to the bottom of that page for the 2015 ICC codes.

 

[JBI]

steveray, A dynamite factory would be an H-1, single use building...

 

[steveray]

JBI...That is part of my argument, If it is an "occupancy" it should be separated...no? Just because it does not have a roof or walls does not dismiss it. It may not count as building or fire area, but if it does not fall under accessory, it must be considered mixed use separated or non and meet those requirements....

 

[Francis Vineyard]

How about thinking of it as a modified A-5 on the roof given the new sprinkler requirement for 2015?

 

[steveray]

How about thinking of it as a modified A-5 on the roof given the new sprinkler requirement for 2015?

I will have to look at that...

 

[mtlogcabin]

Occupancy separations serve a couple of different purposes

1 to protect a less hazardous occupancy from a more hazardous occupancy. (fire loads)

2 To be able to use the maximum area of mixed use buildings based on construction type.

3 Compartmentalization of a structure to reduce the spread of fire.

I can agree with a horizontal occupancy separation for a roof top use.

I just do not see the need for the vertical occupancy separation in this case

 

[north star]

* & * & *

"I just do not see the need for the vertical occupancy separation in this case"

Respectfully asking, but outside of the Appeals Process, is there somewhere in theapplicable code that would not require it, ...that the designer or BO could hang

their collective hats on ?



* & * & *

 

[mtlogcabin]

I don't know.

However I am going to the Doug Thornburg and Steve Thomas show next week for ICC training and I will ask.

It will be interesting to get their perspective.

Douglas W. Thornburg, AIA, is the Vice President and Technical Director of Product Development and Education, where he provides leadership in the technical development and positioning of support products, educational activities and certification programs for the Code Council (ICC). Prior to joining the ICC in 2004, Mr. Thornburg served as a code consultant and educator for building codes. He has been involved extensively in building code activities since 1980.

[h=2]Steve Thomas, CBO[/h]

www.linkedin.com

• Mr. Thomas has over thirty years experience in working with building codes including plan reviews, inspections and administration. His firm provides building code consulting services for governmental agencies and architectural firms, as well as educational seminars on building codes. Starting a building code-consulting firm in 1999, he has served as the contract Building Official for local jurisdictions in Colorado. Mr. Thomas has served on several ICBO committees and currently serves as the Chairman of the ICC Means of Egress Code Development Committee. He is also the author of the book, Building Code Basics, Based on the 2009 IBC available from ICC. He has presented building code classes for the last 25 years and provides an interesting and engaging look at building codes. Mr. Thomas enjoys promoting building codes and educating people on the use of the codes in their communities and/or business.
  

 

[north star]

& : & : &



mt,

Thanks for the info.

I have attended one of Doug Thornburg' classes.........Very

knowledgeable and interesting class.........I DO recommend

Doug' classes.

FWIW, ...the class that I attended was a Mixed Occupancies

class, based from the `12 IBC.



& : & : &