• 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.

Sprinkler requirements for VB restaurant use

S

spabilove

REGISTERED
Joined
Mar 16, 2024
Messages
13
Location
Virginia
Hello, I'm struggling to grasp the sprinkler requirements for construction type '5B(Non-sprinklered, no fire alarm)', as the building, about 7000 sq ft in size, previously designated as A2 (The building has been only operated as a restaurant ever since they built.), remains unchanged in use group. I received the comment and the reviewer asked me demonstrating non-requirement as per VCC (Virginia Construction Code) 2018, section 903.2. as 'show how the fire sprinklers are not required per VCC (Virginia Construction Code) 2018, section 903.2.'"

The building, initially designed for a restaurant and renovated to 2012 VCC Level 2 standards, faced no sprinkler requirement issues. Presently, I'm working with a "New Tenant Fit Out" and Level 2 alterations under the 2018 VCC, I seek clarification on why fire sprinklers may not be mandated as per section 903.2. Your thorough insight into this matter would be invaluable.

Attached are screenshots of the building information for your reference, noting no alterations in use group or structural elements.

1711494856957.png
 
spabilove said:
Hello, I'm struggling to grasp the sprinkler requirements for construction type '5B(Non-sprinklered, no fire alarm)', as the building, about 7000 sq ft in size, previously designated as A2 (The building has been only operated as a restaurant ever since they built.), remains unchanged in use group. I received the comment and the reviewer asked me demonstrating non-requirement as per VCC (Virginia Construction Code) 2018, section 903.2. as 'show how the fire sprinklers are not required per VCC (Virginia Construction Code) 2018, section 903.2.'"

The building, initially designed for a restaurant and renovated to 2012 VCC Level 2 standards, faced no sprinkler requirement issues. Presently, I'm working with a "New Tenant Fit Out" and Level 2 alterations under the 2018 VCC, I seek clarification on why fire sprinklers may not be mandated as per section 903.2. Your thorough insight into this matter would be invaluable.

Attached are screenshots of the building information for your reference, noting no alterations in use group or structural elements
Click to expand...
Can you confirm I’m understanding you correctly:

Original and existing construction type: 5B.
Original and existing area: 7307 s.f. (interior and exterior dining, per your code summary.)
Original occupancy classification: Assembly Group A-2.
New tenant occupancy classification: Assembly Group A-2.

Does the General Note 6 referenced in your code summary have anything that might affect this?
 
I appreciate your prompt response and yes, you are correct about the information you provided. This note was left by the previous tenant, and I believe it adequately addresses my concern. Could you please confirm if my understanding of the sprinkler requirement is accurate?

1711499329554.png
 
spabilove said:
I appreciate your prompt response and yes, you are correct about the information you provided. This note was left by the previous tenant, and I believe it adequately addresses my concern. Could you please confirm if my understanding of the sprinkler requirement is accurate?
Click to expand...
You’re welcome, thank you for the attachment showing General Note 6.

So first, I am not familiar with the Virginia codes but I wanted to share something similar that recently happened on a permit application I was involved with.

The project was a very simple interior upfit to reconstruct two walls that a previous tenant tore down. That tenant never finished their upfit, they broke their lease, and left the building owner with a mess. Project did not involve any plumbing, mechanical, or electrical. We got review comments telling us to submit a “full set of drawings” and also to demonstrate compliance with a provision in the existing building code regarding providing an accessible route to the work area. These comments were very unexpected because the drawings clearly showed that there was no work involving mechanical, plumbing, or electrical and the accessible route was also clearly shown. I met with the plans examiner and pointed these things out to the person and they basically said “OK.” and that no additional drawings were required and that they understood we met accessibility requirements. Point is, somehow the plans examiner had a gross misunderstanding of the scope of the work. Not sure how that happened, because all the other departments signed off because they saw the scope of work did not involve plumbing, mechanical, or electrical. How the one person missed that I have no idea, I didn’t make a big deal out of it.

With all that said, I’d suggest you consider meeting with the plans reviewer and point how the original building did not require sprinklers and with no change of use, no increase in area, et cetera, that sprinklers are not required for the new tenant. Just maybe they didn’t really do as thorough a review as they should have which is what happened in our project.

It sounds like your drawings were from the previous tenant, have you submitted new drawings where your architect has restated the same information about sprinklers not being required?
 
As both an architect and as a plan reviewer, I would not accept your note #5. You cannot "assume" that something complied with the code at the time it was built. We currently have a remediation in planning because of a condition that didn't meet the BOCA code under which it was constructed in 1986. There's nobody left in either the Building Department or the Fire Marshal's office who can explain how it was allowed, but everyone (including the State Fire Marshal) agrees that it doesn't comply now, it didn't comply when it was constructed in 1986, and therefore it has to be corrected.

We have had other projects where the submitted drawings assumed fire resistance ratings of corridors and stair enclosures. When we asked for verification, whaddaya know? They weren't what the architect had assumed. Much fun ensued.

If you are the architect for the current project, it is your responsibility to verify any conditions that you assume met a previous code.
 
It appears that Virginia had adopted the 2021 International Existing Building Code, which my state has also adopted. We see a lot of projects come in under the IEBC. If you get to sit down with the plan reviewer or talk to him/her on the phone, you might try to politely point out that the fundamental principle underlying the IEBC is to make new work comply with the current code, and for everything else "don't make it less safe."

The reviewer's comment was "show how the fire sprinklers are not required per VCC (Virginia Construction Code) 2018, section 903.2." To respond to that, you need to sit down with the IEBC open and trace the code path of what the IEBC requires. Chapter 3 applies to all alteration projects. You mentioned Level 2, so you are using the Work Area method -- so you also have to look at Chapter 6, sections 601, 602, and 603 only. Sections 604 through 608 don't apply. Chapters 7 and 8 don't apply.

So ... unless there's something in Chapter 3 or sections 601 through 603 that sends you to IBC Section 903.2 -- it doesn't apply.
 
Yankee Chronicler said:
The reviewer's comment was "show how the fire sprinklers are not required per VCC (Virginia Construction Code) 2018, section 903.2." To respond to that, you need to sit down with the IEBC open and trace the code path of what the IEBC requires. Chapter 3 applies to all alteration projects. You mentioned Level 2, so you are using the Work Area method -- so you also have to look at Chapter 6, sections 601, 602, and 603 only. Sections 604 through 608 don't apply. Chapters 7 and 8 don't apply.
Click to expand...
This is good advice to trace the “code path.” Drawings for the project I mentioned above had a numbered list tracing the various code references, no one at the building department had any questions regarding sprinklers for the project.

spabilove said:
This note was left by the previous tenant, and I believe it adequately addresses my concern.
Click to expand...
Yankee Chronicler said:
As both an architect and as a plan reviewer, I would not accept your note #5.
Click to expand...
Note 4 also makes the assumption that the existing building met the accessibility requirements at the time it was constructed, so that’s two points that could lead to some “fun” down the road!

Regarding Note 5. I just looked up 705.2 in the 2021 Virginia Existing Building Code, that is a reference to “Means of Egress, Hazards” with a reference to Table 702 (Means of Egress Hazard Categories.) I don’t see how 705.2 can be used in the statement “per International Existing Building Code Section 705.2” to support anything in Note 5 because there wasn’t a change of hazard category.

up.codes

Chapter 7 Change of Occupancy: Change of Occupancy, Virginia Existing Building Code 2021 | UpCodes

UpCodes offers a consolidated resource of construction and building code grouped by jurisdiction
up.codes up.codes
 
2018 IFC
SECTION 1101
GENERAL

1101.1 Scope.
The provisions of this chapter shall apply to existing buildings constructed prior to the adoption of this code.

1101.2 Intent.
The intent of this chapter is to provide a minimum degree of fire and life safety to persons occupying existing buildings by providing minimum construction requirements where such existing buildings do not comply with the minimum requirements of the International Building Code.

1103.5 Sprinkler systems.
An automatic sprinkler system shall be provided in existing buildings in accordance with Sections 1103.5.1 through 1103.5.4.

1103.5.1 Group A-2.
Where alcoholic beverages are consumed in a Group A-2 occupancy having an occupant load of 300 or more, the fire area containing the Group A-2 occupancy shall be equipped with an automatic sprinkler system in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1.
 
mtlogcabin said:
1103.5.1 Group A-2.
Where alcoholic beverages are consumed in a Group A-2 occupancy having an occupant load of 300 or more, the fire area containing the Group A-2 occupancy shall be equipped with an automatic sprinkler system in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1.
Click to expand...
That’s a good point, I was so focused on the envelope I wasn’t thinking about what exactly might be happening inside. I think that mistake was due to how the original post noted the A2 use did not change, but I didn’t question if the business went from being a breakfast house to a sports bar or whatever.

I would like to think if the plans reviewer knew there was alcohol being served that they would have cited that as a reason why they believed the building required sprinklers.
 
He might not be looking at the Fire Code since that is a retro-active requirement in the IFC that is not referenced in the IBC or IEBC. The Fire Marshall should be the one to call it out and require the compliance not the building department unless they do the review for the fire code also. We do both in our jurisdiction.

Below is when the UBC required sprinklers in an "A" occupancy. As you can see an occupant load was not a factor like it is in the I-Codes

1711561042553.png
 
mtlogcabin said:
He might not be looking at the Fire Code since that is a retro-active requirement in the IFC that is not referenced in the IBC or IEBC.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I noticed you had highlighted the part about “prior to the adoption of this code.” I know a guy who rents commercial space, he would not want to sign a lease with a new tenant if it would require sprinklers unless that tenant was footing the bill.

mtlogcabin said:
Below is when the UBC required sprinklers in an "A" occupancy. As you can see an occupant load was not a factor like it is in the I-Codes
Click to expand...
Interesting that occupant load wasn’t a factor. If 5000 s.f. was the limit and if I were to assume a kind of worst case 75% of that was for standing space per Table 1004.5 that is 5000 x 0.75 = 3750 s.f./5 = 750 occupants, so it looks like the current requirement is probably more conservative. But I think that’s generally the way changes in the codes work, no?
 
2000 was the first time the OL was a factor in the requirement. 2006 IBC dropped the OL from 300 to 100 fire area.

2000 IBC
1711576497764.png
2006 IBC
1711576666601.png
 
mtlogcabin said:
2000 was the first time the OL was a factor in the requirement. 2006 IBC dropped the OL from 300 to 100 fire area.
Click to expand...
I bet people complained about such a big reduction in the occupant load. Firm where I was working at that time wasn’t doing any projects with assembly occupancies for me to have noticed the reduction.
 
walker.t said:
I bet people complained about such a big reduction in the occupant load.
Click to expand...
McDonalds did not like it when they built their second one here. Especially when I assigned 7 sq ft for the que area in front of the counter. It got them up to 101 OL. They removed two fixed seats and table to avoid the sprinkler requirement. They believed I was wrong because nobody ever counted the sq ft of the que area before. This was 1/4 mile down the road from a new high school with 1,300 students and no other fast food places within 5 mile except a Costco burp dog. The first 2 years they where there you could not get through the front door when the students had lunch breaks
 
I thought and still believe it is not needed if alcohol is not served. I have seen a lot of mom & pop eating establishments that only serve breakfast and lunch.
 
If I remember correctly restaurants & cafeterias used to be A-3, and A-2 was for night clubs where patrons were likely to be out late at night and drinking a lot more than a cocktail before dinner and a glass of wine with dinner. At some point all eating establishments became A-2, probably because a new owner might keep them open later and serve more drinks.
 
mtlogcabin said:
McDonalds did not like it when they built their second one here. Especially when I assigned 7 sq ft for the que area in front of the counter. It got them up to 101 OL. They removed two fixed seats and table to avoid the sprinkler requirement. They believed I was wrong because nobody ever counted the sq ft of the que area before. This was 1/4 mile down the road from a new high school with 1,300 students and no other fast food places within 5 mile except a Costco burp dog. The first 2 years they where there you could not get through the front door when the students had lunch breaks
Click to expand...

You're generous. I treat queue areas as standing room, at 1 person per 5 square feet. (Unless it's an "upscale" joint that has a seating area for people waiting until their table is available. Even then I may push for 5 sf per person if it's a place like Texas Roadhouse where on a busy night the line may extend out the door and into the parking lot.
 
mtlogcabin said:
103.5.1 Group A-2.
Where alcoholic beverages are consumed in a Group A-2 occupancy having an occupant load of 300 or more, the fire area containing the Group A-2 occupancy shall be equipped with an automatic sprinkler system in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1.
Click to expand...

Does it make a difference if they start having BYOB in an existing restaurant?
 
Interesting. Don't use the IFC here unless the IBC sends us to a certain section like high racks. So, if they never sold alcoholic beverages, but start a BYOB policy they need to apply for a change of occupancy?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top