# "Loophole" that I don't like



## jar546 (Nov 12, 2009)

Whether Ch 34 or IEBC I can't really see any way to tighten this up:

Existing 2 story, 6 unit residential structure, type VB with 4 2nd floor apartments and 2 on the first floor in the rear.  The front is split into 2 businesses, left and right.  Old stone foundation since it was built way back when and has existed for years.

One of the 2 store fronts has been empty for about a year and was last known to be a beauty salon.  No renovations were done since we have adopted the I-Codes almost 6 years ago.

Now someone wants to put a pizza shop where the beauty salon once was.  Mostly take out and since it was a B and will be a B, there is not a change of occupancy classification.  Occupancy limit will be limited to 14 due to square footage and layout.

The only work will be some counters and a pizza oven.  There is some talk about a stove and a type 1 hood.

My complaint is that since we have an existing structure that is a B and we are not changing the occupancy classification, other than the work they are doing, nothing else can be done.

The building is not accessible, never was and we now have cooking operations below an R occupancy.  This is where I never agree that cooking can be in the B classification.

Again, no special ordinances or fire codes, just the adopted I-Codes apply.

See my point or am I missing something?


----------



## Builder Bob (Nov 12, 2009)

Re: "Loophole" that I don't like

important note---- Occupant load isn't determined by the building's occupancy classification. It is determined by the actual uses of a space.

In this instance, a multitude of occupant load factors could be used:

kitchen- 200 gross

Seating- 15 net and/or 24" butt space in booths

Waiting area/standing area - Counter space (5 net)- go to a fast food joint at lunch rush and let me know if the waiting line exceeds the typical 15 net or 100 gross.

etc., etc.

I see the actual Square footage being 1400 square foot - because 14 OL @ 15 net is only 210 SF.

Something is wrong somewhere.


----------



## north star (Nov 12, 2009)

Re: "Loophole" that I don't like

*Jeff,*

*Around here, in some of the "B" type occupancies that have now turned in to*

*a pizza type business,  we have required the Type 1 hoods with a fire*

*supression system and a portable Type K fire extinguisher nearby.     Other*

*than that, we have not had any problems with these type businesses, however,*

*we have not had any that had other occupancy types and uses above them*

*either.*

*To close your loophole, the AHJ could adopt some type of language in to*

*one of the adopted codes that addresses these type situations, except having*

*them sprinkle the location.    Requiring the sprinkling of small spaces like these*

*will be cost prohibitive, unless there is already an existing sprinkler riser in the*

*building somewhere and adding some lateral lines would be feasible.*

*Also, agree with Builder Bob on the occupant calcs.    Might need to re-review*

*your specific application.       Around here, some good P.R. would get an*

*additional portable fire extinguisher or two installed, but not much else.*

*There IS some "give and take" involved.*


----------



## Gene Boecker (Nov 12, 2009)

Re: "Loophole" that I don't like

Jeff, regarding the accessibility issue, there are some changes in the 2009 editions of both the IBC, Ch 34 and the IEBC.  With the limited amount of work that 's happening, they might still slip under the radar for the level of alteration.

I'd let them know that they may not have any code requirement for accessibility upgrades but that doesn't relieve them from the federal requirement of the ADA to remove existing barriers.  A Wendy's franchise in Iowa recently settled with the DoJ over barrier removals that had not happened in the past 17 years.  You might remind the architect that although the code doesn't require a thing, doesn't mean that he's not responsible for other requirements by other agencies.

If there are no upgrades for accessibility, the owner (and designer) are open to some serious litigation for civil rights violations.


----------



## brudgers (Nov 12, 2009)

Re: "Loophole" that I don't like

It's not a loophole.

It's an exception that's based on experience.

In other words, with the required fire suppression and other mechanical equipment there is not an unusual hazard.

However, there's no exception for accessibility.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Nov 12, 2009)

Re: "Loophole" that I don't like

They can be required to spend money on the accessible route to the primary function area

3409.7 Alterations affecting an area containing a primary function.

Where an alteration affects the accessibility to, or contains an area of primary function, the route to the primary function area shall be accessible. The accessible route to the primary function area shall include toilet facilities or drinking fountains serving the area of primary function.

Exceptions:

1.	The costs of providing the accessible route are not required to exceed 20 percent of the costs of the alterations affecting the area of primary function.


----------



## jar546 (Nov 12, 2009)

Re: "Loophole" that I don't like

There is approximately 750 square feet of space.  The kitchen takes up the majority with approximately 500 square feet that gives him 3 people for the kitchen.

The 250 square feet that is left includes a hallway to the accessible bathroom.  After I subtract the hallway and the bathroom we have about 165 square feet of room in which he plans on having tables with 11 chairs.  This just about fits the 15sq/per for tables and chairs giving him 11 people.  This is how we are coming up with 14 occupancy limit which I am going to hold him to anyway.

There will be a type 1 hood and a type 2 hood installed.  This is not a sprinklered building and there is no rated separation between the B uses on the 1st floor and the R2 above.

I am just thinking that they should at least required a separation for this type of use.  I understand not pushing the sprinklers due to the existing building exclusion but not separation.


----------



## Mac (Nov 13, 2009)

Re: "Loophole" that I don't like

Is it possible the take out pizza place could be an F-1 occupancy? It is food processing, and bakeries are included, too.


----------



## JBI (Nov 13, 2009)

Re: "Loophole" that I don't like

PRIMARY FUNCTION. A primary function is a major activity for which the facility is intended. Areas that contain a primary function include, but are not limited to, the customer service lobby of a bank, the dining area of a cafeteria, the meeting rooms in a conference center, as well as offices and other work areas in which the activities of the public accommodation or other private entity using the facility are carried out. Mechanical rooms, boiler rooms, supply storage rooms, employee lounges or locker rooms, janitorial closets, entrances, corridors and restrooms are not areas containing a primary function.

Probably the best that Chap 34 has for you is the alterations are affecting the areas of primary function, and the primary function has changed. Just not enough to kick in the sprinklers...

Now if you were in the EBC...

CHANGE OF OCCUPANCY. A change In the purpose or level of activity within a building that involves a change in application of the requirements of this code.

Might have given you a little more to work with. Personally I will never understand adopting BOTH Chap 34 AND the EBC, redundant. Almost as crazy as not adopting a Res Code. (Sorry Californians, I just don't get it.     )


----------



## kilitact (Nov 13, 2009)

Re: "Loophole" that I don't like

I would agree with what Mac said, the kitchen would be classified as an F-1, requires separation between the F-1 and R and fire sprinklers.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Nov 13, 2009)

Re: "Loophole" that I don't like

It would be a big stretch to call a pizza restaurant a take out an F-1. This is not just take out it has a dining area which with the OL is clearly a B occupancy.


----------



## globe trekker (Nov 13, 2009)

Re: "Loophole" that I don't like

I agree with mtlogcabin!   Trying to assign an F-1 "use of space" to these type of businesses is a stretch.     Plus,

if the business owner is considering whether to locate in Jeff's area ( with an F-1 designation ) or go to another

"more business friendly location", what do you think that they are going to do?

Now, if Jeff had an amended code or city ordinance already in-place, that would be a different matter altogether!


----------



## kilitact (Nov 13, 2009)

Re: "Loophole" that I don't like

Calling a commercial kitchen an F-1, is assigning the correct occupancy classification to this area based on the use. I would agree with the others that getting fire sprinklers is a 'stretch", but at a minimum an occupancy separation would be required.



> more business friendly location


 What chapter of what code is this in? good old boys club?  :roll:


----------



## mtlogcabin (Nov 13, 2009)

Re: "Loophole" that I don't like

There is a big difference between proccessing a food item and cooking a food item

[edit] Food processing methods

Common food processing techniques include:

Removal of unwanted outer layers, such as potato peeling or the skinning of peaches.

Chopping or slicing e.g. diced carrots.

Mincing and macerating

Liquefaction, such as to produce fruit juice

Fermentation e.g. in beer breweries

Emulsification

Cooking, such as boiling, broiling, frying, steaming or grilling

Deep frying

Baking

Mixing

Addition of gas such as air entrainment for bread or gasification of soft drinks

Proofing

Spray drying

Pasteurization

Packaging


----------



## kilitact (Nov 13, 2009)

Re: "Loophole" that I don't like



> 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. *


I’m not seeing where, as code officials we can subordinate the codes, in the interest of being a more business friendly location. If you agree to a modification in accordance with Section 104.10, make sure you have plenty of documentation to justify your action in granting a modification.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Nov 13, 2009)

Re: "Loophole" that I don't like

Call the kitchen an F-1 change of occupancy require the fire seperation between the F-1 and the R above. That leaves 250 sq ft of B use which is not a change of use and does not require seperation between the kitchen and dining area. You still can't get a complete seperation between the R and the business below.

I don't disagree the seperation would be a great improvement I just don't see a way to require it. This is one of those situations that will take a lot of education to the building owner to try and get a voluntary installation of a horizontal fire seperation assembly.


----------



## kilitact (Nov 13, 2009)

Re: "Loophole" that I don't like

Call the correct change of use, to a more hazardous use, require a separate fire area separation for the B and F-1 from the R and require early detection for the pizza place in lieu of fire sprinklers?

As a side note; I think that if, as a code official, you base code decisions on if your business friendly, your in the wrong line of work. IMO


----------



## globe trekker (Nov 13, 2009)

Re: "Loophole" that I don't like

kil,

Some of the jurisdictions out here have their hands and feet tied, whereas they cannot enforce the adopted codes

and ordinances.   Unfortunately, "  It is what it is !"    I, for one, want to remain employed.   If that means not

identifying a "use of space" to someone else's interpreatation, opinion or viewpoint, then so be it!    The elected

officials in this jurisdiction want things the way they want them.    I have learned and will continue to learn to

"pick my battles",  and this one just does not warrant an F-1 assignment.    There is no way that I could convince

the BO or city officials to go along with this.    Mind you, this is ONLY in my location.    Other jurisdictions may

have a different viewpoint.

*A  QUICK  STRAW  POLL:*   How many jurisdictions out there would classify this type of take out pizza business

as an F-1  "use of space" ?


----------



## kilitact (Nov 13, 2009)

Re: "Loophole" that I don't like

globe trekker wrote;



> Some of the jurisdictions out here *have their hands and feet tied, whereas they cannot enforce the adopted codes*and ordinances. Unfortunately, " It is what it is !" I, for one, want to remain employed. If that means notidentifying a "use of space" to someone else's interpreatation, opinion or viewpoint, then so be it! The elected
> 
> officials in this jurisdiction want things the way they want them. I have learned and will continue to learn to
> 
> ...


This would be mixed use, so the straw poll should ask if you would classify this as B and F-1. Do you classify all commercial kitchens as B, or just the ones that Uncle Bubba say you need to?  :roll:


----------



## vegas paul (Nov 13, 2009)

Re: "Loophole" that I don't like

Recently returned from Baltimore for the Code Hearings.  This subject was part of a proposed code change (approved) that would essentially classify the commercial kitchen associated with a restaurant, cafeteria, dining area, etc. the same classification as said restaurant, etc.  (for example, either B or A2).  This would NOT apply to commercial kitchens that are not associated with a seating or dining area (e.g. caterers).

So... I would suspect that in the future this will be clarified in the IBC.

Regareding the pizza take-out, we would call it a B.  However, we have more strict local amendments for existing buildings, so we would require it to be separated or sprinklered.


----------



## kilitact (Nov 13, 2009)

Re: "Loophole" that I don't like

vegas paul:



> There is approximately 750 square feet of space. The kitchen takes up the majority with approximately 500 square feet that gives him 3 people for the kitchen.


So in this case where the F-1 is approx. 67% of the area, it would be called B occupancy in 2012

seems like a loophole, if I have a commercial kitchen, 1400 sq ft,  with a cafeteria, I can claim B occupany classification and no fire sprinklers required?

vegas paul:

Thinking about this, would you post the text of this approved code change, having a 18,000. sq ft bakery with a 200 sq ft B area for the public to come in,  buy and eat donuts, and no fire sprinklers required?


----------



## JBI (Nov 14, 2009)

Re: "Loophole" that I don't like

I have seen 'bakeries' that would easily classify as F-1. The National Biscuit Company (NABISCO) has/had such a place. Only saw it from the outside, but it was HUGE! Friehoffers and Entemanns probably have them as well. My current jurisdiction had a place that made pizza, froze it and shipped it out. Of course they were making thousands of pizza pies every day... THAT would rise to the level of F-1 IMHO.

While I don't disagree that some seperation is warranted, I don't believe I would call a take-out pizza place an F-1.

Opinions will vary...


----------



## brudgers (Nov 14, 2009)

Re: "Loophole" that I don't like

"Food processing" is not cooking.

If kitchens were intended as F, the code would be explicity.

Any rational reading of Section 306.1 would indicate what is to be covered.

Otherwise, bars would be F-2.


----------



## kilitact (Nov 14, 2009)

Re: "Loophole" that I don't like



> 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.


so enlighten us as to how you "rationalize" a commercial kitchen classification as a B occupancy.


----------



## brudgers (Nov 14, 2009)

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.


----------



## JBI (Nov 14, 2009)

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...


----------



## brudgers (Nov 14, 2009)

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.


----------



## jar546 (Nov 14, 2009)

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.


----------



## kilitact (Nov 15, 2009)

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.
> 
> ...


----------



## jar546 (Nov 15, 2009)

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.


----------



## kilitact (Nov 15, 2009)

Re: "Loophole" that I don't like

Jar546: can you cite a code section, that would classifiy a commercial kitchen as a B occupancy?


----------



## jar546 (Nov 15, 2009)

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.


----------



## jar546 (Nov 15, 2009)

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.


----------



## kilitact (Nov 15, 2009)

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


----------



## jar546 (Nov 15, 2009)

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?


----------



## kilitact (Nov 15, 2009)

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


----------



## brudgers (Nov 15, 2009)

Re: "Loophole" that I don't like

Simply amazing.


----------



## brudgers (Nov 15, 2009)

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.
> 
> ...


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.


----------



## kilitact (Nov 15, 2009)

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:


----------



## JBI (Nov 15, 2009)

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.


----------



## brudgers (Nov 16, 2009)

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?


----------



## kilitact (Nov 16, 2009)

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.


----------



## JBI (Nov 16, 2009)

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.


----------



## brudgers (Nov 16, 2009)

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.


----------



## brudgers (Nov 16, 2009)

Re: "Loophole" that I don't like



			
				John Drobysh said:
			
		

> brudgers - Yes, really


That's a shame.


----------



## JBI (Nov 16, 2009)

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.


----------



## brudgers (Nov 16, 2009)

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.


----------



## north star (Nov 16, 2009)

Re: "Loophole" that I don't like

*packsaddle,*

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

*more.*

*.*


----------



## kilitact (Nov 16, 2009)

Re: "Loophole" that I don't like

jd; so in your mind if you had storage in this space it would be B, or A occupancy not S-1?? Seems strange to me. When i plan review, I classifiy each area of the space as to it use.

brudgers' you should try and read read the code prior to making these off-hand comments.


----------



## JBI (Nov 16, 2009)

Re: "Loophole" that I don't like

Jeff - Digging in to the EBC, I have found a code path to follow... Let's just call it 'The Long and Winding Road'. I don't know if you will end up with sprinklers, but you should at least get some compartmentation out of it.

Starting with definitions, and moving through the chapters:

ALTERATION. Any construction or renovation to an existing structure other than a repair or addition. Alterations are classified as Level 1, Level 2, and Level 3.

_CHANGE OF OCCUPANCY. __*A change In*__ the purpose or __*level of activity*__ within a building that involves a change in application of the requirements of this code._

PRIMARY FUNCTION. A primary function is a major activity for which the facility is intended. Areas that contain a primary function include, but are not limited to, the customer services lobby of a bank, the dining area of a cafeteria, the meeting rooms in a conference center, as well as offices and other work areas in which the activities of the public accommodation or other private entity using the facility are carried out. Mechanical rooms, boiler rooms, supply storage rooms, employee lounges or locker rooms, janitorial closets, entrances, corridors and restrooms are not areas containing a primary function.

WORK AREA. That portion or portions of a building consisting of all reconfigured spaces as indicated on the construction documents. Work area excludes other portions of the building where incidental work entailed by the intended work must be performed and portions of the building where work not initially intended by the owner is specifically required by this code.

SECTION 302 ADDITIONS, ALTERATIONS OR REPAIRS

302.1 Existing buildings or structures.

*Additions or alterations to any building or structure shall comply with the requirements of the International Building Code for new construction. Additions or alterations shall not be made to an existing building or structure that will cause the existing building or structure to be in violation of any provisions of the International Building Code. An existing building plus additions shall comply with the height and area provisions of the International Building Code. Portions of the structure not altered and not affected by the alteration are not required to comply with the code requirements for a new structure. *

*302.3 Nonstructural. *

*Nonstructural alterations or repairs to an existing building or structure are permitted to be made of the same materials of which the building or structure is constructed, provided that they do not adversely affect any structural member or the fire-resistance rating of any part of the building or structure. *

*302.7 Fuel gas. [FG]*

*Additions, alterations, renovations or repairs to fuel gas installations shall conform to the International Fuel Gas Code without requiring the existing installation to comply with all of the requirements of this code. Additions, alterations or repairs shall not cause an existing installation to become unsafe, hazardous or overloaded.*

*Minor additions, alterations, renovations and repairs to existing installations shall meet the provisions for new construction, unless such work is done in the same manner and arrangement as was in the existing system, is not hazardous and is approved. *

*404.1 Scope. *

*Level 2 alterations include the reconfiguration of space, the addition or elimination of any door or window, the reconfiguration or extension of any system, or the installation of any additional equipment. *

*SECTION 406 CHANGE OF OCCUPANCY *

*406.1 Scope. *

*Change of occupancy provisions apply where the activity is classified as a change of occupancy as defined in Chapter 2. *

*701.3 Compliance. *

*All new construction elements, components, systems, and spaces shall comply with the requirements of the International Building Code.*

*703.4 Interior finish. *

*The interior finish of walls and ceilings in exits and corridors in any work area shall comply with the requirements of the International Building Code.*

*Exception: Existing interior finish materials that do not comply with the interior finish requirements of the International Building Code shall be permitted to be treated with an approved fire-retardant coating in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions to achieve the required rating. *

*703.4.1 Supplemental interior finish requirements. *

*Where the work area on any floor exceeds 50 percent of the floor area, Section 703.4 shall also apply to the interior finish in exits and corridors serving the work area throughout the floor.*

*Exception: Interior finish within tenant spaces that are entirely outside the work area.*

*SECTION 704 FIRE PROTECTION *

*704.1 Scope. *

*The requirements of this section shall be limited to work areas in which Level 2 alterations are being performed, and where specified they shall apply throughout the floor on which the work areas are located or otherwise beyond the work area. *

*704.2 Automatic sprinkler systems. *

*Automatic sprinkler systems shall be provided in accordance with the requirements of Sections 704.2.1 through 704.2.5. Installation requirements shall be in accordance with the International Building Code. *

*704.2.2.1 Mixed uses. *

*In work areas containing mixed uses, one or more of which requires automatic sprinkler protection in accordance with Section 704.2.2, such protection shall not be required throughout the work area provided that the uses requiring such protection are separated from those not requiring protection by fire-resistance-rated construction having a minimum 2-hour rating for Group H and a minimum 1-hour rating for all other occupancy groups.*

*SECTION 707 STRUCTURAL *

*707.1 General. *

*Where alteration work includes installation of additional equipment that is structurally supported by the building or reconfiguration of space such that portions of the building become subjected to higher gravity loads as required by Tables 1607.1 and 1607.6 of the International Building Code, the provisions of this section shall apply. *

*707.2 Reduction of strength. *

*Alterations shall not reduce the structural strength or stability of the building, structure, or any individual member thereof.*

*Exception: Such reduction shall be allowed as long as the strength and the stability of the building are not reduced to below the International Building Code levels. *

*707.4 Existing structural members. *

*Existing structural components supporting additional equipment or subjected to additional loads based on International Building Code Tables 1607.1 and 1607.6 as a result of a reconfiguration of spaces shall comply with Sections 707.4.1 through 707.4.3. *

*707.4.1 Gravity loads. *

*Existing structural elements supporting any additional gravity loads as a result of additional equipment or space reconfiguration shall comply with the International Building Code.*

*Exceptions:*

*1.   Structural elements whose stress is not increased by more than 5 percent.*

*SECTION 601 GENERAL (Chapter 7 requires Chapter 6 compliance as well...)*

*601.1 Scope. *

*Level 1 alterations as described in Section 403 shall comply with the requirements of this chapter. Level 1 alterations to historic buildings shall comply with this chapter, except as modified in Chapter 11. *

*601.2 Conformance. *

*An existing building or portion thereof shall not be altered such that the building becomes less safe than its existing condition.*

*Exception: Where the current level of safety or sanitation is proposed to be reduced, the portion altered shall conform to the requirements of the International Building Code. *

*SECTION 602 BUILDING ELEMENTS AND MATERIALS *

*602.1 Interior finishes. *

*All newly installed interior finishes shall comply with the flame spread requirements of the International Building Code. *

*602.3 Materials and methods. *

*All new work shall comply with materials and methods requirements in the ICC Electrical Code, International Building Code, International Energy Conservation Code, International Mechanical Code, and International Plumbing Code, as applicable, that specify material standards, detail of installation and connection, joints, penetrations, and continuity of any element, component, or system in the building. *

*602.3.1International Fuel Gas Code. [FG]*

*The following sections of the International Fuel Gas Code shall constitute the fuel gas materials and methods requirements for Level 1 alterations.*

*1.   All of Chapter 3, entitled “General Regulations,” except Sections 303.7 and 306.*

*2.   All of Chapter 4, entitled “Gas Piping Installations,” except Sections 401.8 and 402.3.*

*2.1.   Sections 401.8 and 402.3 shall apply when the work being performed increases the load on the system such that the existing pipe does not meet the size required by code. Existing systems that are modified shall not require resizing as long as the load on the system is not increased and the system length is not increased even if the altered system does not meet code minimums.*

*3.   All of Chapter 5, entitled “Chimneys and Vents.”*

*4.   All of Chapter 6, entitled “Specific Appliances.”*

*SECTION 603 FIRE PROTECTION *

*603.1 General. *

*Alterations shall be done in a manner that maintains the level of fire protection provided. *

*Chapter 9 - Change of Occupancy*

*SECTION 901 GENERAL *

*901.1 Scope. *

*The provisions of this chapter shall apply where a change of occupancy occurs, as defined in Section 202, including:*

*1.   Where the occupancy classification is not changed, or*

*2.   Where there is a change in occupancy classification or the occupancy group designation changes.*

*901.2 Change in occupancy with no change of occupancy classification. *

*A change in occupancy, as defined in Section 202, with no change of occupancy classification shall not be made to any structure that will subject the structure to any special provisions of the applicable International Codes, including the provisions of Sections 902 through 911, without the approval of the code official. A certificate of occupancy shall be issued where it has been determined that the requirements for the change in occupancy have been met. *

*901.2.1 Repair and alteration with no change of occupancy classification. *

*Any repair or alteration work undertaken in connection with a change of occupancy that does not involve a change of occupancy classification shall conform to the applicable requirements for the work as classified in Chapter 4 and to the requirements of Sections 902 through 911.*

*Exception: As modified in Section 1105 for historic buildings.*

*Chapter 9 continues with some very good stuff, but this post was getting close to the limit...  *  *  Hope some of it helps.*


----------



## TJacobs (Nov 16, 2009)

Re: "Loophole" that I don't like



			
				brudgers said:
			
		

> 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.


I normally don't agree with brudgers but in this case I do.  Classifying a commercial kitchen of any size serving a restaurant seating area of less than 50 occupants as a B use is a perversion of the code.  The seating area (or standing area) could be a B use, but not the kitchen.  Classing the entire space of a small restaurant as an M seems more appropriate than a B.  A commercial kitchen IS more hazardous than any B use, IMO.

I also agree with kilitact in principle that F-1 is more appropriate than B for a commercial kitchen.

In either case there should be separation between the commercial and residential in an nonsprinklered building regardless of age, IMO.


----------



## brudgers (Nov 16, 2009)

Re: "Loophole" that I don't like



			
				kilitact said:
			
		

> jd; so in your mind if you had storage in this space it would be B, or A occupancy not S-1?? Seems strange to me. When i plan review, I classifiy each area of the space as to it use.brudgers' you should try and read read the code prior to making these off-hand comments.


I have read the code.

Restaurants are explicitly listed within the A-2 use group.

The fact that restaurant uses commonly have kitchens is addressed elsewhere in the code.

A-2 uses generally require sprinklers when occupant loads exceed 100 rather than 300.

A-2 uses also require sprinklers when the fire area exceeds 5000 sf.

F-1 uses require sprinklers at 12,000 sf with no total occupant criteria.

Although, I'm sure you would require sprinklers at 2,500 square feet since not only F-1 but a woodworking operation.


----------



## JBI (Nov 16, 2009)

Re: "Loophole" that I don't like

brudgers - That is your opinion and you are entitled to it, just as Kilitact is entitled to his.

His jurisdiction = his call.

Until someone challenges his interpretation and wins, as long as he is consistent in that interpretation, I could not call it 'incorrect' or 'wrong'. Persaonally I don't agree with it, but I don't live in his jurisdiction so it has no direct effect on me.

Kilitact - Every pizza place on the planet has storage... ever notice the boxes piled up on top of the oven? Or the store room in the back? Remember, I'm the one defending you here (I know strange     ), I just don't agree with your position. Don't forget we have provisions for 'accessory' and 'incidental' uses, as well as for 'non-seperated' versus 'seperated' uses. Not all is as simple as black and white, there are many shades of grey in the codes.

How did I end up fighting both sides of this?


----------



## JBI (Nov 16, 2009)

Re: "Loophole" that I don't like

Jake - While I don't disagree with you generally, the NFPA codes are only applicable to the extent referenced by the I-codes (you can't get there from here). Also, if you break down the fire safety requirements for 'B' and 'M' occupancies in the I-codes, they are almost indistinguishable from one another.

Just to emphasize the unseen risks of 'B' occupancies, there is an automobile dealership in upstate NY that (pre-code adoption) elected to provide a block wall between the repair/service garage and the offices. He didn't trust his mechanics enough not to burn the place down. When they had a fire (30 plus years later) it wasn't the sloppy mechanics, and it didn't start in the garage. The fire that started in the 'B' occupancy burned hot and hard due to the fire load in the offices (you know, all that paper and cardboard?). 'B' occupancies can be pretty darn hazardous.


----------



## brudgers (Nov 16, 2009)

Re: "Loophole" that I don't like



			
				\ said:
			
		

> I normally don't agree with brudgers but in this case I do.  Classifying a commercial kitchen of any size serving a restaurant seating area of less than 50 occupants as a B use is a perversion of the code.  The seating area (or standing area) could be a B use, but not the kitchen.  Classing the entire space of a small restaurant as an M seems more appropriate than a B.  A commercial kitchen IS more hazardous than any B use, IMO.
> 
> I also agree with kilitact in principle that F-1 is more appropriate than B for a commercial kitchen.
> 
> In either case there should be separation between the commercial and residential in an nonsprinklered building regardless of age, IMO.


Classifying _Assembly Uses_ with an occupant load less than 50 as a _Business occupancy_ comes at least in part from SBC '97 (where the limit was 100).

I believe you are confusing _Use Group_ with _Occupancy_.

A restaurant is a use.

It is part of _Use Group_ A-2.

_Use Group A-2 _normally requires that the _Occupancy_ be classified as Assembly.

When the Occupant Load is less than 50, _Use Group A-2 _ is classified as a _Business occupancy_, as are _Use Group A-1_, _Use Group A-3_, _Use Group A-4_,and _Use Group A-5_.

In my opinion, a restaurant classified as Occupancy B would still be limited by the A-2 requirements in chapter 9 and Table 500.

Under IBC, there is a change of Use not of Occupancy.

And of course I agree that in new construction an occupancy separation between the commercial uses and the residential uses would be required.

However, without a full code analysis I would not hazard a guess as to what is required in an existing building (regardless of what I would recommend).

As for perversions of the code, the entire IBC is one.


----------



## brudgers (Nov 16, 2009)

Re: "Loophole" that I don't like



			
				John Drobysh said:
			
		

> brudgers - That is your opinion and you are entitled to it, just as Kilitact is entitled to his. His jurisdiction = his call.
> 
> Until someone challenges his interpretation and wins, as long as he is consistent in that interpretation, I could not call it 'incorrect' or 'wrong'. Persaonally I don't agree with it, but I don't live in his jurisdiction so it has no direct effect on me.


Legally, he is protected so long as he consistently applies the wrong interpretation and does so unknowingly...knowlingly doing so is another matter.

However, when I encounter this sort of nonsense I use a simple approach.

I just request a meeting with the city attorney in writing.

"His jurisdiction = his call" lasts about five seconds when the call is clearly wrong.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Nov 16, 2009)

Re: "Loophole" that I don't like

I can see all sides of this. Classifying a commercial kitchen as an F-1 would definately be a change of occupancy and would trigger the fire seperation from the R unit above, but as John pointed out if there has not been a consistant interpretation of all commercial kitchens being an F-1 you may not win if challanged.

Jar have them get a liscensed design proffessional prepare a report as outlined in section 3410 and base your decision/requirements on that report. You might be able to require additional exiting for the R units or early notification or any number of things in lieu of a seperation or sprinkler requirement. You won't be going at it alone you will have a 3rd party independent review to work from.

3410.1 Compliance.

The provisions of this section are intended to maintain or increase the current degree of public safety, health and general welfare in existing buildings while permitting repair, alteration, addition and change of occupancy without requiring full compliance with Chapters 2 through 33, or Sections 3401.3, and 3403 through 3407, except where compliance with other provisions of this code is specifically required in this section.


----------



## jar546 (Nov 16, 2009)

Re: "Loophole" that I don't like

I have thoroughly enjoyed both starting and reading this thread.  A big thanks to every single person who has posted. I am enlightened.

Although long, I read your BIG post JD.


----------



## Mac (Nov 17, 2009)

Re: "Loophole" that I don't like

Hey - I wuz just asking!

As the thread develops, I  feel the "B" is the most appropriate occupancy. I don't think the "F1" is meant to include a customer waiting/seating area. Customers may even munch a slice, which really makes it a little pizza place.

That decision is code supported and completely defensible. Trust me - I have reasons for getting rated separations installed where ever possible:

http://blog.syracuse.com/news/2007/10/d ... s_fro.html

Hamilton FD did great work that night. The fire moved quickly through the ceiling and into the apartments above.


----------



## kilitact (Nov 17, 2009)

Re: "Loophole" that I don't like



> I don't think the "F1" is meant to include a customer waiting/seating area.


 I would agree, I was only calling the commercial kitchen F-1, which I thought you were referring to, waiting/seating area is B.


----------



## Heaven (Feb 8, 2010)

Re: "Loophole" that I don't like

I agree with brudgers (good god!), cooking isn't a higher hazard than residential.

Also, if your jurisdiction had any codes in place since about 1955, if there was a change of use since there likely would have been separation of 1 hour required between a business and a residence above. Just found my 1955 UBC book and that's pretty much what it says. Good luck.


----------

