# R-2 Rooftop Patio and Number of Stories



## RLGA (May 26, 2011)

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!


----------



## mtlogcabin (May 26, 2011)

At 1st glance I would say no because the A-3 is above the 3rd floor

2009 IBC

506.5.2 More than one story above grade plane.

For buildings with more than one story above grade plane and containing mixed occupancies, each story shall individually comply with the applicable requirements of Section 508.1. For buildings with more than three stories above grade plane , the total building area shall be such that the aggregate sum of the ratios of the actual area of each story divided by the allowable area of such stories based on the applicable provisions of Section 508.1 shall not exceed 3.

Some may argue the roof is not a story and I agree however the A-3 use is limited to a maximum height of 3 stories in the building you described.

Don't forget

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.


----------



## RLGA (May 26, 2011)

I kind of agree, but I'm getting hung up on the "story" term.  The rooftop patio is not a story by IBC definition, so _technically_, the A-3 is not within a story.

I know I'm splitting hairs, but architects, in defense of their designs, tend to split hairs and I'd like something pretty solid to back me up.


----------



## Coug Dad (May 26, 2011)

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.


----------



## Builder Bob (May 26, 2011)

How will the people from the non story egress without having to enter a story above the allowable height limitations of T503?


----------



## RLGA (May 26, 2011)

Enclosed and exterior stairways.


----------



## Coug Dad (May 26, 2011)

The elevator to the roof would also be inside a rated shaft with opening protection


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (May 26, 2011)

By definition, 2009 IBC, Chapter 2, Definitions, Story, the A-3 roof patio is not a story.  I am also in agreement with Coug Dad, although it appears difficult to find that 'shall be' section of code stable enough to stand on.

I would also add that this seems to be in line with the intention of 509.2 for horizontal building separation allowances in the Special Provisions Section.  Obviously, your project does not meet those requirements as you do not meet the type of construction requirements and the occupant load maximums (unless separated to areas with < 300 occs) required to put a Group A occupancy on the top floor.


----------



## Francis Vineyard (May 26, 2011)

It's acceptable being that occupiable roofs are not a story and if not a fire area; to restrict occupant load except for means of egress. 504.3; an A-3 is not what I would consider as habitable occupancy by definition.


----------



## mark handler (May 27, 2011)

IMHO

The *occupancy A-3* can not be above the thrid level (story).

Regardless of the definition of a story

The options as I see it are to change the area sq footage of the deck

or to change the type of construction.


----------



## Architect1281 (May 27, 2011)

I would look at the Floor of the pation / garden / being occupied as 5 floor, roof or not, it is the location of the space being occupied.  So would it be a type 1 construction? maybe it's clear as mud.

code sction 1004.8 seems to suggest that such areas, spaces, occupancies would only have to comply with egress, (1004.8 Outdoor areas > because no roof ???? hard sell here)

So if as a space related to the R-2 use only; I may consider it as only the egress. (chilling)

In reality the enforcement of such a restriction of use would be next to impossible to regulate

If a multile occupancy like in 1004.9 I would consider it as a mixed use and then 503 height and area would be a Type 1 building.


----------



## brudgers (May 27, 2011)

The key is occupancy not stories.

The number of stories and height for the fire area containing the A3 occupancy is measured from grade 508.3.3.3 for separated occupancies.

Of course, unseparated would never comply either.

The plans bearing the architect's seal should be sent to the State Board regulating the profession for investigation.


----------



## steveray (May 27, 2011)

brudgers said:
			
		

> The key is occupancy not stories.The number of stories and height for the *fire area *containing the A3 occupancy is measured from grade 508.3.3.3 for separated occupancies.
> 
> Of course, unseparated would never comply either.
> 
> The plans bearing the architect's seal should be sent to the State Board regulating the profession for investigation.


It's not a fire area without a roof.......I don't like it, but I have had that fight and gotten beaten soundly on it....on this board in fact....not saying that RLGA's DP is correct, but A3 fire area can not be considered a reason for denial...


----------



## brudgers (May 27, 2011)

If it is bounded by fire separations, it is a fire area.

Read the definition.


----------



## steveray (May 27, 2011)

FIRE AREA. The aggregate floor area *enclosed* and bounded by firewalls, fire barriers, exterior walls or fire-resistance-rated horizontal assemblies of a building.

No enclosure, no walls, no barriers....just blue sky and sunshine.........Sunshine!


----------



## steveray (May 27, 2011)

AREA, BUILDING. The area included *within surrounding exterior walls *(or exterior walls and firewalls) exclusive of vent shafts and courts. Areas of the building not provided with surrounding walls shall be included in the building area if such areas are included within the horizontal projection of the roof or floor above.

Doesn't count for BA either.....just egress for occupant load.....Again...I don't like it, but it is what it is....for now...


----------



## Coug Dad (May 27, 2011)

I have seen a lot of sun decks allowed over the years on the roofs of apartment, condo, and office buildings above the story where a Group A occupancy would otherwise be allowed.  The issues have always been the rating of the roof and providing an elevator for accessibility.


----------



## texasbo (May 27, 2011)

I am questioning why a rooftop patio is being assumed to be an A occupancy. Did the architect designate it as such?

And Coug Dad, Steveray and others are right; this isn't a story, nor is it a fire area. If it were a fire area, it would have to have fire suppression. Do they provide rooftop sprinklers in Alabama?


----------



## brudgers (May 27, 2011)

steveray said:
			
		

> FIRE AREA. The aggregate floor area enclosed and bounded by firewalls, fire barriers, exterior walls or fire-resistance-rated horizontal assemblies of a building.No enclosure, no walls, no barriers....just blue sky and sunshine.........Sunshine!


Directions:

1. Read the definition of "floor area" ["net" for assembly occupancies].

2. Recognize that there is a difference between floor area and building area.

3. Note that the exterior walls will bound the roof terrace.

4. Hang head in shame.


----------



## brudgers (May 27, 2011)

texasbo said:
			
		

> I am questioning why a rooftop patio is being assumed to be an A occupancy. Did the architect designate it as such? And Coug Dad, Steveray and others are right; this isn't a story, nor is it a fire area. If it were a fire area, it would have to have fire suppression. Do they provide rooftop sprinklers in Alabama?


If over 300 occupants any A1-A4 *occupancy* would require sprinklers per the IBC throughout the *floor area* see 903.2.1

Note also that 903.2 applies to *buildings and structures*.

Fortunately the State Fire Marshal's office is not staffed with *B*uilding *O*fficials/*Z*oning *O*fficials from Texas.


----------



## steveray (May 27, 2011)

SO....IF THE FLOOR SYSTEM IS CANTILEVERED IT DOES NOT COUNT?  Sorry about the caps...stupid MUNIS needs them...not yelling...Net and gross are used for MOE calcs....notice gross says "within exterior walls" also

If there is an exterior stair, the exterior walls will also not "bind" you...but alot of cheese might...

If occupied space is the trigger, (floor area net) we need to sprinkler every out door dining area in the country....

 Thanks for the debate Brudgers, but I do not want to take this any more OT than we already are....I would like to lean more your way on this subject, but the word ENCLOSED keeps getting in the way...


----------



## texasbo (May 27, 2011)

steveray said:
			
		

> but the word ENCLOSED keeps getting in the way...


Unfortunately, he has selective reading comprehension. Any detail that obstructs the outcome he desires, he simply dismisses.

And why not use a term that is specifically referring to egress, if it makes your case regarding building height?

903 requires buildings with Group A "floor areas" to be fire sprinklered. "Floor area" is clearly defined by "inside perimeter walls", and if no exterior walls, then "under the horizontal projection of the roof above". "Story" is clearly defined  by between two floors or a floor and a roof. You may pretend to see exterior walls and/or roof in your fantasies, but they just don't exist.

So this space is not a story, nor part of the building area, floor area (except for exiting), nor fire area. Sorry brudgers, you don't get to sprinkler the roof, and there is nothing in the code that says the occupied roof is a story, nor that it is too high. And all you have to do is look at every single building that's built like this across the country to know that you are wrong.

I know it's hard to visualize these things when you're living in the backwoods; just leave it to those of us who have actually been out in the big world and aren't intimidated by anything larger than a tobacco shed.


----------



## Francis Vineyard (May 27, 2011)

brudgers said:
			
		

> The key is occupancy not stories.





			
				texasbo said:
			
		

> I am questioning why a rooftop patio is being assumed to be an A occupancy. Did the architect designate it as such?


The roof is above the 4th story above grade; A-3 use group cannot be more than 3 stories above grade with NFPA 13. 

We have apartments and recreation centers with lap pools on the roof and it works out part of main use group per 303.1.


----------



## brudgers (May 27, 2011)

................................


----------



## peach (May 29, 2011)

It doesn't qualify as either a story or occupiable space by code definitions; doesn't resolve getting these people out of danger in case of an emergency (either on the roof or below).. they need to get into exit stairways and out of the building.


----------



## brudgers (May 29, 2011)

What is amazing to me is that some of the people who would allow 500 occupants to assemble four stories above grade on the roof of a wood framed building would require a 200 square foot leasing office on the ground floor to be sprinklered with a full NFPA 13 system.


----------



## mark handler (May 29, 2011)

mark handler said:
			
		

> imhothe *occupancy a-3* can not be above the thrid level (story).
> 
> Regardless of the definition of a story
> 
> ...


as posted before

You can control occupancies


----------



## Rick18071 (May 31, 2011)

I had a problem like this a few years back. A huge deck was being built at a bar for over 500 people and the only egress was through the small building that is not sprinklered.


----------



## Dawgbark (Aug 4, 2011)

For some reason this looks familiar to a question I have seen elsewhere, but it was asked as if in California I think.

The person was asked what was the occupant load of the building, no one answered.

So, if it is not too late what is the occupant load of the building excluding the rooftop load?

Then, what is the square footage of the rooftop?


----------



## Coug Dad (Aug 4, 2011)

Attended an ICC class last week where roof top "assembly" was discussed.  The roof does not have an occupancy, although the means of egress has to be sized to accomodate the use.  Therefore, a roof top pool deck would be allowed provided proper egress is provided.


----------



## texasbo (Aug 4, 2011)

Coug Dad said:
			
		

> Attended an ICC class last week where roof top "assembly" was discussed.  The roof does not have an occupancy, although the means of egress has to be sized to accomodate the use.  Therefore, a roof top pool deck would be allowed provided proper egress is provided.


Huh, woulda never guessed...


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (Aug 4, 2011)

texasbo said:
			
		

> Huh, woulda never guessed...


More semantics, but yes, who woulda guessed?  Seems like a lot of guessing.  The 2012 & 2015 editions of the IBC are supposed to clarify this issue.  The instructor referred back to the definition of a story in order to determine occupancy.  Since a rooftop does not meet the definition (which has been posted many times already in this thread), there is no occupancy.  Same reasoning why you don't classify a flat roof as and S or U occupancy if used as such.  Anyway, I digress.  His point then was to address the use, and design the means of egress accordingly for widths, number of exits, exit access, travel distance, cpt, etc.

I believe that is a fair and reasonable opinion about how to handle a 4 Story, roof top being used as an assembly occupancy.  In otherwords.  No occupanc.  Same holds true if you fenced in an 8,000sf open air volleyball court with wood and stucco walls 12 feet high on top of a roof or at ground level.   With no area modifications, this would exceed the allowable areas if we assigned it an occupancy classification per table 503.  Do we really need to sprinkle the space to get an area increase?  Has common sense flown the coop?  I can tell you this AHJ would not assign an occupancy classification, whether up on a roof or not.  Do you MOE calcs/design per the use/function and move on, in my opinion.


----------



## brudgers (Aug 4, 2011)

Papio Bldg Dept said:
			
		

> More semantics, but yes, who woulda guessed?  Seems like a lot of guessing.  The 2012 & 2015 editions of the IBC are supposed to clarify this issue.  The instructor referred back to the definition of a story in order to determine occupancy.  Since a rooftop does not meet the definition (which has been posted many times already in this thread), there is no occupancy.  Same reasoning why you don't classify a flat roof as and S or U occupancy if used as such.  Anyway, I digress.  His point then was to address the use, and design the means of egress accordingly for widths, number of exits, exit access, travel distance, cpt, etc.    I believe that is a fair and reasonable opinion about how to handle a 4 Story, roof top being used as an assembly occupancy.  In otherwords.  No occupanc.  Same holds true if you fenced in an 8,000sf open air volleyball court with wood and stucco walls 12 feet high on top of a roof or at ground level.   With no area modifications, this would exceed the allowable areas if we assigned it an occupancy classification per table 503.  Do we really need to sprinkle the space to get an area increase?  Has common sense flown the coop?  I can tell you this AHJ would not assign an occupancy classification, whether up on a roof or not.  Do you MOE calcs/design per the use/function and move on, in my opinion.


   The instructor was FOS.  [302.1] Structures or portions of structures shall be classified with respect to occupancy

  Nothing about stories or even buildings.

  See Occupancy A5 for a counter example which shows the intent of the code.


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (Aug 4, 2011)

brudgers said:
			
		

> The instructor was FOS.  [302.1] Structures or portions of structures shall be classified with respect to occupancy
> 
> Nothing about stories or even buildings.
> 
> See Occupancy A5 for a counter example which shows the intent of the code.


Good points.  FOS might be a bit excessive.

Following your logic, what occupancy classification to roofs that aren't used for assembly would you assign?


----------



## mtlogcabin (Aug 4, 2011)

What is the use?


----------



## brudgers (Aug 4, 2011)

Papio Bldg Dept said:
			
		

> Good points.  FOS might be a bit excessive.   Following your logic, what occupancy classification to roofs that aren't used for assembly would you assign?


  When someone says something as utterly stupid as "Occupancy doesn't apply" and then rationalizes it based on an unrelated definition rather than an actual reading of Chapter 3 and 4, they are obviously an idiot. ©   When they assert such stupidity as an instructor while presenting themselves as an expert and in the role of instructor, then they are FOS.

  If the roof isn't being used as an assembly occupancy - though that is perhaps the most common for roofs which are not part of a dwelling, the occupancy would be determined based upon the same criteria as any other portion of the structure - e.g. a recreation area on the roof of the jail would be I, storage racks S, etc.


----------



## alora (Aug 4, 2011)

Papio Bldg Dept said:
			
		

> ...Following your logic, what occupancy classification to roofs that aren't used for assembly would you assign?


Following the _code_, it would be (underline, mine):



> 302.1 General. 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.


----------



## texasbo (Aug 4, 2011)

The fact remains, whether it is classified as an occupancy or not, that it is not a story, by definition. Being "not a story", it is not a violation of Table 503 in terms of height or area.


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (Aug 4, 2011)

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> Don't forget 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.


Having re-read the thread, in particular mt's post on special-purpose roofs, proved to be more helpful for me in understanding the intent of the code than anything I have read or heard in the last week on this subject.  It tells me that the intent of the code is to assign an occupancy classification to all buildings and structures.

Telling me to read 303.1 A-5, as brudgers suggests, does not clarify anything in regards to the discussion (for me at least).  It simply tell he you considers the roof to have an occupancy.

I am then left to assume my instructor is/was an idiot, whom, full of excrement, misinformed the entire class and his ICC Code Committee (MOE), and now I am unable to determine the allowable heights and areas for the A occupancy on the roof because I can not determine a construction type for open air, non-story, occupancies (hence my earlier comparison/reference to an 8,000 sf A occupancy at grade with 3' wood stucco walls around the perimeter which was not addressed).  Is that an A occupancy, Type VB construction limited to 1 story and 6,00sf and thererfore non-compliant?  I am literally unable to ascertain a clear answer, which I don't believe makes anyone an idiot, nor full of stuff (not trying to change brudgers opinion of instructor, merely stating I don't agree it is that simple, and that opinion does little to advance the discussion).

Am I to assume we are now just haggling over price?


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (Aug 4, 2011)

alora said:
			
		

> Following the _code_, it would be (underline, mine):


Thanks alora.  Between you, brudgers and mt, I see an intent in the code that wants to assign an occupancy to the roof as it is part of the building/structure, and other sections are using that occupancy classification to prescribe design standards (I do have some questions about various conditions for MOE to the roof, but I am confident if I re-read the code sections on stairs and roof access I will be able to answer them).  I am however, more of the inclination that, as texasbo believes, Table 503, for heights and areas does is not applicable for occupancies of non-stories outside the definitions of the allowable building area.  Using logic (however unapplicable, unfounded or inept my use of it may be), tends to lead me towards texasbo's conclusion.  When brudgers does not agree with my instructor, from whom I have taken several ICC training classes, my lebenswelt tends to get a little shaky, I start looking at other examples where holding a project to Table 503 limitations would not make sense.


----------



## texasbo (Aug 4, 2011)

Papio Bldg Dept said:
			
		

> Am I to assume we are now just haggling over price?


Maybe, but maybe not. I would be willing to discuss some additional peripheral subjects.

It's been established that the roof is not a story, and therefore not subject to height in stories.

In terms of area, the code is pretty explicit in its definition, so if you want to stick something on the roof, area has already been taken care of.

But let's say the occupied roof exceeded allowable height in feet. Would that be a violation?  I would consider discussing it.

I do like poo poo humor though, so let's continue this.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Aug 4, 2011)

The use on the roof  and the height limits based on construction type should determine if the use is permitted.

Example a 4 story V-B hotel should not be permitted to have a assembly use on it as the use is more than 3 floors in height. change the construction type and it will work.

Could the same hotel have a heliport on the roof, or a small dining area with less an OL of less than 50?


----------



## texasbo (Aug 4, 2011)

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> The use on the roof  and the height limits based on construction type should determine if the use is permitted.Example a 4 story V-B hotel should not be permitted to have a assembly use on it as the use is more than 3 floors in height. change the construction type and it will work.
> 
> Could the same hotel have a heliport on the roof, or a small dining area with less an OL of less than 50?


MT: note that the code uses the term stories, not floors. It doesn't allow assembly more than 3 stories in height, not more than 3 floors. In the case at hand, it is not more than 3 stories.


----------



## Dawgbark (Aug 5, 2011)

No one knows what the occupant load of the building is, what the sq.ft. of the roof top is.

What If one person of the condo complex owns the top floor and the roof top which is possible the the occupant load is one.


----------



## Builder Bob (Aug 5, 2011)

One big problem is that this is in the code ------ and does not work very well with the rest of the code ....i.e. how do you determine occupant load without knowing the type of use of the area???

1004.8 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 fire code 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*.

Exceptions:

1. Outdoor areas used exclusively for service of the

building need only have one means of egress.

2. Both outdoor areas associated with Group R-3 and

individual dwelling units of Group R-2.


----------



## brudgers (Aug 5, 2011)

Papio Bldg Dept said:
			
		

> Thanks alora.  Between you, brudgers and mt, I see an intent in the code that wants to assign an occupancy to the roof as it is part of the building/structure, and other sections are using that occupancy classification to prescribe design standards (I do have some questions about various conditions for MOE to the roof, but I am confident if I re-read the code sections on stairs and roof access I will be able to answer them).  I am however, more of the inclination that, as texasbo believes, Table 503, for heights and areas does is not applicable for occupancies of non-stories outside the definitions of the allowable building area.  Using logic (however unapplicable, unfounded or inept my use of it may be), tends to lead me towards texasbo's conclusion.  When brudgers does not agree with my instructor, from whom I have taken several ICC training classes, my lebenswelt tends to get a little shaky, I start looking at other examples where holding a project to Table 503 limitations would not make sense.


  See section 506.4     Re: The original post

    The building described has more than one story above grade plane, therefore total allowable area for the building is determined by multiplying the number of stories in Table 503 by the allowable area of each story in table 503 (as the general case). This would allow an  R2 occupancy on the roof but the occupied area of the roof would be counted against the total allowable area of the building under section 506.4.

    Example:

    Type IIIA Occupancy R2 would have a total allowable area of 24k sf x 4 stories = 96k sf.

    If the rooftop area was 16k sf, then the maximum aggregate area of the four stories would be 80k sf with no story being more than 24k sf.

    However, the proposed rooftop use is an assembly occupancy and would require a construction type which allows a four story assembly occupancy and would count against the total allowable area of the building under 506.4.


----------



## brudgers (Aug 5, 2011)

Dawgbark said:
			
		

> No one knows what the occupant load of the building is, what the sq.ft. of the roof top is.  What If one person of the condo complex owns the top floor and the roof top which is possible the the occupant load is one.


   Residential Occupancies have an occupant load of 1/200 sf. See Table 1004.1.1


----------



## brudgers (Aug 5, 2011)

texasbo said:
			
		

> Maybe, but maybe not. I would be willing to discuss some additional peripheral subjects.  It's been established that the roof is not a story, and therefore not subject to height in stories.  In terms of area, the code is pretty explicit in its definition, so if you want to stick something on the roof, area has already been taken care of.  But let's say the occupied roof exceeded allowable height in feet. Would that be a violation?  I would consider discussing it.  I do like poo poo humor though, so let's continue this.


  Yeah, just because you don't comprehend something, it doesn't exist.


----------



## texasbo (Aug 5, 2011)

brudgers said:
			
		

> Yeah, just because you don't make up codes like I do, it doesn't exist.


Fixed it for you

Sorry brudgers. Your hillbilly logic may work for you, but I'm not buying it. But you just keep on calculating the area of the roof as part of the building area. I'm sure you look at it as a "safety factor" to compensate for your crappy design.

And you just keep calling an open roof a story, because somewhere, way up there, the sky must have a roof, huh?


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (Aug 5, 2011)

brudgers said:
			
		

> See section 506.4     Re: The original post
> 
> The building described has more than one story above grade plane, therefore total allowable area for the building is determined by multiplying the number of stories in Table 503 by the allowable area of each story in table 503 (as the general case). This would allow an  R2 occupancy on the roof but the occupied area of the roof would be counted against the total allowable area of the building under section 506.4.
> 
> ...


Thanks Brudgers.  That is very helpful example and I agree with your logic, however I keep getting hung up on the commentary for 502, Area, Building. "A building area is the 'footprint' of the building; that is, the area measured within the perimeter formed by the inside surface of the exterior walls, which excludes spaces that are inside this perimeter and open to the outside atmosphere at the top...When a portion of the building has no exterior walls, the area regulated by Chapter 5 is defined by the projection of the roof or floor above."

It is my understanding that an open court in the middle of the building would not be included in 506.4 calculations, even though we assign it an occupancy.  A 3-story, Group R-2, V-B building with a 10,000sf footprint at the first story, each additional story is 7,000 sf with the 3,000sf central courtyard A-3 on the first level.  This A-3 occupancy would not be calculated as part of the allowable area per Table 503, and would be compliant.  It is this type of logic that makes it more difficult for me to clarify the difference between an open court, whether on the first level or 4th level as being restricted by Table 503.

Is it just me or is this building design not clearly defined by ICC?  As I see it, both have logical perspectives, all hinged on the application of Table 503 to the open-to-above occupancies that may be found in a court or on a roof.  So now we have all figured out what we are dealing with, are we not now just discussing/haggling over price, in this case the life safety cost of placing an occupancy inside a courtyard or up on a roof?


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (Aug 5, 2011)

texasbo said:
			
		

> Fixed it for youSorry brudgers. Your hillbilly logic may work for you, but I'm not buying it. But you just keep on calculating the area of the roof as part of the building area. I'm sure you look at it as a "safety factor" to compensate for your crappy design.
> 
> And you just keep calling an open roof a story, because somewhere, way up there, the sky must have a roof, huh?


OT.  I understand that neither of you is going to ask each other to the Christmas Ball this year, but there is no need to question each other's comprehension or design talents when discussing Chapter 5 Allowable Area and Height calculations.  If anyone's comprehension and design talents should be questioned, I believe it should be ICC's.  Especially when we are haggling over allowable areas that were defined by a survey of California Building Departments over twenty years ago (granted modifications have been made, but to my knowledge there has never been one offering of scientific research to back up these heights and areas.  We have simply accepted them either on blind faith as reasonable, or as some reaction to a life-safety tragedy).  The Palaeartic Forum is better place to be silly.


----------



## texasbo (Aug 5, 2011)

Papio Bldg Dept said:
			
		

> OT.  I understand that neither of you is going to ask each other to the Christmas Ball this year, but there is no need to question each other's comprehension or design talents when discussing Chapter 5 Allowable Area and Height calculations.  If anyone's comprehension and design talents should be questioned, I believe it should be ICC's.  Especially when we are haggling over allowable areas that were defined by a survey of California Building Departments over twenty years ago (granted modifications have been made, but to my knowledge there has never been one offering of scientific research to back up these heights and areas.  We have simply accepted them either on blind faith as reasonable, or as some reaction to a life-safety tragedy).  The Palaeartic Forum is better place to be silly.


You don't understand. EVERY SINGLE TIME he shows his a$$, he's going to get it right back in his face. Period.

More importantly, you missed the real point of my post; a roof is not a story, and allowable area and height are calculated by story. That's a definition, not some cornpone, made up, "because I want it to" backwoods opinion.


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (Aug 5, 2011)

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> The use on the roof  and the height limits based on construction type should determine if the use is permitted.Example a 4 story V-B hotel should not be permitted to have a assembly use on it as the use is more than 3 floors in height. change the construction type and it will work.
> 
> Could the same hotel have a heliport on the roof, or a small dining area with less an OL of less than 50?


I agree, Construction Type changes would solve the issue and make for a clearly compliant design no matter how you use Table 503, but your question brings up an interesting point.  How should we address open air occupancies with no exterior walls or floor/roof above?  Interior Courtyards aren't applicable to Table 503 limitations, no matter what level they are on, why should roof tops be any different?    There is logic to be comprehended on both sides of the allowable areas ceiling/roof/wall based upon the way the ICC has defined their codes and commentary.


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (Aug 5, 2011)

texasbo said:
			
		

> You don't understand. EVERY SINGLE TIME he shows his a$$, he's going to get it right back in his face. Period.More importantly, you missed the real point of my post; a roof is not a story, and allowable area and height are calculated by story. That's a definition, not some cornpone, made up, "because I want it to" backwoods opinion.


I agree, that a roof is not a story.  I also agree that the roof needs to have an occupancy assigned if accessible.  I haven't seen brudgers reference a Farmer's Almanac yet, so I have no comment on your feelings towards his opinions.  The commentary, however, confuses things even more by referring to stories as levels (another ICC brilliance).  How do you define level?


----------



## texasbo (Aug 5, 2011)

Papio Bldg Dept said:
			
		

> I agree, that a roof is not a story.  I also agree that the roof needs to have an occupancy assigned if accessible.  I haven't seen brudgers reference a Farmer's Almanac yet, so I have no comment on your feelings towards his opinions.  The commentary, however, confuses things even more by referring to stories as levels (another ICC brilliance).  How do you define level?


Well, I can only hope he is better with the Farmers Almanac than he is with the code.

I would steer clear of the commentary. Probably the only thing that we both agree on is that the commentary is just somebody else's opinion. I'm also in complete agreement that the roof needs an occupancy, and that it must, by code, be exited appropriately. There is absolutely no controversy there. I don't think, anyway.


----------



## brudgers (Aug 5, 2011)

Papio Bldg Dept said:
			
		

> Thanks Brudgers.  That is very helpful example and I agree with your logic, however I keep getting hung up on the commentary for 502, Area, Building. "A building area is the 'footprint' of the building; that is, the area measured within the perimeter formed by the inside surface of the exterior walls, which excludes spaces that are inside this perimeter and open to the outside atmosphere at the top...When a portion of the building has no exterior walls, the area regulated by Chapter 5 is defined by the projection of the roof or floor above."    It is my understanding that an open court in the middle of the building would not be included in 506.4 calculations, even though we assign it an occupancy.  A 3-story, Group R-2, V-B building with a 10,000sf footprint at the first story, each additional story is 7,000 sf with the 3,000sf central courtyard A-3 on the first level.  This A-3 occupancy would not be calculated as part of the allowable area per Table 503, and would be compliant.  It is this type of logic that makes it more difficult for me to clarify the difference between an open court, whether on the first level or 4th level as being restricted by Table 503.    Is it just me or is this building design not clearly defined by ICC?  As I see it, both have logical perspectives, all hinged on the application of Table 503 to the open-to-above occupancies that may be found in a court or on a roof.  So now we have all figured out what we are dealing with, are we not now just discussing/haggling over price, in this case the life safety cost of placing an occupancy inside a courtyard or up on a roof?


  Section 506.4 only applies to buildings with more than one story above grade - so the courtyard is not an apples to apples comparison.  Not to mention that courtyards at grade can serve uniquely as life safety enhancements.

 Finally, the commentary is not the code and is written by someone under a contract to say something about everything and nothing about specific buildings.

 And as your instructor demonstrates, it is easy for someone at the ICC to be completely off base on a code interpretation.


----------



## brudgers (Aug 5, 2011)

Papio Bldg Dept said:
			
		

> OT.  I understand that neither of you is going to ask each other to the Christmas Ball this year, but there is no need to question each other's comprehension or design talents when discussing Chapter 5 Allowable Area and Height calculations.  If anyone's comprehension and design talents should be questioned, I believe it should be ICC's.  Especially when we are haggling over allowable areas that were defined by a survey of California Building Departments over twenty years ago (granted modifications have been made, but to my knowledge there has never been one offering of scientific research to back up these heights and areas.  We have simply accepted them either on blind faith as reasonable, or as some reaction to a life-safety tragedy).  The Palaeartic Forum is better place to be silly.


 You can't keep a Building Official/Zoning Official from acting like one. Even by taking away their blue jumper and red shoes.


----------



## brudgers (Aug 5, 2011)

texasbo said:
			
		

> You don't understand. EVERY SINGLE TIME he shows his a$$, he's going to get it right back in his face. Period.  More importantly, you missed the real point of my post; a roof is not a story, and allowable area and height are calculated by story. That's a definition, not some cornpone, made up, "because I want it to" backwoods opinion.


  You can lead a Building Official/Zoning Official to the correct interpretation. But you can't make 'em think.

 The orange hair is too distracting.


----------



## texasbo (Aug 5, 2011)

brudgers said:
			
		

> You can lead a Building Official/Zoning Official to the correct interpretation. But you can't make 'em think.
> 
> The orange hair is too distracting.


Brudgers, you do realize that a codebook can be used for things other than sitting on in order to reach your drafting board, don't you?


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (Aug 5, 2011)

brudgers said:
			
		

> You can't keep a Building Official/Zoning Official from acting like one. Even by taking away their blue jumper and red shoes.


You are going to take away my blue jumper and red shoes?  What will I wear to the Christmas Ball?


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (Aug 5, 2011)

brudgers said:
			
		

> Section 506.4 only applies to buildings with more than one story above grade - so the courtyard is not an apples to apples comparison.  Not to mention that courtyards at grade can serve uniquely as life safety enhancements.


Okay, let's make it macintosh's to gala's then and move the courtyard up a level or two.  Then what happens?  Now we have to sprinkle the building (but not the courtyard), to get an A-3 above the first floor?  Or is a courtyard at the second level still exempt from 503?  I don't agree that interior courtyards at grade level are inherently safer.  Can they be life safety enhancements?  Yes, but that is not a given.  A 50ft x 50ft will not give you a compliant safe dispersal area as required by 1024.6.  Keep leading me, I am trying to think this through, blue jumper and red shoes or not.

Thank you again for your efforts, I do appreciate it.


----------



## brudgers (Aug 5, 2011)

Papio Bldg Dept said:
			
		

> Okay, let's make it macintosh's to gala's then and move the courtyard up a level or two.  Then what happens?  Now we have to sprinkle the building (but not the courtyard), to get an A-3 above the first floor?  Or is a courtyard at the second level still exempt from 503?  I don't agree that interior courtyards at grade level are inherently safer.  Can they be life safety enhancements?  Yes, but that is not a given.  A 50ft x 50ft will not give you a compliant safe dispersal area as required by 1024.6.  Keep leading me, I am trying to think this through, blue jumper and red shoes or not.    Thank you again for your efforts, I do appreciate it.


  1.  I said "can serve" but did not mean that they will always do so - only that there are entirely different criteria for evaluating them which interfere with your comparison.   2. Thinking out loud - If it's at the second level and a courtyard, would it not be the case that it is surrounded by exterior walls? I.e, your situation could still be interpreted as significantly different from a rooftop use. See definition of "court."

  3. What is muddying the analysis this is that there are two separate issues, rooftop use, mixed occupancy, and no actual plan to analyze. There are three issues muddying the analysis....

  4.  Table 503 is explicit - "Height limitations shown as stories and feet above grade plane."


----------



## texasbo (Aug 5, 2011)

brudgers said:
			
		

> 3. What is muddying the analysis this is that there are two separate issues, rooftop use, mixed occupancy, and no actual plan to analyze. There are three issues muddying the analysis....
> 
> 4.  Table 503 is explicit - "Height limitations shown as stories and feet above grade plane."


3. Two issues, three issues, whatever it takes. I say there are four issues muddying the analysis...

4. OK; you finally read the code, so maybe you can discuss this a little more intelligently . Now for the big questions: are you backing out of your contention that an open roof is a story, and if so, if it is an occupancy that is not allowed as a 4th story, do you agree that it complies with the code, IF it is below the allowable height in feet?


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (Aug 5, 2011)

brudgers said:
			
		

> 1.  I said "can serve" but did not mean that they will always do so - only that there are entirely different criteria for evaluating them which interfere with your comparison.





			
				brudgers said:
			
		

> 2. Thinking out loud - If it's at the second level and a courtyard, would it not be the case that it is surrounded by exterior walls? I.e, your situation could still be interpreted as significantly different from a rooftop use. See definition of "court."


Noted, however if we move the courtyard to the second floor and towards the exterior of the building envelope, then we might be talking apples to apples, or maybe we are talking about coconuts.   



			
				brudgers said:
			
		

> 3. What is muddying the analysis this is that there are two separate issues, rooftop use, mixed occupancy, and no actual plan to analyze. There are three issues muddying the analysis....


Agreed, an example/plan would greatly help clear up the discussion and give us something tangible to analyze.



			
				brudgers said:
			
		

> 4.  Table 503 is explicit - "Height limitations shown as stories and feet above grade plane."


Table 503 also explicitly notes that area limitations are to be determined by the definition of "Area, building," per story.   Now we are back to discussing an area not circumscribed (surrounded) by exterior walls and with no floor or roof above, which shall not be included in the building area.  Defining Height, story, furthers my misunderstanding in that this court can not be described by the definition provided.  If it is not to be defined by the building area, or by height story (504 reiterates this, even accounting for penthouses, which are also given an occupancy, and further detailed in 504.3 as not for habitation), then all I am left to understand is that it is only defined by an occupancy group for Structural and MOE purposes.

Thusly, thoust is confuddled!    Have a great weekend.


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (Aug 5, 2011)

texasbo said:
			
		

> is an occupancy that is not allowed as a 4th story, do you agree that it complies with the code, IF it is below the allowable height in feet?


base elevation/first finished floor = 100'-0"

second floor finished elevation = 112'-0"

third floor finished elevation = 124'-0"

roof deck/courtyard with pool and grill finished floor elevation = 136'-0"

top of parapet = 140'-0"

A feasible discussion point for an 3 story, V-B construction R-occupancy with A3 on the roof...and muddy waters.


----------



## texasbo (Aug 5, 2011)

Papio, to get apples to apples, lets stay with the OP R2, VA - is that ok?

In that case, I would say yes, A3 on roof complies. It isn't a story above 3 (with sprinklers), and it doesn't bust height at 36'-0" above grade.


----------



## brudgers (Aug 5, 2011)

Papio Bldg Dept said:
			
		

> Noted, however if we move the courtyard to the second floor and towards the exterior of the building envelope, then we might be talking apples to apples, or maybe we are talking about coconuts.           Agreed, an example/plan would greatly help clear up the discussion and give us something tangible to analyze.     Table 503 also explicitly notes that area limitations are to be determined by the definition of "Area, building," per story.   Now we are back to discussing an area not circumscribed (surrounded) by exterior walls and with no floor or roof above, which shall not be included in the building area.  Defining Height, story, furthers my misunderstanding in that this court can not be described by the definition provided.  If it is not to be defined by the building area, or by height story (504 reiterates this, even accounting for penthouses, which are also given an occupancy, and further detailed in 504.3 as not for habitation), then all I am left to understand is that it is only defined by an occupancy group for Structural and MOE purposes.      Thusly, thoust is confuddled!    Have a great weekend.


   The surface of the roof is "within the horizontal projection of the roof."       "Above"  is a condition placed on floors - because the horizontal projection of  floors both above and below would mean that the area of every floor was equal to that of the largest floor.    And please, I beg of you - point to the portion of the Building Area definition which mentions stories.


----------



## brudgers (Aug 5, 2011)

texasbo said:
			
		

> 3. Two issues, three issues, whatever it takes. I say there are four issues muddying the analysis...  4. OK; you finally read the code, so maybe you can discuss this a little more intelligently . Now for the big questions: are you backing out of your contention that an open roof is a story, and if so, if it is an occupancy that is not allowed as a 4th story, do you agree that it complies with the code, IF it is below the allowable height in feet?


  I never said the roof was a story. http://www.inspectpa.com/forum/showthread.php?5199-R-2-Rooftop-Patio-and-Number-of-Stories&p=52796&viewfull=1#post52796


----------



## brudgers (Aug 5, 2011)

Papio Bldg Dept said:
			
		

> base elevation/first finished floor = 100'-0"  second floor finished elevation = 112'-0"  third floor finished elevation = 124'-0"  roof deck/courtyard with pool and grill finished floor elevation = 136'-0"  top of parapet = 140'-0"  A feasible discussion point for an 3 story, V-B construction R-occupancy with A3 on the roof...and muddy waters.


 No because the A3 occupancy would be more than than two stories above grade because it is above the third story, even though the roof is not a story.


----------



## texasbo (Aug 6, 2011)

brudgers said:
			
		

> The surface of the roof is "within the horizontal projection of the roof."


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.


----------



## texasbo (Aug 6, 2011)

brudgers said:
			
		

> And please, I beg of you - point to the portion of the Building Area definition which mentions stories.


Table 503, header, 2006 IBC: "Area limitations as determined by the definition of "Area, building", PER STORY.


----------



## texasbo (Aug 6, 2011)

brudgers said:
			
		

> No because the A3 occupancy would be more than than two stories above grade because it is above the third story, even though the roof is not a story.


Table 503, Header, "Height limitations SHOWN AS STORIES..."


----------



## texasbo (Aug 6, 2011)

brudgers said:
			
		

> I never said the roof was a story. http://www.inspectpa.com/forum/showthread.php?5199-R-2-Rooftop-Patio-and-Number-of-Stories&p=52796&viewfull=1#post52796


Really? You said the allowable area of the building would be reduced by the area of the occupied roof, even though Table 503, 206 IBC assigns areas PER STORY.

http://www.inspectpa.com/forum/showthread.php?5199-R-2-Rooftop-Patio-and-Number-of-Stories&p=58774&viewfull=1#post58774


----------



## brudgers (Aug 6, 2011)

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.


  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.


----------



## brudgers (Aug 6, 2011)

texasbo said:
			
		

> Table 503, Header, "Height limitations SHOWN AS STORIES..."


  "and feet above grade plane." Stories below grade plane are covered at 506.1.1 and 405.


----------



## texasbo (Aug 6, 2011)

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.


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...


----------



## texasbo (Aug 6, 2011)

brudgers said:
			
		

> "and feet above grade plane." Stories below grade plane are covered at 506.1.1 and 405.


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?


----------



## fatboy (Aug 6, 2011)

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.


----------



## Dawgbark (Aug 6, 2011)

brudgers said:
			
		

> Residential Occupancies have an occupant load of 1/200 sf. See Table 1004.1.1


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.


----------



## brudgers (Aug 7, 2011)

Dawgbark said:
			
		

> I’m fully aware what R occupant loads are figured at Thanks.


You are most certainly welcome.


----------



## Builder Bob (Aug 8, 2011)

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.


----------



## brudgers (Aug 8, 2011)

Builder Bob said:
			
		

> therefore this concept is outside the scope of the code.


  Punting on second down.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Aug 8, 2011)

> therefore this concept is outside the scope of the code.


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"


----------



## Builder Bob (Aug 8, 2011)

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)


----------



## texasbo (Aug 8, 2011)

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...................


BB: nobody has said this.


----------



## Coug Dad (Aug 8, 2011)

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.


----------



## steveray (Aug 9, 2011)

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.


----------



## Builder Bob (Aug 9, 2011)

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.


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)


----------



## brudgers (Aug 9, 2011)

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.


  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.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Aug 9, 2011)

> 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....


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.


----------



## RLGA (Aug 9, 2011)

brudgers said:
			
		

> By the way, type VB construction can have multiple fire areas. And of course, R2 occupancies invariably have them.


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.


----------



## texasbo (Aug 9, 2011)

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> How do you sprinkle an open air area?Historically roof top uses consist of and the code recognizes these uses.


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.


----------



## brudgers (Aug 9, 2011)

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.


  Yeah, I got carried away.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Aug 9, 2011)

> It does not regulate them in terms of building area, stories, fire area.


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.


----------



## Builder Bob (Aug 9, 2011)

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....


----------



## Dawgbark (Aug 12, 2011)

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?
> 
> ...


----------

