# I-1 Assisted Living Kitchen Range Hood



## retire09 (Aug 10, 2012)

I have an assisted living project proposed for a 17 unit facility. The owners are requesting me to allow the kitchen to be done to a residential standard as it relates to the type 1 hood and suppression system requirements.

The facility will house 16-17 full time residents and cooking will be done by a single person for residents only.

Appliances will be residential and no deep fryers. The menues will be very low on fats and oils.

Would it be unusual or unreasonable to allow this facility to have a residential hood over the residential range in the kitchen?


----------



## pwood (Aug 10, 2012)

i would require type 1 hood with suppression and a grease trap, but that is just me. And no residential appliances!


----------



## Gregg Harris (Aug 10, 2012)

retire09 said:
			
		

> I have an assisted living project proposed for a 17 unit facility. The owners are requesting me to allow the kitchen to be done to a residential standard as it relates to the type 1 hood and suppression system requirements.The facility will house 16-17 full time residents and cooking will be done by a single person for residents only.
> 
> Appliances will be residential and no deep fryers. The menues will be very low on fats and oils.
> 
> Would it be unusual or unreasonable to allow this facility to have a residential hood over the residential range in the kitchen?


Looking at 2009 IBC 308.2 I1 states a facility such as above 6-16 residents shall be classified as R 4. It should comply with the IRC

My contention type 1  hood not required residential hood recommended.


----------



## Francis Vineyard (Aug 10, 2012)

It would not be unusual or unreasonable for 17; it is a case by case basis. This topic has come up in many forms, this is one thread that may help, some else is sure to jump in with more;

“It is not uncommon, however, for fire stations to have a community room with a kitchen used for preparing meals. The community room is often used to hold fund-raising events, such as spaghetti dinners, fish fries or pancake breakfasts or used by members of the community for special events such as parties or weddings. The kitchen may or may not have commercial cooking appliances installed. In this case, it would appear that such a situation is intended for the preparation of food for revenue generation. In the case, a Type 1 or II hood is required based on the cooking operations that are performed under the hood. This would also apply to VFW and other fraternal organizations, church assembly halls and other similar halls.



It is important to note that cooking appliances installed in commercial occupancies do not necessarily require the installation of a Type 1 or II hood. There are a number of installations in a commercial occupancy where residential-type cooking occurs that would not require a commercial kitchen hood (see the discussion above for school classrooms and fire stations).”



http://www.inspectpa.com/forum/showthread.php?8827-507-2-3-Domestic-cooking-appliances-used-for-commercial-purposes&highlight=kitchen+hood

Francis


----------



## north star (Aug 10, 2012)

*+ + +*

retire09,

Will the residents / occupants be able to suppress

a fire on the stove if / when needed, ...or will

they rely on their caregivers for full care of them;

as well as, the facility.....[ i.e. - what is the level of

self preservation,  and, can the residents suppress

a fire AND exit safely if they cannot ]?

As Francis has mentioned, ...it is a "case by case"

application......Some jurisdictions will require the

full Commercial setup, ...others a residential.

Is there is a Fire Code Official involved in this

project?.......If so, what is their take on this?

*+ + +*


----------



## Gregg Harris (Aug 10, 2012)

north star said:
			
		

> *+ + +*retire09,
> 
> Will the residents / occupants be able to suppress
> 
> ...


IBC 308.2 Group I1 -------------- The occupants are capable of responding to an emergency situation without physical assistance from staff.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Aug 10, 2012)

> Is there is a Fire Code Official involved in thisproject?.......If so, what is their take on this?


Why would you want to muddy the waters. The IFC refers you to the IMC. It is clearly the BO's call

Greg nailed it 16 residents or less and it can be built to the IRC.


----------



## cda (Aug 10, 2012)

Is this a house???

How many bedrooms???

How many sq ft


----------



## north star (Aug 10, 2012)

*+ + +*





> "Why would you want to muddy the waters.....The IFC refersyou to the IMC...... It is clearly the BO's call.......Greg nailed it!......16
> 
> residents or less and it can be built to the IRC."


In this AHJ, the Fire Code Official is charged withresponding to all emergency situations, including fires.

The FCO is also charged with the maintenance inspections

of the various facilities, and [ around here ] they have a

less than stellar history of cutting costs to the detriment

of the residents, ...not maintaining the facilities,

...purposefully blocking exits & MOE paths, ...not having

compliant portable fire extinguishers and other

violations that could impede / effect an I-1 resident

even if they are able to attempt an exit.

So yes, ...IMO, the FCO DOES need to be involved in

determining whether or not an I-1 application can be

reduced to the Residential grade of operations.....We

have a very good relationship with our FD, so it is

a cooperative effort on every project......We don't always

agree on every aspect, but since the FD are the ones to

respond to an emergency, ...they DO get to have an active

voice all projects.

Also, regarding a grease trap....Simply because of what

is "proposed" does not necessarily mean that is what will

actually take place on a day-to-day basis......Unfortunately,

in this AHJ, we get promised a lot on the front end, but

in actuality, ...it turns out to be something different

down the road.....For us, it is a lot easier to require

something in the beginning than after-the-fact.

Others may have a different experience!



*$ $ $*


----------



## Gregg Harris (Aug 10, 2012)

north star said:
			
		

> *+ + +*In this AHJ, the Fire Code Official is charged with
> 
> responding to all emergency situations, including fires.
> 
> ...


So yes, ...IMO, the FCO DOES need to be involved in

determining whether or not an I-1 application can be

reduced to the Residential grade of operations.

 it is listed as residential so how is it being reduced?


----------



## mtlogcabin (Aug 10, 2012)

> In this AHJ, the Fire Code Official is charged withresponding to all emergency situations, including fires.
> 
> The FCO is also charged with the maintenance inspections
> 
> of the various facilities,


He is not the one charged with determining occupancy classification and what code a building is required to adhere to. That is the job of the BO



> _IMO, the FCO DOES need to be involved in__determining whether or not an I-1 application can be_
> 
> _reduced to the Residential grade of operations_


Agree with Greg. There is no reduction from an I-1 The code provides a specific exception to the IBC requirements if there are 16 or less residents. Is this facility licensed by your state? Are they restricted to a specific number of residents? That is one of the criteria we use to determine the number of residents in a facility.


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (Aug 13, 2012)

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> Why would you want to muddy the waters. The IFC refers you to the IMC. It is clearly the BO's callGreg nailed it 16 residents or less and it can be built to the IRC.


This is how they are handled in our AHJ, because that is the prescriptive method in the IBC.  We usually see them at 5-12 residents per house/bldg/pod.


----------

