# Auto Dealership / Occupancy / Toilets



## sooneraia (Feb 22, 2012)

I am working on a new dealership facility.  It has 12,100 sf on the main level, and we are planning a 1,000 sf mezzanine (parts) above the main parts area.  I was going to use "B" and "S-1" as my occupancies.  For my occupant load I have used 1/200 for the service bays and service reception; 1/300 for parts / mechanical / etc.; and 1/100 for showroom, sales offices, etc. I initially ran these numbers and came up with 86 occupants total.  We were hoping to only have one men's room and one women's (public - in the showroom area) and one unisex for the techs in the service area.  If I use the 85 and divide by two, it looks like I will need two of each in the showroom area, thus making the restrooms much larger than we were hoping for.

Now, if I use "M" and "S-1" as my occupancies, the restroom requirements are much less restrictive and we could get by with one each.  As I see it, I would still not have to sprinkle the building in either case (903.2.2),  classify the building (mixed use / separate occupancies) table 508.4 - no separation between occupancies, and the "S-1" area is less than 12,000 sf.

The big kicker seems to be the restrooms.  The owner will bulldoze the existing building after this one is built, and is used to two restrooms.

Advice as to a direction?


----------



## mark handler (Feb 22, 2012)

B for office, M for parts and sales,  S-1 for repair,


----------



## sooneraia (Feb 22, 2012)

OK, so "B" for all offices only, "M" for parts / sales (the showroom area) and "S-1" for repair.  Sounds workable.  What about things like the sales consultation areas (modular furniture but located in the open showroom area) and the service write up desks (modular furniture but located adjacent to the open showroom area - could easily be considered part of the showroom).  Can you lump them into the "M", or do you have to allocate a space and figure "B"? Not sure if it will make that much difference.

Also, can I assume that since the occupancy of the repair area is less than 15, I will not need to provide separate toilets there?  We will have a women's in the showroom.


----------



## imhotep (Feb 22, 2012)

sooneraia said:
			
		

> OK, so "B" for all offices only, "M" for parts / sales (the showroom area) and "S-1" for repair.  Sounds workable.  What about things like the sales consultation areas (modular furniture but located in the open showroom area) and the service write up desks (modular furniture but located adjacent to the open showroom area - could easily be considered part of the showroom).  Can you lump them into the "M", or do you have to allocate a space and figure "B"? Not sure if it will make that much difference.  Also, can I assume that since the occupancy of the repair area is less than 15, I will not need to provide separate toilets there?  We will have a women's in the showroom.


You might find this article of interest.

http://www.specsandcodes.com/Articles/The%20Code%20Corner%20No.%2033%20-%20Calculating%20Plumbing%20Fixture%20Counts.pdf

Of note is the section dealing with multiple occupancy's.


----------



## gbhammer (Feb 22, 2012)

http://www.specsandcodes.com/Articles/The%20Code%20Corner%20No.%2033%20-%20Calculating%20Plumbing%20Fixture%20Counts.pdf


----------



## gbhammer (Feb 22, 2012)

a bit to slow.


----------



## RLGA (Feb 22, 2012)

Thanks for the article plug, guys. 

sooneraia, you stated that because the S-1 area is less than 12,000 sq. ft. you do not need to sprinkler the building...this is incorrect. Section 903.2.9 (2009 IBC) states that if a Group S-1 _fire area_ exceeds 12,000 sq. ft. then a fire sprinkler is required if the S-1 area is not separated by fire barriers per Section 707.3.9. If there are no fire barriers separating the S-1 from the rest of the building, then the entire building is a single fire area by definition (See Section 902.1). Also, the area of a mezzanine must be included in determining the fire area per Section 505.1.


----------



## gbhammer (Feb 22, 2012)

RLGA said:
			
		

> Thanks for the article plug, guys.  sooneraia, you stated that because the S-1 area is less than 12,000 sq. ft. you do not need to sprinkler the building...this is incorrect. Section 903.2.9 (2009 IBC) states that if a Group S-1 _fire area_ exceeds 12,000 sq. ft. then a fire sprinkler is required. If the S-1 are is not separated by fire barriers per Section 707.3.9. If there are no fire barriers separating the S-1 from the rest of the building, then the entire building is a single fire area by definition (See Section 902.1). Also, the area of a mezzanine must be included in determining the fire area per Section 505.1.


Should have caught that about the sprinkler requirement :agree, the fire area without separation will be 13,100 sq. ft. and even with out the mezzanine the 12,100 sq. ft. building area would require a sprinkler if there is no separation.


----------



## sooneraia (Feb 22, 2012)

The article was helpful, I appreciate it.  With my smaller building, using a M occupancy, I was coming up with percentages of a toilet being required.  I assumed you would just add them together, like the article indicated.

I have been telling the owner we need to keep this below 12,000 sf to avoid the sprinkler system from kicking in, but with the manufacturer mandated minimum square footage requirements, we will exceed it.  I was hoping there would be some way of keeping the mezzanine from being included in the fire area, but it looks like that is not possible.

So, short of separating the occupancies, with what looks like a 2 hour wall, or reducing everything (including the mezzanine) to less than 12,000 sf, it looks like a sprinkler system may be in play.  Anyone have any crafty ideas??????   It is amazing because the owner showed me countless photos of a recently completed dealership, it had to be at least 30,000 sf, and I did not see a single sprinkler head in any ceilings.........


----------



## Pcinspector1 (Feb 22, 2012)

gb,

I'm trying to follow along, how did you come up with the 1,100 sq. ft. increase to (13,000 sf)?

pc1


----------



## gbhammer (Feb 22, 2012)

Pc,

The building area is 12,100 the mezzanine is 1,000 add them together you get the  fire area of 13,100.

sooneraia,

2009 IBC T508.4... does not require separation between these use groups M/B/F1/S1.... so you do not need to create separate occupancies with a fire wall but separate fire areas with a one hour barrier.


----------



## Pcinspector1 (Feb 22, 2012)

gb, never mind, the mezzanine has to be counted due to it being for parts, not for equipment (IBC505.5)

pc1


----------



## Pcinspector1 (Feb 22, 2012)

gb, agree that table 508.4 addresses occupancies seperation but what code section adresses the one hour barrier?

pc1


----------



## gbhammer (Feb 22, 2012)

My bad the one hour is for fire partitions not fire areas. For fire areas you use table 707.3.9 and it would require 3hr separation for the S1


----------



## gbhammer (Feb 22, 2012)

It almost seems to be a discrepancy that an B, F1, M, S1 are not required to be separated by table 508.4 but are required to have 2 and 3 hr. separation in t 703.9, but thats what the whole (508.3.1) most restrictive part of section 403 and chapter 9 is all about.


----------



## sooneraia (Feb 22, 2012)

Agree gb, it is confusing.  When I did my initial, I did see the lack of separation requirement between the occupancies in 508.4, so thought we were well and good.  I did not spread this good news to the owner though.  Then after further review, and some education from those on this board, I see where you can easily get two different readings if you don't follow everything through.  Just because you get good news in one section does not imply good news.........


----------



## permitguy (Feb 22, 2012)

Separation of occupancies and creating multiple fire areas are not the same thing.

You could build your 3-hr wall to create separate fire areas anywhere in the building you want to, as long as you don't exceed 12,000 s.f. on either side.  In a 13,100 s.f. building, you could simply wall off 2,000 s.f. (such as a wash bay area) from the rest of the building and you'd have two fire areas - one 2,000 s.f., and one 11,100 s.f., no sprinklers required.

In other words, the wall used to create separate fire areas does not actually have to separate your occupancies.


----------



## north star (Feb 22, 2012)

*= =*





> "In other words, the wall used to create separate fire areas does notactually have to separate your occupancies."


Good point " permitguy! "........I believe that we have a winner!

*= =*


----------



## RLGA (Feb 23, 2012)

Permitguy is correct.  Fire barriers per Table 707.3.9 are required for determining fire areas, whereas fire barriers per Table 508.4 are required for determining allowable area using the separated occupancies method.  If a fire barrier is to be used as both an occupancy separation and the fire area limit, then the highest rating between the two must be applied.


----------



## sooneraia (Feb 23, 2012)

"permitguy" stated exactly what I was looking at this morning.  Separating the wash bay gets us below 12,000 on the ground level,but we still have the issue of the mezzanine in figuring fire areas.  Silly question, because I have not explored it yet, but if we sprinkle I assume the 3-hour wall goes away right?


----------



## brudgers (Feb 23, 2012)

sooneraia said:
			
		

> "permitguy" stated exactly what I was looking at this morning.  Separating the wash bay gets us below 12,000 on the ground level,but we still have the issue of the mezzanine in figuring fire areas.  Silly question, because I have not explored it yet, but if we sprinkle I assume the 3-hour wall goes away right?


  Why is a three hour wall required?  What code provision would allow it's replacement by a sprinkler system if it is required?

  What does the architect say about these matters?


----------



## gbhammer (Feb 23, 2012)

sooneraia said:
			
		

> "permitguy" stated exactly what I was looking at this morning.  Separating the wash bay gets us below 12,000 on the ground level,but we still have the issue of the mezzanine in figuring fire areas.  Silly question, because I have not explored it yet, but if we sprinkle I assume the 3-hour wall goes away right?


correct the wall goes away


----------



## north star (Feb 23, 2012)

*$*





> "B for office, M for parts and sales, S-1 for repair"


IMO, the "M" occupancy group designation is not correct for the PartsStocking area.....This would be an S-1 [ and maybe ] an S-2, depending

upon what type of materials are stored in the Parts Area.

*$*


----------



## RLGA (Feb 23, 2012)

The simple answer is "yes."


----------



## Pcinspector1 (Feb 23, 2012)

What does this mean then?

IBC2006, Section 706, Fire Barriers

706.3.8 Separation of mixed occupancies.

Where the provisions of Section 508.3.2 are applicable, the fire barrier separating mixed occupancies shall have a fire-resistance rating of not less than that indicated in Section 508.3.2 based on the occupancies being separated.

pc1


----------



## Big Mac (Feb 23, 2012)

If you sprinkle, the fire-barrier should no longer be required, due to the allowance for increased floor area.


----------



## brudgers (Feb 23, 2012)

Pcinspector1 said:
			
		

> What does this mean then?   IBC2006, Section 706, Fire Barriers  706.3.8 Separation of mixed occupancies. Where the provisions of Section 508.3.2 are applicable, the fire barrier separating mixed occupancies shall have a fire-resistance rating of not less than that indicated in Section 508.3.2 based on the occupancies being separated.  pc1


  Unless the facility is in an unusually urbanized location for a car dealership, it probably means that there is no architect, or that the lead architect is practicing well beyond the level at which their code knowledge is sufficient to protect the public health, safety and welfare.  It might also be evidence that in addition, the architect has a percentage of construction cost contract of the sort encouraged by the AIA.


----------



## Big Mac (Feb 23, 2012)

Also, you might want to check Section 304, where motor vehicle showrooms are specifically noted as Use Group B occupancies.  How would you magically determine that it is a Use Group M, when it has been specifically assigned a differnt use group by the building code?

Motor Vehicle Showrooms and offices along with the associated accessory uses - B

Storage and Shop areas - S-1


----------



## Pcinspector1 (Feb 23, 2012)

Note worthy. My 2006IBC code book, section 706.3.8, list 508.3.3 in that section, which is the table.

The 2006IBC CD that I copied and posted has 508.3.2. What the H***! is going on?

I'm thinking there is no seperation required.

pc1


----------



## permitguy (Feb 23, 2012)

I believe the question regarding separation of mixed occupancies has been resolved.  It was confusion about use of a fire barrier to create separate fire areas.


----------



## gbhammer (Feb 23, 2012)

Big Mac said:
			
		

> Also, you might want to check Section 304, where motor vehicle showrooms are specifically noted as Use Group B occupancies.  How would you magically determine that it is a Use Group M, when it has been specifically assigned a differnt use group by the building code?Motor Vehicle Showrooms and offices along with the associated accessory uses - B
> 
> Storage and Shop areas - S-1


I would classify the building as a B/S1; but that is not to say that an M use would not be a feasible classification for a part of the building if they had vehicles, parts, and accessories on display and for sale in a showroom floor.


----------



## Big Mac (Feb 23, 2012)

gbhammer said:
			
		

> I would classify the building as a B/S1; but that is not to say that an M use would not be a feasible classification for a part of the building if they had vehicles, parts, and accessories on display and for sale in a showroom floor.


Please reconsider.  MOTOR VEHICLE SHOWROOM =


----------



## Big Mac (Feb 23, 2012)

Originally Posted by gbhammer

I would classify the building as a B/S1; but that is not to say that an M use would not be a feasible classification for a part of the building if they had vehicles, parts, and accessories on display and for sale in a showroom floor.

Sorry, sometimes I do something that causes it to post before I have completed my comment.  I am quite sure it is operator error, but forthe life of me I can't figure out what.

At any rate - MOTOR VEHICLE SHOWROOM = Display, sales, etc.  Of course they do sales there.  it is still considered to be a 'Use Group B' occupancy as specifically stated int he code.  It is not an 'M'.


----------



## RLGA (Feb 23, 2012)

Pcinspector1 said:
			
		

> Note worthy. My 2006IBC code book, section 706.3.8, list 508.3.3 in that section, which is the table. The 2006IBC CD that I copied and posted has 508.3.2. What the H***! is going on?
> 
> I'm thinking there is no seperation required.
> 
> pc1


That was probably an editing error--I find those all the time.  The first printing of the 2006 IBC had the wrong table reference in Section 706.3.8.

Also, a note of caution, the 2009 IBC made a significant change in this area regarding fire area separation. In the 2006 IBC and earlier, the fire barriers used for occupancy separation also created fire areas, and Table 706.3.9 was used for dividing a single occupancy in to multiple fire areas. The 2009 and 2012 IBC editions have created separate requirements for fire barriers used for occupancy separation and fire area separation--and they are not the same.

For example, per Table 508.4 for occupancy separation, a 2-hour fire barrier is required for separation between a Group A and a Group S-1.  However, fore fire area purposes, if you wanted to place a fire barrier to separate a Group A fire area from a Group S-1 fire area, a 3-hour fire barrier is required per Table 707.3.9.

Some occupancies do not require separation for allowable area; but, to separate fire areas, a fire barrier may be required. An example is a Group B and Group S-1.  Per Table 508.4, there is no required separation between the occupancies when determining allowable area per Section 508.4.  However, if you wanted to separate the Group S-1 fire area from the Group B fire area, then a 3-hour fire barrier is required.


----------



## gbhammer (Feb 23, 2012)

Big Mac said:
			
		

> Originally Posted by gbhammer  I would classify the building as a B/S1; but that is not to say that an M use would not be a feasible classification for a part of the building if they had vehicles, parts, and accessories on display and for sale in a showroom floor.
> 
> Sorry, sometimes I do something that causes it to post before I have completed my comment.  I am quite sure it is operator error, but forthe life of me I can't figure out what.
> 
> At any rate - MOTOR VEHICLE SHOWROOM = Display, sales, etc.  Of course they do sales there.  it is still considered to be a 'Use Group B' occupancy as specifically stated int he code.  It is not an 'M'.


As I said :agree with the B/S1. What I was saying is that if they have a show room that has a lot of goods for sale as well as vehicles on display then I would consider the M classification (like Harley showroom, they have a lot of things for sale other than bikes which most of the time you can't take right off the showroom floor, but have to order in advance). I don't know if you have the commentary but it uses the automotive showroom as an example.

2009 IBC 309.1 Commentary : …The key characteristics that differentiate occupancies classified in Group M from those classified in Group B (see section 304) are the larger quantity of goods or merchandise available for sale and the lack of familiarity of the occupants with the building, particularly its means of egress. To be classified in Group M, the goods that are on display must be accessible to the public. If a patron sees an item for sale, then that item is generally available for purchase at that time (i.e., there is a large stock of goods). If a store allows people to see the merchandise but it is not available on the premises, such as an automobile showroom, then the occupancy classification of business (Group B) should be considered.


----------



## Big Mac (Feb 23, 2012)

gb - I guess that is possible, but I have never seen it.  I would agree that the code does make provision for mxed use.


----------



## sooneraia (Feb 23, 2012)

The main reason for contemplating the "M" classification over the "B", was the restroom count.  "M" is much less restrictive in number of fixtures (w.c. in this case) required / occupant.  Now you will calculate more occupants for the space, but the fixture requirement / occupant is really low (1/500 vs 1/25.....).


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (Feb 23, 2012)

sooneraia said:
			
		

> The main reason for contemplating the "M" classification over the "B", was the restroom count.  "M" is much less restrictive in number of fixtures (w.c. in this case) required / occupant.  Now you will calculate more occupants for the space, but the fixture requirement / occupant is really low (1/500 vs 1/25.....).


Sounds like it will be able to handle those Weird Wally everything must go sales blow-out end of the year events they have every other month.


----------



## gbhammer (Feb 23, 2012)

sooneraia said:
			
		

> The main reason for contemplating the "M" classification over the "B", was the restroom count.  "M" is much less restrictive in number of fixtures (w.c. in this case) required / occupant.  Now you will calculate more occupants for the space, but the fixture requirement / occupant is really low (1/500 vs 1/25.....).


For figuring the fixture count only use the office space under the B requirements, use the S1 for the storage/repair areas, and for the showroom space use M on table 2902.1. it says salesrooms right in the description.


----------



## Big Mac (Feb 23, 2012)

It has become painfully apparent that some will call it whatever they like regardless of what the code states.  It would be extremely difficult to call the vehicle showroom anything other than a B without very extenuating circumstances.


----------



## north star (Feb 23, 2012)

*= =*





> "It has become painfully apparent that some will call it whatever they likeregardless of what the code states............It would be extremely difficult
> 
> to call the vehicle showroom anything other than a B without very extenuating
> 
> circumstances."


That's purdy funny!   *= =*


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (Feb 23, 2012)

Big Mac said:
			
		

> It has become painfully apparent that some will call it whatever they like regardless of what the code states.  It would be extremely difficult to call the vehicle showroom anything other than a B without very extenuating circumstances.


So you what your saying is, a Harley or Honda Power store is strictly a B occupancy because Chapter 3 says if you have motor-cycles (and a bunch of accessory stuff) instead of bicycles, the duck is a B?  I usually see them split down the middle (half showroom/half merchandise), and that duck walks more like an M most days.


----------



## Big Mac (Feb 24, 2012)

Not at all.  What I'm saying is that the original poster identified it as a auto dealership, which is specifically noted as a Use Group B.  Some have decided that if a Group M occupancy might apply to a portion of a motorcycle dealership, then it should also be used for an automoble dealership.  In my estimation, that doesn't even pass the straight face test.


----------



## sooneraia (Feb 27, 2012)

Great information, appreciate all the response's.  Covered awnings / canopies etc. attached to the building (to park new cars under) are also considered in the fire area - correct.  I can't locate the code section that stated this. Thanks in advance.


----------



## sooneraia (Feb 27, 2012)

I may have spoken too soon, the definitions, Chapter 9 state - _FIRE AREA. The aggregate floor area enclosed and bounded by fire walls, fire barriers, exterior walls or horizontal assemblies of a building. Areas of the building not provided with surrounding walls shall be included in the fire area if such areas are included within the horizontal projection of the roof or floor next above. _  So, if the main building roof parapet is 25' high and we have a attached covered awning which is lower than that (14') that projects out 10' from the exterior wall, we would not have to include it in figuring fire area.  Correct?


----------



## sooneraia (Feb 27, 2012)

OK, I guess I am thick here.  I see the merits of this section:_707.3.9 Fire areas. The fire barriers or horizontal assemblies, or both,  __*separating a single occupancy into different fire areas*__ shall have a fire-resistance rating of not less than that indicated in Table 707.3.9. The fire barriers or horizontal assemblies, or both, separating fire areas of mixed occupancies shall have a fire-resistance rating of not less than the highest value indicated in Table 707.3.9 for the occupancies under consideration._  To me, that requires a three hour separation if I am separating a "single" occupancy, ie. S-1 only.

Why can't we use this section? _707.3.8 Separated occupancies. Where the provisions of Section 508.4 are applicable, __*the fire barrier separating mixed occupancies *__shall have a fire-resistance rating of not less than that indicated in Table 508.4 based on the occupancies being separated._ Since this building has separate or mixed occupancies, S-1 and B, and Table 508.4 indicates "no separation required".


----------



## RLGA (Feb 27, 2012)

You can, but only for purposes of allowable area.  For establishing fire areas used to determine fire protection requirements, the other section is required.


----------



## Big Mac (Feb 27, 2012)

Typically the construction requirements for fire-barrier is different than the construction requirements for occupancy separations.


----------



## RLGA (Feb 27, 2012)

Occupancy separations are to be constructed as fire barriers. See Sections 707.3.8, 508.2.5.1, and 508.4.4.1 (2009 IBC).


----------



## brudgers (Feb 27, 2012)

My educated guess is that there is a very simple design solution to avoid all this hurt.


----------



## Big Mac (Feb 27, 2012)

R.G. is right about the need for occupancy separations to be constructed as fire-barriers.  I guess it't too early on an Monday.  At least that's my story and I'm stickin' to it.  My bad.


----------



## gbhammer (Feb 28, 2012)

Big Mac said:
			
		

> It has become painfully apparent that some will call it whatever they like regardless of what the code states.  It would be extremely difficult to call the vehicle showroom anything other than a B without very extenuating circumstances.





			
				Papio Bldg Dept said:
			
		

> Sounds like it will be able to handle those Weird Wally everything must go sales blow-out end of the year events they have every other month.


Not trying to be difficult :smile: on the M Use versus B Use just trying to point out that in some cases the occupant load for a showroom floor will be much higher than a B use would account for (i.e. The big blowout sales event), and I would happily allow a DP to call out an M Use to save on a WC fixture in order to insure that the higher design occupant loads for an M Use be used for determining MOE. In this case I would say this issue in the big scheme of things is a lot about nothing. :cheers


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (Feb 28, 2012)

gbhammer said:
			
		

> In this case I would say this issue in the big scheme of things is a lot about nothing. :cheers


Much-ado-about-nothings is modus operandi in forum world.  We are like 3M for code commentary.  We don't make the commentary, we make it better.  It's what we do here.


----------



## RLGA (Feb 28, 2012)

Although it was BASF and not 3M that used that slogan, I agree with its application to this forum.


----------



## north star (Feb 29, 2012)

***







> "Although it was BASF and not 3M that used that slogan, I agree with its application to this forum."


Which is why all of the "regulars" keep coming back here,...time after time after time after time.   

***


----------



## sooneraia (Mar 8, 2012)

Next question, same facility, 1,000 square foot mezzanine for Parts, located above the Parts area, only accessible from the Parts area.  Not required to be accessible - correct.  Also, I am only planning one stair exiting from this mezzanine, travel distance at 34' to the stair from the furthest point, the mezzanine will be enclosed with walls, and yes at this time, it looks like we will sprinkle the building.  Thanks.


----------



## RLGA (Mar 8, 2012)

What is the size of the main parts area below?


----------



## sooneraia (Mar 8, 2012)

Actual fsquare footages are 911 square foot mezzanine space, 980 square foot main parts storage below.  The mezzanine does not go completely over the entire parts area below, it (the main parts area) extends out from under the mezzanine.


----------



## RLGA (Mar 8, 2012)

Then it is not a mezzanine but a second story.


----------



## Big Mac (Mar 8, 2012)

A mezzanine cannot exceed 1/3 the floor area of the room into whichit opens.  If the floor area exceeds that 1/3 threshold, it is a second floor.  Typically floor levels having less than 3,000 square feet are not required to be accessible.


----------



## Examiner (Mar 9, 2012)

Have not followed this post that well but I tend to go with sprinkler system per NFPA 13 and use the option to delete occupancy separation per the 2006 IBC Section 508.3.2 Nonseparated Occupancies.


----------



## Architect1281 (Mar 10, 2012)

So how many RDP's design a building then pick their hed up off the drafting table and reach for the code boo?

"We were hoping to only have !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

Wishin' and hopin' and thinkin' and prayin'

 Plannin' and dreamin' each night of his charms

 That won't get you into his arms


----------



## brudgers (Mar 12, 2012)

Reading this thread, I feel your pain.


----------

