# Any NFPA 101 gurus out there?



## cda (Jan 11, 2017)

per 101
Occupancy type


What is a sixteen or less person hotel style building, which also has a kitchen in each unit??


----------



## fatboy (Jan 11, 2017)

Not a 101 Guru, just happen to have a 2012.

It's not a Lodging or Rooming House, with the kitchens.

So, from what I can gather, by default, it is an "Apartment Building".

"A building or portion thereof containing three or more dwelling units with independent cooking and bathroom facilities."


----------



## north star (Jan 11, 2017)

@ ~ @

cda,

Beginning in Section 6.1.8 [ `15 NFPA 101  ] and after,
the "16 or fewer persons" is mentioned, but none with
an independent Kitchen  [  i.e. - cooking facilities  ] in it.
Otherwise, in Section 6.1.8.1.5 describes an Apartment
type bldg., "with"  independent cooking & bathing
facilities in it.

What are you looking for ?

***fatboy***  beat me to the posting !

*@ ~ @*


----------



## cda (Jan 11, 2017)

fatboy said:


> Not a 101 Guru, just happen to have a 2012.
> 
> It's not a Lodging or Rooming House, with the kitchens.
> 
> ...




How can it be an apartment

When people are transient


----------



## cda (Jan 11, 2017)

north star said:


> @ ~ @
> 
> cda,
> 
> ...




Someone else asked the question and I gave it my best shot. Glad I do not use 101 much


----------



## fatboy (Jan 11, 2017)

cda said:


> How can it be an apartment
> 
> When people are transient



Because it was the only option left, Lodging or Rooming House specifically eliminated separate cooking facilities, even with specifically allowing either transient or non-transient.


----------



## Msradell (Jan 11, 2017)

I just went to a online dictionary to look up the definition of apartment. What you describe certainly fits the definition of an apartment. Nothing in the definition refers to the length of time somebody has to reside in it. I don't see anything else to call it other than apartment as far as code is considered.


----------



## cda (Jan 11, 2017)

Msradell said:


> I just went to a online dictionary to look up the definition of apartment. What you describe certainly fits the definition of an apartment. Nothing in the definition refers to the length of time somebody has to reside in it. I don't see anything else to call it other than apartment as far as code is considered.




101 says transient is normally 30 days or less


----------



## ADAguy (Jan 11, 2017)

We use to call these motels, then again maybe an HRO.


----------



## FM William Burns (Jan 12, 2017)

You rang?   101 classifies them as classified as Hotels based on the "transient" nature of occupants.  Back in our day we called that flop houses. One could also be correct to classify them as unit number Apartment but for a test purpose you would use:


----------



## cda (Jan 12, 2017)

FM William Burns said:


> You rang?   101 classifies them as classified as Hotels based on the "transient" nature of occupants.  Back in our day we called that flop houses. One could also be correct to classify them as unit number Apartment but for a test purpose you would use:
> View attachment 2462
> 
> 
> View attachment 2463




What about the problem 

This is less than 16 people

Each unit has a kitchen??

So does not meet the black and white for a 101 hotel


----------



## fatboy (Jan 12, 2017)

Are we back to an Apartment Building..........by default?


----------



## BayPointArchitect (Jan 13, 2017)

Not to side-step the original question, but after including a 13R sprinkler system and a 44 inch wide fire-rated corridor, are the egress requirements any different after comparing:
Chapter 26 Lodging or Rooming Houses
Chapter 28 New Hotels and Dormitories
Chapter 30 New Apartment Buildings
Never mind.  I already see that chapters 28 and 30 are similar to each other but different from chapter 26.

Knowing that Chapter 26 does not apply because of the kitchen in each unit, perhaps my thinking is valid because Chapter 28 and 30 are similar.

This situation reminds me of (irresponsible) Hillary Clinton's question regarding Benghazi, "*What difference does it make* why four Americans are dead?"

Is sixteen (or fewer people) who have died from smoke inhalation related to a burning hotel any *MORE DEAD* than a different group of sixteen (or fewer people) who have died from smoke inhalation related to a burning apartment building?

We are not talking about more than 16 people, so I would think it could fall into Chapter 30 - Apartments.


----------



## cda (Jan 13, 2017)

You could also say the other chapters do not apply, because the people are transient


----------



## steveray (Jan 13, 2017)

What's more dangerous, the cooking or transientness? Is there anything that prohibits a kitchen in a hotel?


----------



## cda (Jan 13, 2017)

steveray said:


> What's more dangerous, the cooking or transientness? Is there anything that prohibits a kitchen in a hotel?




No, and not sure why 101 says no in a chapter 26 building??


----------



## FM William Burns (Jan 13, 2017)

cda said:


> What about the problem
> 
> This is less than 16 people
> 
> ...



The "black and white" no it doesn't.  However in the annex provided, is the intent and from a legal standpoint it would stand the test.  Is you concern that the <16 structure is not sprinkled or just that 101 classifies them as a hotel occupancy?


----------



## cda (Jan 13, 2017)

FM William Burns said:


> The "black and white" no it doesn't.  However in the annex provided, is the intent and from a legal standpoint it would stand the test.  Is you concern that the <16 structure is not sprinkled or just that 101 classifies them as a hotel occupancy?




I was wondering if the 16 or less had to be sprinkled

Thanks


----------



## RFDACM02 (Jan 14, 2017)

steveray said:


> What's more dangerous, the cooking or transientness? Is there anything that prohibits a kitchen in a hotel?


Transient occupancy means the occupants are less familiar with the building, any issues in the building, and have  a less intimate "relationship" to other occupants. This reduces situational awareness, means occupants are less likely to warn others of a problem and are more likely to have an issue with problematic building equipment. The NFPA 101 Handbook has some good text explaining the hazards of this, and pretty much all codes address it by requiring safety enhancements in traditional "transient accommodation" occupancies (hotels, motels, Inns, B&B's, etc).  I think we all can agree there are more stringent rules for hotels than apartment buildings, but we do know hotels can have kitchens, but alas, nearly the most stringent rules have already been applied based on the occupancy.


----------



## RFDACM02 (Jan 14, 2017)

steveray said:


> What's more dangerous, the cooking or transientness? Is there anything that prohibits a kitchen in a hotel?


Sorry missed cooking vs. "transientness" at first. The problem is short term rentals in multiple dwellings puts these both together.

My "logic" says that if I can have multiple dwelling units with kitchens as a hotel or I can have multiple dwelling units as an apartment building with fewer regulation the difference between the two is what drives the heightened regulations? Thus the transient nature of the accommodations in the hotel means it requires greater safety measures. While many of the major issues like sprinklers and alarms are very similar in the two occupancies, there are additional rules in hotels about locks, exit signage, egress maps, fire safety information, and some other details. These all seem to address the traveler that is awoken to an alarm and needs to exit in a hurry. Most would agree that with familiarity the reaction time should decrease, but of course shortly thereafter comes complacency.


----------



## tmurray (Jan 16, 2017)

So do you use the exiting and notification criteria of a hotel to address the transient nature of the occupants and the active and passive fire safety requirements of the apartment building archetype to address the kitchen hazard?

Joking of course. But this would address all the issues.


----------



## CityKin (Jan 17, 2017)

I have a general question.  When is NFPA 101 used?  I have it on my shelf, but have never used it.  I think I heard that the state school board requires compliance with NFPA101 for new school buildings, but it is not a referenced standard in our state code, and I've never had reason to use it.


----------



## Paul Sweet (Jan 17, 2017)

NFPA 101 is required for hospitals receiving certain federal funds.  Some states & localities use IBC for their building code and NFPA 101 for their fire safety code, which really makes life interesting.


----------



## tmurray (Jan 17, 2017)

Our codes allow the use of NFPA 101 on some very specific situations. It's also very clear about prohibiting the mixing and matching between two different codes.


----------



## cda (Jan 17, 2017)

Nursing homes


----------



## cda (Jan 17, 2017)

The codes are getting closer, so soon will not be much difference


----------



## BayPointArchitect (Jan 24, 2017)

tmurray said:


> Our codes allow the use of NFPA 101 on some very specific situations. It's also very clear about prohibiting the mixing and matching between two different codes.



All projects within our State are reviewed under both the NFPA 101 Life Safety and the IBC.

IBC Section 102 makes it clear that where there is a conflict between code requirements, the most restrictive safe-guards shall govern and take precedence.

In "I2" and "R3" occupancies, the 20' dead end limit of the IBC would rule over the 30' dead end limit of the NFPA 101.

But in a new school, the shorter travel distance found in the NFPA 101 would take precedence over the longer travel distance allowed by the IBC.

Yes, it does make life very interesting.

ICC Certified Plan Reviewer
NFPA Certified Fire Plan Examiner


----------



## north star (Jan 24, 2017)

*% = %*


BayPoint,

Go with the "most restrictive", and let the State decide
how they can override the stricter interpretation.


*% = %*


----------

