# Restaurant patio cover not attached to building



## DW SIDES (Nov 11, 2022)

A friend has a restaurant in Memphis TN and it has a occupancy load of 89. He was told by the Fire Marshall that he could add a patio cover to the Side of building but if it was attached to the building it would add to the occupancy load and require sprinklers.  He then said he could keep it 5 inches off the  building and make it free standing  but it could not have any kind of roofing material on it that would "Keep the elements out" ie a metal top.  He said it had to be open like lattice ect.  My friend wants a metal roof on it so people can sit outside in a light rain.  any help would be appreciated. I can't find any language stating a free standing structure can not have a metal roof.


----------



## TheCommish (Nov 12, 2022)

you are not going to find language in the codes saying you cannot have something, the below deffinitin mya be wah the Fire Officals is  looking at
2015 IBC
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.


----------



## DW SIDES (Nov 12, 2022)

TheCommish said:


> you are not going to find language in the codes saying you cannot have something, the below deffinitin mya be wah the Fire Officals is  looking at
> 2015 IBC
> FIRE AREA. The aggregate floor area enclosed and
> bounded by fire walls, fire barriers, exterior walls or horizontal
> ...


The Canopy, or patio cover is free standing and Not connected to the restaurant and is not under the Horizontal projection of the restaurants roof and it is not in closed . It was permitted because it did not increase the occupancy load over 100 and was not connected. That being said I can not understand why the fire Marshall will only allow a trellis top and not a metal top.


----------



## TheCommish (Nov 13, 2022)

5 inches is not separate far enough in my opinion to be considered a separate structure. See section 705 2015 IBC.

Ask the fire official to cite the code section that supports the open ceiling requirement


----------



## Msradell (Nov 13, 2022)

DW SIDES said:


> The Canopy, or patio cover is free standing and Not connected to the restaurant and is not under the Horizontal projection of the restaurants roof and it is not in closed . It was permitted because it did not increase the occupancy load over 100 and was not connected. That being said I can not understand why the fire Marshall will only allow a trellis top and not a metal top.


My guess is that a solid roof would keep smoke and heat from a fire in the main building low and not allow it to vent properly. I really don't believe that the 5" would allow proper venting. A solid roof would also increase the seating capacity fly can see why he would say that would trigger the need for sprinklers.


----------



## Genduct (Nov 13, 2022)

DW SIDES said:


> The Canopy, or patio cover is free standing and Not connected to the restaurant and is not under the Horizontal projection of the restaurants roof and it is not in closed . It was permitted because it did not increase the occupancy load over 100 and was not connected. That being said I can not understand why the fire Marshall will only allow a trellis top and not a metal top.


Armed with this helpful info, perhaps now a "huddle" between the fire Marshall and the Bldg Code Official who would share the code that says only the "New Addition (not really) would require the sprinkler and the idea of sprinkling an open area like that borders on embarrassing, then perhaps an "Reasonable Accommodation" is in order


----------



## DW SIDES (Nov 14, 2022)

Msradell said:


> My guess is that a solid roof would keep smoke and heat from a fire in the main building low and not allow it to vent properly. I really don't believe that the 5" would allow proper venting. A solid roof would also increase the seating capacity fly can see why he would say that would trigger the need for sprinklers.


"Vent properly" ?,, its completely open on three sides.  It is basically a Pergola with a metal top.  How does it increase the occupancy? It's is a separate fire area? I get what you are saying but the fire Marshall approved it 5 inches off the main building, he just said no to the metal roof but did no tell or show us what chapter he was referring to.  Thanks for you input.


----------



## steveray (Nov 14, 2022)

As a metal top is a roof as it is there to resist weather, it is a fire area by definition and as foolish as it might be, sounds like code requires sprinklers....


----------



## DW SIDES (Nov 14, 2022)

steveray said:


> As a metal top is a roof as it is there to resist weather, it is a fire area by definition and as foolish as it might be, sounds like code requires sprinklers....


The key here is that this was  approved because it does not touch the main building and therefore it is a separate  fire area,,  If it is a separate fire area I can not find any requirements on a roofing material that keeps the elements out.


----------



## RFM132 (Nov 14, 2022)

I think the FM is trying to give you a break here. Regardless of the roof, having an outdoor seating area adds to the occupant load. This may or may not affect the egress depending on how the spaces are laid out, but it certainly has an effect on the plumbing code. As pointed out in other posts, a 5" separation does not create a separate Fire Area. A separate Fire Area would require a 2 hour barrier and opening protectives, or the structure would need to meet the separation distances from an imaginary line on the same lot to be considered separate structures/buildings which would be in excess of 5" regardless of construction type. I think and he recognizes that the sprinklers may be excessive, and is hanging his hat on the fact that the trellis style would allow you to increase your occupant load but not be considered a horizontal assembly bounding a Fire Area.


----------



## steveray (Nov 14, 2022)

Separate fire areas are only separate if there is a fire barrier between them or an an exterior wall that meets separation distance....It can't be a separate building and not a separate building at the same time...



DW SIDES said:


> The key here is that this was  approved because it does not touch the main building and therefore it is a separate  fire area,,  If it is a separate fire area I can not find any requirements on a roofing material that keeps the elements out.


----------



## DW SIDES (Nov 14, 2022)

RFM132 said:


> I think the FM is trying to give you a break here. Regardless of the roof, having an outdoor seating area adds to the occupant load. This may or may not affect the egress depending on how the spaces are laid out, but it certainly has an effect on the plumbing code. As pointed out in other posts, a 5" separation does not create a separate Fire Area. A separate Fire Area would require a 2 hour barrier and opening protectives, or the structure would need to meet the separation distances from an imaginary line on the same lot to be considered separate structures/buildings which would be in excess of 5" regardless of construction type. I think and he recognizes that the sprinklers may be excessive, and is hanging his hat on the fact that the trellis style would allow you to increase your occupant load but not be considered a horizontal assembly bounding a Fire Area.


Interesting,, so in your opinion would a metal roof be allowed if a 2 hour fire barrier were to be installed on the exterior wall of the restaurant?


----------



## RFM132 (Nov 15, 2022)

The metal roof is not the issue here. The issue is the occupant load. The sprinkler requirement for an A-2 occupancy is 100 or more in a fire area. If the outdoor seating area is a separate fire area, then occupant load would not be added to the indoor space for fire protection evaluation.


----------



## DW SIDES (Nov 15, 2022)

RFM132 said:


> The metal roof is not the issue here. The issue is the occupant load. The sprinkler requirement for an A-2 occupancy is 100 or more in a fire area. If the outdoor seating area is a separate fire area, then occupant load would not be added to the indoor space for fire protection evaluation.


My point exactly. But the FM insists that if a metal roof is added it will be added to the restaurant OL and will then require sprinklers


----------



## steveray (Nov 15, 2022)

DW SIDES said:


> My point exactly. But the FM insists that if a metal roof is added it will be added to the restaurant OL and will then require sprinklers


With a roof, it becomes fire area > 100...and then sprinklers...Not in CT as we are 300....Still...

[BF] 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.


----------



## Ed Cooke (Nov 15, 2022)

DW SIDES said:


> A friend has a restaurant in Memphis TN and it has a occupancy load of 89. He was told by the Fire Marshall that he could add a patio cover to the Side of building but if it was attached to the building it would add to the occupancy load and require sprinklers.  He then said he could keep it 5 inches off the  building and make it free standing  but it could not have any kind of roofing material on it that would "Keep the elements out" ie a metal top.  He said it had to be open like lattice ect.  My friend wants a metal roof on it so people can sit outside in a light rain.  any help would be appreciated. I can't find any language stating a free standing structure can not have a metal roof.


On another note, not positive about the IPC, but it would be counted as space for UPC calculations for plumbing elements such as enough water closets and lavatories.


----------



## Genduct (Nov 15, 2022)

A little thought experiment

So, we have an outdoor sporting event, with a snack bar 
No walls, just an open space that freely communicates with the fixed seating,

Sprinklers required?


----------



## steveray (Nov 15, 2022)

No roof, no sprinklers....


----------



## DW SIDES (Nov 15, 2022)

RFM132 said:


> The metal roof is not the issue here. The issue is the occupant load. The sprinkler requirement for an A-2 occupancy is 100 or more in a fire area. If the outdoor seating area is a separate fire area, then occupant load would not be added to the indoor space for fire protection evaluation.


My thoughts exactly, I advised the restaurant owner to install the metal top and force the FM hand.  When the  FM shuts the patio down he will have to provide the code violation, The FM will not be able to provide the violation because there aren't any.  The only violation will be installing the top with out a permit and that is a easy fix.


----------



## DW SIDES (Nov 15, 2022)

steveray said:


> With a roof, it becomes fire area > 100...and then sprinklers...Not in CT as we are 300....Still...
> 
> [BF] FIRE AREA. The aggregate floor area enclosed and
> bounded by fire walls, fire barriers, exterior walls or horizontal
> ...


So you actually believe that a separate free standing , NOT BOUNDED BY  WALLS, AND NOT WITHIN THE HORIZONTAL PROJECTION OF THE ROOF OR FLOOR NEXT ABOVE will add to the Occupancy load? So I guess if a  pergola was two hundred feet from the restaurant and it had a metal roof on it  you would require it to be sprinkled ?


----------



## steveray (Nov 16, 2022)

DW SIDES said:


> So you actually believe that a separate free standing , NOT BOUNDED BY  WALLS, AND NOT WITHIN THE HORIZONTAL PROJECTION OF THE ROOF OR FLOOR NEXT ABOVE will add to the Occupancy load? So I guess if a  pergola was two hundred feet from the restaurant and it had a metal roof on it  you would require it to be sprinkled ?


No....if you have proper fire separation distance it would be 2 buildings and not an issue....You cannot meet the requirements of the new building being a building on it's own, so it is an addition (sort of)....Me thinks the code section would be like 105 for work without permit and how long do you want your business shut down for.....I wouldn't push the FM too hard on that one...

And YES...I do believe the definitions in the IBC, it's a building and a fire area.....What is the OL of the pergola? If it meets a threshold in 903, then it gets sprinklered...


----------



## mtlogcabin (Nov 16, 2022)

If they meet 503.1.2 the patio and the existing building can be considered one building with two fire areas or two separate buildings without having to comply with the fire separation distance requirements of section 602

503.1.2 Buildings on same lot.
Two or more buildings on the same lot shall be regulated as separate buildings or shall be considered as portions of one building where the building height, number of stories of each building and the aggregate building area of the buildings are within the limitations specified in Sections 504 and 506. The provisions of this code applicable to the aggregate building shall be applicable to each building.

Don't overlook 903.2.1.7 when you have more than one fire area in a non-sprinkled assembly occupancy.

903.2.1.7 Multiple fire areas.
An automatic sprinkler system shall be provided where multiple fire areas of Group A-1, A-2, A-3 or A-4 occupancies share exit or exit access components and the combined occupant load of theses fire areas is 300 or more.


----------



## RFM132 (Nov 16, 2022)

DW SIDES said:


> So you actually believe that a separate free standing , NOT BOUNDED BY  WALLS, AND NOT WITHIN THE HORIZONTAL PROJECTION OF THE ROOF OR FLOOR NEXT ABOVE will add to the Occupancy load? So I guess if a  pergola was two hundred feet from the restaurant and it had a metal roof on it  you would require it to be sprinkled ?


No. Again, this would add to the occupant load for plumbing, but it would be considered a separate building/structure on the same lot at that point as has been stated multiple times in this thread The code supports the FMs interpretation. You will need to separate the Fire Area or seek a different interpretation from their appeals board or similar body.


----------



## bill1952 (Nov 16, 2022)

Without a fire barrier between inside and outside, sure looks like one fire area to me if roofed.

By IBC, at what distance - between 5 inches and 200 feet - could they be separate fire areas without a fire barrier between them?  Trying to imagine two separate eateries that had outdoor roofed seating areas with just a rail or fence between them. If alone they are both <100 but together >100, are sprinklers required?  This has to get messy.


----------



## DW SIDES (Nov 16, 2022)

steveray said:


> No....if you have proper fire separation distance it would be 2 buildings and not an issue....You cannot meet the requirements of the new building being a building on it's own, so it is an addition (sort of)....Me thinks the code section would be like 105 for work without permit and how long do you want your business shut down for.....I wouldn't push the FM too hard on that one...
> 
> And YES...I do believe the definitions in the IBC, it's a building and a fire area.....What is the OL of the pergola? If it meets a threshold in 903, then it gets sprinklered...


I see your point,,  only the patio will be shut down and it’s too cold to sit out there anyway,, at least he will know the code he violated. The pergola OL is 65 and is a mute point because according to the FM it is not attached to the main building and therefore cannot be added to the restaurant OL.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Nov 16, 2022)

1004.7 Outdoor areas.
Yards, patios, occupied roofs, 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 building 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.


----------



## steveray (Nov 16, 2022)

mtlogcabin said:


> 1004.7 Outdoor areas.
> Yards, patios, occupied roofs, 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 building 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:
> ...


Which would also include adding bathrooms if the OL is increased by 20%...


----------



## mtlogcabin (Nov 16, 2022)

I agree since the patio use is accessory to the building additional rest room fixtures may be required


----------



## steveray (Nov 17, 2022)

So if there are more than 18ish people on the patio...Regardless of a roof, someone needs to asses fixture count...


----------



## bill1952 (Nov 17, 2022)

fwiw, the 2021 Life Safety Code requires sprinklers at an occupant load of 50 in restaurants if new.


----------

