Ruling No. 02-43-898 Application No. 2002-46 BUILDING CODE COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF Subsection 24(1) of the Building Code Act, S.O. 1992, c. 23, as amended. AND IN THE MATTER OF Sentences 3.2.1.1.(4), 3.3.1.5.(2), (3) and (4) of Regulation 403, as amended by O. Reg. 22/98, 102/98, 122/98, 152/99, 278/99, 593/99, 597/99, 205/00 and 283/01 (the Ontario Building Code ). AND IN THE MATTER OF an application by David MacDonald, Facilities Manager, Coca-Cola Bottling Co., for the resolution of a dispute with Brenda Campbell, Chief Building Official, City of Brampton, to determine whether the viewing walkway, having an area of 207 m 2, is a mezzanine which provides sufficiency of compliance with Sentences 3.2.1.1.(4), 3.3.1.5.(2), (3) and (4) of the Ontario Building Code or whether it is considered to be a storey which must be meet the construction requirements for a storey in a building having a Group F, Division 3 occupancy classification at the Coca-Cola Bottling Company, 15 Westcreek Boulevard, Brampton, Ontario. APPLICANT RESPONDENT PANEL PLACE David MacDonald, Facilities Manager Coca-Cola Bottling Co. Brampton, Ontario Brenda Campbell Chief Building Official City of Brampton Michael Steele, Vice-Chair John Guthrie Robert De Berardis Toronto, Ontario DATE OF HEARING December 12 th, 2002 DATE OF RULING December 12 th, 2002 APPEARANCES Randy Brown Randal Brown & Associates Toronto, Ontario Agent for the Applicant Lillyan McGinn Manager of Plans and Permits City of Brampton Designate for the Respondent
-2- RULING 1. The Applicant David MacDonald, Facilities Manager, Coca-Cola Bottling Co., has received a building permit under the Building Code Act, S.O. 1992, c. 23, as amended, and has constructed an industrial building at the Coca-Cola Bottling Company, 15 Westcreek Boulevard, Brampton, Ontario. 2. Description of Construction The Applicant has constructed a Coca-Cola bottling facility having a Group F, Division 3 occupancy classification. The structure has a building area of 51,900 m 2 according to the Applicant or 53,521.55 m 2 according to the Respondent. It is two storeys in building height and comprised of noncombustible construction. The building is equipped with sprinkler and fire alarm systems. The northern area of the building has two levels of offices and a mezzanine which is open to the plant below. The upper level of offices and mezzanine, having a combined area of 5,705 m 2, exceeds 10% of the building area and has, therefore, been constructed as a storey, having a two hour fire resistance rating and meeting the exiting requirements for second storey construction. The item particular to this dispute involves the construction of a viewing walkway intended for use by tour groups for viewing the bottling production area below. The walkway has an area of 207 m 2 and measures 84.73 m (278 ft) long by 2.44 m (8 ft) wide. One end of the walkway is adjoined to the second storey floor area, however, the walkway itself has been constructed as a 10% mezzanine. A one hour fire-resistance rating to the underside of the walkway will be provided including the supporting columns and beams. Three egress facilities leading off the walkway have been provided. Two of the egress stairs lead to the plant floor below and a third leads onto the second storey at the west end of the walkway by way of the connection to this level. 3. Dispute The issue at dispute between the Applicant and Respondent is whether the viewing walkway can be considered to be a mezzanine which provides sufficiency of compliance with Sentences 3.2.1.1.(4), 3.3.1.5.(2), (3) and (4) of the Ontario Building Code (OBC) or whether it must be constructed to the same standards as the second storey to which it is adjoined.. Sentence 3.2.1.1.(4) provides that, with exceptions not applicable here, a mezzanine need not be considered as a storey in calculating building height provided that the aggregate area of the mezzanine is not greater than 10% of the area of the storey or suite in which it is located. The subject viewing walkway, having an area of 207 m 2, is less than 10% of the of the building area. One end of this feature, however, forms an 8 m wide connection with the second storey of the structure. Further, Sentences 3.3.1.5.(2), (3) and (4) outline the egress requirements for mezzanines. Clause (d) of Sentence (2) stipulates that, except for mezzanines within a dwelling unit, every mezzanine that is not required to terminate at a vertical fire separation as set out in Article 3.2.8.2. is to have two egress facilities located so that one would provide egress should the other become inaccessible in suites where the floor area is sprinklered and the travel distance to an egress doorway is more than 25 m.
-3- Moreover, Sentence (3) provides that if the room or suite in which the mezzanine is located is permitted to have one egress doorway, the travel distance is to be measured from any point on the mezzanine to that doorway. In the alternative, where more than one doorway is required, travel distance is measured from any point on the mezzanine to the nearest egress facility. In addition, as specified in Sentence (4) where the space below the mezzanine is enclosed, an egress facility from the mezzanine shall not lead into the enclosed space. The subject viewing platform, if considered to be an independent feature relative to the second storey construction, is less than 500 m 2 in area. For the purposes of Sentence 3.3.1.5.(2) it would not be required to terminate at a fire separation. Also, according to the Applicant, a 45 m travel distance can be achieved from any point on the viewing walkway using one of the three egress facilities provided. As noted above, two of these egress facilities lead to the production level where exits are then provided at 60 m intervals around the perimeter of the building. A third egress facility is also provided, leading through the second storey from the walkway connection to that floor area. In respect to these construction requirements, it should be noted that the Respondent takes the position that the viewing walkway is an extension of the existing second storey and is, therefore, required to meet the same construction standards and exiting requirements as mandated for a storey in an F3 occupancy. 4. Provisions of the Ontario Building Code Sentence 3.2.1.1. Exceptions in Determining Building Height (4) Except as required by Sentence (5), a mezzanine shall not be considered as a storey in calculating building height and need not conform to Sentence (3) provided the aggregate area of the mezzanine floor is not more than 10% of the area of the (a) (b) the suite in which it is located, where there is more than one suite in the storey, or the storey in which it is located, in all other cases. (See A-3.2.1.1.(3) in Appendix A.) Sentence 3.3.1.5. Egress Doorways (2) Except for a mezzanine within a dwelling unit, every mezzanine that is not required to terminate at a vertical fire separation in Article 3.2.8.2. shall have 2 egress facilities placed in such a manner that one facility could provide egress from the mezzanine if the other facility becomes inaccessible to the occupants of the mezzanine due to a fire which might originate in the room or suite in which the mezzanine is located where (a) the occupancy of the mezzanine, room or suite is classified as Group F, Division 1, (b) the mezzanine is intended for an occupant load of more than 60 persons, (c) in a floor area that is not sprinklered, (i) the area of a mezzanine is more than the value in Table 3.3.1.5.A., or (ii) the travel distance to an egress doorway or an egress facility is more than the value in Table 3.3.1.5.A., or (d) in a floor area that is sprinklered, (i) the travel distance to an egress doorway or an egress facility is more than 25 m (82 ft), or
-4- (ii) the area of the mezzanine is more than the value in Table 3.3.1.5.B. (3) For the purpose of Clause (2)(c) and Clause 2(d), (a) if the room or suite in which the mezzanine is located is permitted to have one egress doorway, the travel distance is measured from any point on the mezzanine to that doorway, or (b) if the room or suite in which the mezzanine is located is required to have more than one egress doorway, the travel distance is measured from any point on the mezzanine to the nearest egress facility leading from the mezzanine. (4) Except for a mezzanine which is not considered as a storey in calculating building height in Sentence 3.2.1.1.(4), where the space below a mezzanine is enclosed, an egress facility from the mezzanine shall not lead into the enclosed space. (See Article 3.4.2.2. for exits requirements.) 5. Applicant s Position The Agent for the Applicant described the feature in dispute as a viewing platform which, in his opinion, can be viewed as a mezzanine. He explained that the primary function of this platform will be to allow visitors to tour the plant and view the production area below. It would be used periodically for school field trips and other such educational tours. The Agent advised that a maximum of 36 people would be permitted to use the walkway at any one time and that children must be a minimum of 10 years old to participate in the tour. Conditions to this effect will be included in an approved Fire Safety Plan. In respect to the construction of the walkway the Agent advised that this is an intermediate floor assembly for which the reduced requirements of a 10% mezzanine apply. The walkway will be provided with a one hour fire resistance rating and the two required egress facilities are provided from the mezzanine level. While noting that one end of the walkway is connected to the second storey he stated that there is nothing in the Code which would prohibit that connection. He considers it to be more of a convenience connection and further noted that a third means of egress is provided as a result. In addition, the Agent advised that the building is provided with a single stage fire alarm system and that manual pull stations would be provided at the three egress points from the mezzanine. In summation, the Agent argued that the platform should be viewed as a mezzanine which provides sufficiency of compliance with the associated Code requirements. 6. Respondent s Position The Designate for the Respondent submitted that the initial building permit for this facility was issued in 2000. Since that time 26 permits have been issued at various stages of construction. A final occupancy permit has still not been issued however, the building is fully operational and several partial occupancy permits have been approved. The Designate submitted that, in her opinion, the feature in question must be considered as an extension to the second storey of the building, consequently requiring a two hour fire-resistance rating and conforming with the exit provisions of Section 3.4. She based this conclusion on the fact that the
-5- viewing platform is an addition to, and continuation of, the second floor area by virtue of the narrow connection at the end of the walkway. The Designate advised that, in her opinion, the intent of the building code is not to consider parts of a continuous floor area distinctly and separately for the purpose of determining less restrictive construction requirements, egress and other life safety measures. It is entirely another matter when considering a separate floor area. Indeed, there are numerous separate mezzanine floor areas within the Coca Cola plant which are not considered a storey as they are less than 10% of the building area and thus conform to Sentence 3.2.1.1.(4). Those mezzanines differ, she stated, because they are separate and distinct floor areas. In summation, the Designate submitted that the aggregate area of the north mezzanine, upper level offices and the subject viewing platform is considered to be a part of the second storey. She argued that various areas of this storey cannot be considered separately for the purposes of determining less restrictive requirements for the fire resistance rating of the floor assembly, egress from the floor area and life safety requirements. 7. Commission Ruling It is the decision of the Building Code Commission that the as-constructed viewing walkway is considered to be a mezzanine that will provide sufficiency of compliance with Sentences 3.2.1.1.(4), 3.3.1.5.(2), (3), and (4) of the Ontario Building Code at the Coca-Cola Bottling Company, 15 Westcreek Boulevard, Brampton, Ontario. 8. Reasons i) Notwithstanding the narrow connection to the second storey, the viewing walkway functions as a mezzanine. ii) iii) The occupant load is restricted in accordance with the approved Fire Safety Plan. Additional directional exit signs are to be provided to identify alternate egress routes from the mezzanine.
-6- Dated at Toronto this 12th day in the month of December in the year 2002 for application number 2002-46. Michael Steele, Vice-Chair John Guthrie Robert De Berardis