I'm starting work on a new project that is located in a flood way. My state does not allow new residential construction in a flood way. My client wants to propose a mixed-use building with commercial use (Group B) on the main floor and residential apartments (Group R-2) above. Should this be considered a "commercial" project or a "residential" project? What would the strongest arguement be for considering it "commercial"?
-
Welcome to the new and improved Building Code Forum. We appreciate you being here and hope that you are getting the information that you need concerning all codes of the building trades. This is a free forum to the public due to the generosity of the Sawhorses, Corporate Supporters and Supporters who have upgraded their accounts. If you would like to have improved access to the forum please upgrade to Sawhorse by first logging in then clicking here: Upgrades
IS MIXED-USE COMMERCIAL OR RESIDENTIAL?
- Thread starter T-Bird
- Start date
mark handler
SAWHORSE
Both
Mixed Occupancy.
Mixed Occupancy.
When you apply for the building permit is it a commercial application or a residential application?
You're not going to make two separate applications are you?
RLGA
SAWHORSE
It is a mixed-use residential project.
There are various types of "residential" projects and for multifamily residential uses (more than two units) I would consider them to be commercial residential buildings where the IBC would be applicable. Then there would be noncommercial residential buildings where the IRC would be applicable. If they prohibit all residential buildings, then you'd be out of luck; however, if the restriction only applies to noncommercial residential buildings (i.e., single-family detached homes, duplexes, and townhouses), then I would say the restriction would not apply.
There are various types of "residential" projects and for multifamily residential uses (more than two units) I would consider them to be commercial residential buildings where the IBC would be applicable. Then there would be noncommercial residential buildings where the IRC would be applicable. If they prohibit all residential buildings, then you'd be out of luck; however, if the restriction only applies to noncommercial residential buildings (i.e., single-family detached homes, duplexes, and townhouses), then I would say the restriction would not apply.
Mr. Inspector
SAWHORSE
Since this is not in the ICC codes i would not go by a IBC or IRC definitions. It depends on your state definition of residential construction.
my250r11
Sawhorse
Or did you mean flood zone?
flood way is a specific flood zone where flooding is more likely and more severe
I'll move this discussion to the new Zoning Forum
ADAguy
Registered User
"Nice" graphic T-Bird
here is my request to the city on this matter:
We are continuing work on the development project for this location and would like you to consider this project as “commercial” rather than “residential” and feel there are several compelling reasons to consider this:
1. The Floodway code text reads: “No new construction or reconstruction of residential structures shall be permitted within the floodway.” We are proposing a commercial structure that includes a residential use.
2. The proposed project is a vertical mixed-use development where a residential use will be located above a commercial use. The residential use will be located well above the base flood elevation.
3. The building is used exclusively for commercial purposes. The upper floors will be developed as for rent/lease apartments, and not sold as condominiums.
4. We are not familiar with the application process for the City of Snoqualmie, but in other jurisdictions permit applications for mixed-use developments are treated as commercial buildings and commercial applications. For example, the City of Kirkland includes Single-Family/Duplex/ADU for residential applications and for non-residential applications Kirkland includes Commercial/Multi-Family/Mixed-Use.
5. The International Code Council similarly includes only Single Family, Duplex, and Townhouse in the IRC, the code that governs residential structures.
6. The construction loan for this project will be for a commercial property and not a residential property, and insurance for this project will be for a commercial property and not a residential property.
We are continuing work on the development project for this location and would like you to consider this project as “commercial” rather than “residential” and feel there are several compelling reasons to consider this:
1. The Floodway code text reads: “No new construction or reconstruction of residential structures shall be permitted within the floodway.” We are proposing a commercial structure that includes a residential use.
2. The proposed project is a vertical mixed-use development where a residential use will be located above a commercial use. The residential use will be located well above the base flood elevation.
3. The building is used exclusively for commercial purposes. The upper floors will be developed as for rent/lease apartments, and not sold as condominiums.
4. We are not familiar with the application process for the City of Snoqualmie, but in other jurisdictions permit applications for mixed-use developments are treated as commercial buildings and commercial applications. For example, the City of Kirkland includes Single-Family/Duplex/ADU for residential applications and for non-residential applications Kirkland includes Commercial/Multi-Family/Mixed-Use.
5. The International Code Council similarly includes only Single Family, Duplex, and Townhouse in the IRC, the code that governs residential structures.
6. The construction loan for this project will be for a commercial property and not a residential property, and insurance for this project will be for a commercial property and not a residential property.
Thats a distortion of the truth. There will be residences on every floor but one.
Also, if it is a floodway where flooding is more frequent and more severe ... why would the city want to allow you to build there? Thats crazy. There is the potential to have residents trapped on upper floors of the building for several days at a time, possibly without power or water. What if there is a medical emergency in one of the units? Sounds like a greedy developer can only see profit at the risk of human suffering.
Wow, you sound like a real "glass half empty" sort. This is not a distortion at all, apartments are considered commercial property. And to clarify, this is a state law that limits residential structures but not commercial structures in the floodway. My client is not greedy, they want to develop what is allowed to be developed.
really lonely over at the zoning forum
TheCommish
SAWHORSE
Does the jurisdiction in question have a flood; plane, zone, way, administrator local expert? if so I would inquire with them.
JCraver
Sawhorse
As a building official I'd try everything I could to be on your side of this, but the way I read that State statute I'd have to tell you No when I got your submittal. If it has residential units in it, that statute pretty plainly says you can't build it there.
You're going to have to get whatever State agency is responsible for that bit of statute to sign off on your proposal before you get an approval out of the locals. Or at least, that's what I'd make you do here.
You're going to have to get whatever State agency is responsible for that bit of statute to sign off on your proposal before you get an approval out of the locals. Or at least, that's what I'd make you do here.
ADAguy
Registered User
Semantics, you are twisting reality; when water rises things get wet, damage occurs; who pays for it? puts first responders at risk?
Blame the cities for failure to enforce or governments to continue to allow construction in flood zones?
Tenants sign awareness of the danger and waive right to sue?
Why would a bank loan on these properties?
Blame the cities for failure to enforce or governments to continue to allow construction in flood zones?
Tenants sign awareness of the danger and waive right to sue?
Why would a bank loan on these properties?
You cannot use definitions from another source. If the term is from the WAC, use the WAC definition not the IBC's.
Per WAC 173-158-030: "Residential structure" means a place in which one lives: Dwelling.
It is a commercial building that contains dwellings. You can argue this all you want, but I haven't seen one agreement with your argument yet.
Per WAC 173-158-030: "Residential structure" means a place in which one lives: Dwelling.
It is a commercial building that contains dwellings. You can argue this all you want, but I haven't seen one agreement with your argument yet.
No actually i am very positive and optimistic. I just have a problem with developers trying to make a fast buck by finding ways around common sense restrictions. They build it, then sell to an investor, and move on to the next project. They only care about short term profits, no regard for long term repercussions.
And i am generally not a fan of zoning departments and their myriad obfuscatory and pollyannish ideas, but when it involves known flood zones i believe they are looking out for the best interests of the citizens. And emergency responders.
I was thinking about this last night and I want to comment on two claims made here. The first claim is I’ve obfuscated reality. The reality is when this law was codified the code writers chose the term “residential structures.” Not residential dwellings, or dwelling units, or residential uses. It’s clear to me this choice was made to separate structures in the same manner as the ICC has done with the IBC and the IRC. Residential structures are single-family, duplexes, and townhouses. This is not semantics; these are specific words with specific meanings. These are our building and development codes.
The second claim is my client is greedy, and unaffected by human suffering. This person has made that assertion without knowing anything about my client, this site, and the context it exists in. They don’t know that dozens, if not hundreds, of nonconforming residential structures already exist in this area. That the site sits on the edge of the downtown of this city. The site is a mere two blocks from the main highway and the floodway extends all the way to this highway and downtown. Would this person deny a city and their citizens any possibility of future development? Communities all over the world exist in floodways, over seismic faults, in the shadow of volcanoes, and in the path of hurricanes. And yet this person has looked into the soul of my client and proclaimed them to be essentially evil. Shame on you sir.
The second claim is my client is greedy, and unaffected by human suffering. This person has made that assertion without knowing anything about my client, this site, and the context it exists in. They don’t know that dozens, if not hundreds, of nonconforming residential structures already exist in this area. That the site sits on the edge of the downtown of this city. The site is a mere two blocks from the main highway and the floodway extends all the way to this highway and downtown. Would this person deny a city and their citizens any possibility of future development? Communities all over the world exist in floodways, over seismic faults, in the shadow of volcanoes, and in the path of hurricanes. And yet this person has looked into the soul of my client and proclaimed them to be essentially evil. Shame on you sir.