Partial or complete change of occupancy?

[Mr. Inspector]

2018 IEBC 305.4 has sections for accessibility requirements depending on if a building is having a partial or complete change of occupancy. The building I am doing a plan review for is mostly one large room, only doing some minimum electrical work done. It will be a change of occupancy, M to B, except for a storage room and a mechanical room which will not have any work done and the use will not be changed in these two small rooms. These two rooms make up about 10% of the building.
Would this be a partial or complete change of occupancy?

 

[RLGA]

In this case, I would call it a complete change of occupancy. The storage and mechanical spaces are either accessory or incidental to the main occupancy and are typically not classified separately. Thus, when the main occupancy group is changed, so are these spaces, even though they may not be altered.

 

[steveray]

Per the definition of COO….probably partial…as there is no real change in those spaces, but I could argue it either way as stated above.

 

[Mr. Inspector]

I just found out there is a separate building just 10' behind this building. It looks like an old barn or storage building that is in bad shape. Code let's you count it as the same building when on the same lot in Chapter 5:

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.

Should I consider the barn/storage building as part of the main building?

There won't be any work or a change of occupancy for the garage. If I add the sq ft of the barn/storage building to the mechanical and storage room, they would be over 10% of the total sq ft so I am not sure if this would not comply as Incidental Use. This may make it more of a reason to call it a partial change of occupancy.

509.3 Area limitations. Incidental uses shall not occupy
more than 10 percent of the building area of the story in
which they are located.

If it is a partial change of occupancy no work towards accessibility would have to be done because 307.7 "Alterations affecting an area containing a primary function" has an exception for work just on electrical systems.
If it is a complete change of occupancy, it would cost the owner a lot because the building is up a hill from the parking lot, and they would need to build a long ramp to make an accessible entrance as required to 305.4.2 "complete change of occupancy".

 

[walker.t]

Should I consider the barn/storage building as part of the main building?

I wouldn’t think so for the purpose of the 10% area limitation. 502.1.3 makes reference to multiple buildings, IBC 508.2 (accessory uses) and IBC 509.3 (incidental uses) make reference to the building (singular) area of the story in which the use is located.

If they were adding area to the main building you would consider the small building, you would want to either:
1. Confirm the required separation is provided between the buildings (based on the fire separation distance) so they can be considered as separate buildings for area determination, or
2. That when the areas of the two buildings are combined they are within the allowable area limitation for the occupancy and construction type.

I am not sure if this would not comply as Incidental Use

I don’t mean to nitpick your choice of words, but I think you mean “Accessory Use” per IBC 508.2, incidental uses are only those rooms or areas listed in Table 509. But the 10% area limitation is the same for both.

it would cost the owner a lot

I can sympathize with any owner’s desire to reduce the cost of a project, but such such a ramp would not be considered technically infeasible so unfortunately they’d have to spend the extra money.

 

[Mr. Inspector]

Would it make a difference if the mechanical room or the storage room or both are more than 10% of the building area and they are not part of the change of occupancy?

 

[walker.t]

Would it make a difference if the mechanical room or the storage room or both are more than 10% of the building area and they are not part of the change of occupancy?

Regarding change of use, no, the area of the mechanical room and storage room do not factor into determining whether there is a partial or complete change of occupancy. Those spaces were assigned an occupancy when the structure was built per IBC 508.1, “Each portion of a building shall be individually classified in accordance with Section 302.1.” The assignment for those spaces is remaining the same, therefore this project is a partial change in occupancy.

if the mechanical room or the storage room or both

The aggregate area (per 508.2.3) of the mechanical room and storage room would be used to see if they exceed the 10% limit for accessory uses. Doesn’t sound like that will be an issue because you didn’t mention an increase in building area.

 

[Mr. Inspector]

The C. O. was going to include both the barn/storage building and the main building as one building with mixed occupancies, B and S2 and the S2 would not be changed. So, I see it as a partial change of occupancy.

 

[walker.t]

So, I see it as a partial change of occupancy.

This seems very reasonable, as you outlined there are two occupancies and only one is changing.

The C. O. was going to include both the barn/storage building and the main building as one building with mixed occupancies, B and S2 and the S2 would not be changed.

My only thought would be to ask the applicant to show the barn/storage building on the drawings. When you say you “just found out” that there was a separate building it sounds like it wasn’t on the drawings - it might create confusion in the future if the certificate of occupancy makes reference to a structure not shown on the drawings submitted for the permit.

 

[Mr. Inspector]

I find the accessibility requirements in the IEBC very weird and hard to enforce. I am always getting "We are not doing anything in the bathroom and it's not in our contract" when doing accessibility inspections for existing buildings.

 

[walker.t]

I am always getting "We are not doing anything in the bathroom and it's not in our contract" when doing accessibility inspections for existing buildings.

Your reference to “it’s not in our contract” reminds me of this comment from another thread:

We had a similar issue in a commercial building where decades of renovations and no inspections from the municipality resulted in the fire separation of a service room being Swiss cheese.

"But we didn't do that!"
I didn't say you did, but it needs fixed and you're here, so guess who is probably getting a change order.
"Oh, OK."

If I was a contractor and extra work needed to be done I’d be delighted to get authorization from the owner and do that work to make more money. I wouldn’t give you a hard time, I’d thank you.

 

[BN4537]

We have a little game we play in our jurisdiction with accessibility in remodel.

We have a form the RDP fills out when applying for a permit, and it gives them two options: is the building already fully accessible, or not? If it's not, what all are you going to fix to meet the 20% of the project cost laid out in the advisory for 202.4 in the 2010 ADA?

The game begins where the RDP marks the "already fully accessible" box without checking to see if it is or not. I show up for inspection, and areas affecting a primary function are not accessible. So I tell the contractor to have his RDP figure out what he wants to fix to meet the 20%.

"The bathroom is not in our scope, we didn't touch the bathroom!" It is now, too bad your RDP didn't handle it on the front end when we gave them the opportunity - take it up with them.

 

[Tim Mailloux]

Are the existing barn and existing building the same construction type? If they are not the same construction type and you want to classify them as one building you will need use the more restrictive construction type of the two structures as the construction type for the "entire building". This could potentially lead to other code related issues.

 

[Mr. Inspector]

Both are 5-2 and a total of 8,000 sq ft.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

Both are 5-2 and a total of 8,000 sq ft.

S-2 is not a construction type.

 

[steveray]

S-2 is not a construction type.

Neither is 5-2.....

 

[Tim Mailloux]

I am in RLGA's camp that this would be a complete change of occupancy.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

We have a form the RDP fills out when applying for a permit, and it gives them two options: is the building already fully accessible, or not? If it's not, what all are you going to fix to meet the 20% of the project cost laid out in the advisory for 202.4 in the 2010 ADA?

That 20% is also built into the IEBC, if your jurisdiction has adopted it. And the IEBC also stipulates that the accessible route includes the toilet rooms serving an altered area containing a primary function.

 

[Mr. Inspector]

VB construction

That 20% is also built into the IEBC, if your jurisdiction has adopted it. And the IEBC also stipulates that the accessible route includes the toilet rooms serving an altered area containing a primary function.

No alterations are being done except for electrical work which is exempt. The question is just is it a full or partial change of occupancy.

 

[jc_ks]

We have a little game we play in our jurisdiction with accessibility in remodel.

We have a form the RDP fills out when applying for a permit, and it gives them two options: is the building already fully accessible, or not? If it's not, what all are you going to fix to meet the 20% of the project cost laid out in the advisory for 202.4 in the 2010 ADA?

The game begins where the RDP marks the "already fully accessible" box without checking to see if it is or not. I show up for inspection, and areas affecting a primary function are not accessible. So I tell the contractor to have his RDP figure out what he wants to fix to meet the 20%.

"The bathroom is not in our scope, we didn't touch the bathroom!" It is now, too bad your RDP didn't handle it on the front end when we gave them the opportunity - take it up with them.

Would you be willing to DM me a copy of that form?