• Welcome to The Building Code Forum

    Your premier resource for building code knowledge.

    This forum remains free to the public thanks to the generous support of our Sawhorse Members and Corporate Sponsors. Their contributions help keep this community thriving and accessible.

    Want enhanced access to expert discussions and exclusive features? Learn more about the benefits here.

    Ready to upgrade? Log in and upgrade now.

Change of use but not classification (I think)

jar546

jar546

CBO
Joined
Oct 16, 2009
Messages
12,543
Location
Not where I really want to be
Strip mall setup. 2 unoccupied units to be converted into 1. 1st unit was a check cashing facility which I would assume was a B. 2nd unit was a Curves women's center for exercise. Due to the sq footage, the occupant load by today's standards at 50 per person would be under 50. Somewhere in the 30's.

They want to convert both of these spaces into one for an office. Neither of the existing bathrooms are accessible by today's standards. 1 cannot be accessible if left the same size and the other may meet the ANSI 117.1 2003 if it is reconfigured (possibly)

The DP has chosen renovation level 2 and the IEBC.

The proposed occupant load will be under 50.

Our plan review believes that Chapter 9 would apply, the DP is challenging that opinion. After reading the beginning of Chapter 9, I am of the same opinion as our plan reviewer.

I will ask the DP for a copy of the C of O's for the 2 units and I know they will not be able to provide them. The building was originally built under the PA Fire and Panic Act of 1927, not the I-Codes. Not sure on an exact date the strip mall was built.

We would like to see both bathrooms made accessible and is would not be technically infeaseable to do so. Since this involves ADA compliance, they cannot go to a local appeals board to challenge the opinion, they must go to the State L&I Accessibility Advisory Board.

Although we feel as though their proposal to make both bathrooms unisex and try to make one of them accessible is reasonable, we do not have the authority to allow it therefore they would have to go in front of the AAB of L&I for a variance.

With all of this information in mind, would you feel as though Chapter 9 of the IEBC applies?

They have chosen the IEBC over Chapter 34, therefore they are stuck with the requirements of the IEBC.

Thanks in advance.
 
* * *

jar546,

I agree, ...Chapter 9 of the IEBC! If they want to go that route,

then they [ should ] have to abide with all of the requirements and

not pick & choose what they want to to meet their desires/own

agendas.

Unfortunately, that's not the real world. A few telephone calls

to the "right people" and the world will be righted once again. :o

* * *
 
Jar,

I agree that chapter 9 applies. After reading the reference back to 605.1.10 you are correct in requiring the restrooms to be accessible.

Your call but after reading 605.1.10 a number of times I think they would be allowed to do the Unisex thing without going to L & I.

Side note...The arguement of Chapter 9 applying is mute as Chapter 7 applies and Chapter 6 section 605.

docgj
 
If the prior occupancies were both B (Assy less than 50 and check casher) then there is no chage of occupancy.

It is a reconfiguration of space that would include Ch. 5 accessibility in NYS anyway.....
 
I do not agree with 605.1.10 because they don't meet the definition of Technically Infeasable. This is a slab on grade strip mall and there is plenty of room to move the non-bearing partition walls to comply with the accessibility requirements. They did not budget for it but other projects in the same strip mall had complied by choice in their initial submissions. The same DP had submitted another similar job in the strip mall next to this one and had met all ADA requirements. This is a money issue only as it can easily be done.
 
I agree that ripping a channel in a slab and installing the plumbing is not technically infeasible, and I would review the money issue as a of percent of the job cost to see if it is a reasonable requirement.
 
Didn't understand OP. If it is technically feaslble...They have two choices. Comply with the code or appeal to L & I.

I had like this a while back and they decided to comply with the code other than going through L & I's red tape.

docgj
 
906.1 General.

Accessibility in portions of buildings undergoing a change of occupancy classification shall comply with Section 912.8.

912.8 Accessibility.

Existing buildings or portions thereof that undergo a change of group or occupancy classification shall have all of the following accessible features:

1. At least one accessible building entrance.

2. At least one accessible route from an accessible building entrance to primary function areas.

3. Signage complying with Section 1110 of the International Building Code.

4. Accessible parking, where parking is provided.

5. At least one accessible passenger loading zone, where loading zones are provided.

6. At least one accessible route connecting accessible parking and accessible passenger loading zones to an accessible entrance.

Just curious where is the requirement to upgrade the restrooms to meet Accessibility/ADA?
 
mtlogcabin said:
906.1 General.Accessibility in portions of buildings undergoing a change of occupancy classification shall comply with Section 912.8.

912.8 Accessibility.

Existing buildings or portions thereof that undergo a change of group or occupancy classification shall have all of the following accessible features:

1. At least one accessible building entrance.

2. At least one accessible route from an accessible building entrance to primary function areas.

3. Signage complying with Section 1110 of the International Building Code.

4. Accessible parking, where parking is provided.

5. At least one accessible passenger loading zone, where loading zones are provided.

6. At least one accessible route connecting accessible parking and accessible passenger loading zones to an accessible entrance.

Just curious where is the requirement to upgrade the restrooms to meet Accessibility/ADA?
Click to expand...
You are forgetting that this is part of the code and that the level of renovation has its own accessibility requirements. Chapter 9 is for change of use in addition to what is required by the chosen level of renovations.
 
Forgive my ignorance here but I have never had to use the IEBC so I am not real familar with it. So I may be coming from this from the DP side. Lets see start with the charging lanquaqe

901.1 Scope.

The provisions of this chapter shall apply where a change of occupancy occurs, as defined in Section 202, including:

1. Where the occupancy classification is not changed, or No change in classification was a "B" still is a "B"

2. Where there is a change in occupancy classification or the occupancy group designation changes. A "B" does not have a group category so no change

CHANGE OF OCCUPANCY. In the purpose or level of activity within a building that involves a change in application of the requirements of this code. What the heck does that mean? Is there a change of occupancy under the IEBC? I guess the AHJ determines that.
 
mtlog - The 'level of activity' is driving the requirement. The previous occupants involved only short stays in the space(s) by a more limited number of people. The office use proposed will likely have employees staying in the space for full work days, hence the need to upgrade the facilities.
 
Ok so 901.2 is applicable if no repair or alterations where taking place. However there are alterations of a Level 2 being done so 901.2.1 is applicable and over rides 901.2

901.2.1 Repair and alteration with no change of occupancy classification.

Any repair or alteration work undertaken in connection with a change of occupancy that does not involve a change of occupancy classification shall conform to the applicable requirements for the work as classified in Chapter 4 and to the requirements of Sections 902 through 911.

So I agree sections 902 through 911 are applicable and as jar pointed out the accessibility requirements as outlined in the Level 2 requirements have to be met.

We have adopted this code I just hope I never have to use it.

Thanks for the lesson
 
This is a good thread and Jeff and I have discussed this already. In PA L&I has the last and only say on accessibility. The unisex bath room does not come into play until they have provided the minimum requirements for the establishment. If they went for relief to leave the existing bath rooms alone and add the unisex, I would support that with L&I. I had forgotten to mention to Jeff before that I had a level II alteration to a Mc Donalds that added 1 unisex bath room with out the state variance. I had discussed this with Jerry S. before permits. Jeff will know who this is!

Here is the option and it may keep them out of the state. The occupancy must first meet the IPC plumbing requirements. If you feel justified that it is not reasonible to require the existing bath room to be reconstructed, then allow them to add the third as a unisex. McDonalds did and no beef from the state. They can also wright off 5k of the expense on their tax return. IF that does not suit them then send them to L&I.
 
Rick18071 said:
This would be a change of occupancy if this building has never had an C.O. Nothing to B.
Click to expand...
You got it Rick, Nothing to a B since no paperworks exists from L&I or the municipality.

They must have separate Male and Female bathrooms per the IPC and IBC. After that if they can probably have a good chance of a variance with L&I.
 
Now if they wanted to file an appeal with the local appeals board to appeal the IPC requirement in order to call both bathrooms "unisex" then they are allowed to only have one of them accessible since they are "clustered" and of the same type. The problem is that local appeals boards are not here to grant variances, only to determine if the correct call was made per the intent of the code. In this case, it is black and white that bathrooms are needed for both sexes so they are better of going to L&I who can grant variances under ANSI 117.1.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top