Much of my work involves landlord leasehold improvements. Often, the property owner will be obligated by the lease to provide a specific level and or quantity of finish, i.e. number of toilet rooms, number of HVAC units etc. Often, landlords will do some amount of work (white or grey box) without an actual lease signed. The construction is not intended for occupancy. I state that on the submitted drawings. Most building departments accept this without a problem. However I have run into a couple that insist that the drawings meet an assumed occupancy requirement, from egress, to toilet fixtures etc. There claim is that there is nothing in the code that allows them to approve of something that doesn't meet all the codes. I argument is that it is done all the time...retail spec space. Depending on the type of tenant, they may require only one toilet room, or multiples depending on the end calculated load. What other argument can I make for this partial work? Or am I all wet with regards to this?
-
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.
Construction not for CoO
- Thread starter animal02
- Start date
Mac
Gold Member
"I have run into a couple"
You have run into a couple of what?
Strip plazas are commonly built first then leased later. Some code provisions can be anticipated, and some cannot. A food service use has different needs than a retail or doc-in-the-box clinic, say.
The example of the toilet isn't the best, because bigger spaces hold more people (meaning more facilities) and different uses can vary the numbers of fixtures too.
You have run into a couple of what?
Strip plazas are commonly built first then leased later. Some code provisions can be anticipated, and some cannot. A food service use has different needs than a retail or doc-in-the-box clinic, say.
The example of the toilet isn't the best, because bigger spaces hold more people (meaning more facilities) and different uses can vary the numbers of fixtures too.
Yankee
REGISTERED
If you are going to do it that way, you'd need to design to the most restrictive use imaginable (or the landlord will need to understand that his lessees will be limited to certain uses). So I would require an assumed occupancy also. What is your issue with going with an assumed occupancy?
"Run into a couple of building departments / officials."
The use of these spaces may vary, tax office, food service, etc, and sometimes the space may have been previously fit up and the landlord is bringing it back to more of a blank space....makes it easier to lease. The point being is that the landlord wants to do some of the improvements with their own contractor / cost, but not necessarily everything that would be required for any assumed use. That will be done under a separate permit and contractor.
As I previously stated.....most building departments do not have an issue with work like being done as long as it is acknowledged that no C.O. will be issued for the space. But recently a couple have said they do not have the authority to do that under the code.
The use of these spaces may vary, tax office, food service, etc, and sometimes the space may have been previously fit up and the landlord is bringing it back to more of a blank space....makes it easier to lease. The point being is that the landlord wants to do some of the improvements with their own contractor / cost, but not necessarily everything that would be required for any assumed use. That will be done under a separate permit and contractor.
As I previously stated.....most building departments do not have an issue with work like being done as long as it is acknowledged that no C.O. will be issued for the space. But recently a couple have said they do not have the authority to do that under the code.
tmurray
SAWHORSE
They're probably right. In most jurisdictions it's not legal to allow an applicant to "kind of" comply with the code.If the typical turn around time is fairly short they could just do what they intend and then finish it up later once the space is leased or change the scope of the work entirely if the occupancy requires it.animal02 said:
mtlogcabin
SAWHORSE
It is pretty simple and common
104.1 General.
The building official is hereby authorized and directed to enforce the provisions of this code. The building official shall have the authority to render interpretations of this code and to adopt policies and procedures in order to clarify the application of its provisions. Such interpretations, policies and procedures shall be in compliance with the intent and purpose of this code. Such policies and procedures shall not have the effect of waiving requirements specifically provided for in this code.
104.10 Modifications.
Wherever there are practical difficulties involved in carrying out the provisions of this code, the building official shall have the authority to grant modifications for individual cases, upon application of the owner or owner's representative, provided the building official shall first find that special individual reason makes the strict letter of this code impractical and the modification is in compliance with the intent and purpose of this code and that such modification does not lessen health, accessibility, life and fire safety, or structural requirements. The details of action granting modifications shall be recorded and entered in the files of the department of building safety.
Our "Policy" is to issue a cerificate of completion for the work described in the permit when a tenant or use has not been determined yet. Then a seperate permit when the actual tenant is determined.
104.1 General.
The building official is hereby authorized and directed to enforce the provisions of this code. The building official shall have the authority to render interpretations of this code and to adopt policies and procedures in order to clarify the application of its provisions. Such interpretations, policies and procedures shall be in compliance with the intent and purpose of this code. Such policies and procedures shall not have the effect of waiving requirements specifically provided for in this code.
104.10 Modifications.
Wherever there are practical difficulties involved in carrying out the provisions of this code, the building official shall have the authority to grant modifications for individual cases, upon application of the owner or owner's representative, provided the building official shall first find that special individual reason makes the strict letter of this code impractical and the modification is in compliance with the intent and purpose of this code and that such modification does not lessen health, accessibility, life and fire safety, or structural requirements. The details of action granting modifications shall be recorded and entered in the files of the department of building safety.
Our "Policy" is to issue a cerificate of completion for the work described in the permit when a tenant or use has not been determined yet. Then a seperate permit when the actual tenant is determined.
Yankee
REGISTERED
That would work great if tenants didn't tend to move in first and then "ask for forgiveness", at which point it becomes a bear to get the construction to meet the use. I could understand doing a shell, whereas it wouldn't be occupiable (no bathroom, no finish etc).
Mac
Gold Member
That would work great if tenants didn't tend to move in first and then "ask for forgiveness".
Yeah, like when it means busting out concrete to install drainage.
Yeah, like when it means busting out concrete to install drainage.
Architect1281
REGISTERED
I have many similar clients as a designer and provide a code review and calculations for all uses permitted by zoning - ususlly B, M, S, and A2/3. I then state that the occupancy will be VACANT. I indicate a Single Lav, Janitor sink and water fountain. with additional space indicated as FUTURE Development. Fire Alarm, Egress Lighting and other necessary (Size dependent mechanicals)
When someone gives me a plan to review where I have to assume a Use and Occupancy cause they are not shure I classify it H-1. that usually generates the desired informed response.
When someone gives me a plan to review where I have to assume a Use and Occupancy cause they are not shure I classify it H-1. that usually generates the desired informed response.
fatboy
Administrator
We see "white boxes" quite a bit, they get a Certificate of Completion. When the tenant finish is applied for and completed, and they comply with the requirements for that occupancy, they get the Certificate of Occupancy.
BTW, welcome to the forum!
BTW, welcome to the forum!
I think I will have to steal the VACANT occupancy ideaArchitect1281 said:
This latest run in involves a potential carry -out food service. The landlord via the lease will install one toilet room, putting a new RTU in place and a ceiling and basic lighting. The tenant will be responsible for everything else. The space is borderline as to requiring M/W toilet rooms, depending on the layout and space allocation, whether it be B or M or other for that matter. I do not want to take any responsibility for what the tenant's architect may or may not want to try to do. I am just trying to get the LL work done to turn over the space.
I'm with fatboy. The City of Phoenix issues a "Certificate of Completion" for the shell structure. Then each tenant improvement (TI) is required to submit for a permit that will then receive a "Certificant of Occupancy" upon proper completion; but the certificate is only for the TI portion of the building and not the entire structure.