Conversion of R1 to R2 and Type B requirements

[Shane-RA]

We are currently working on an alteration of a hotel that went under during Covid, to small studio apartments (R1 to R2). The issue that we are having is the plan review is currently on hold because the existing units do not meet Type B clearances. We are in Wisconsin and the plan reviewer is citing 101.132(2)(a), which states that design and construction of multifamily housing must meet accessibility requirements. He is saying that it was not housing before and now it is so it must meet all ANSI requirements.

There is an existing ADA unit that meets Type A requirements and will remain. There is also an accessible path of travel to all units as well as an elevator. All units will be brought up to R-2 fire protection standards. Our work is primarily kitchen cabinet and appliance re-work, and the work will not exceed 50% of the square footage.

My understanding is that this is an existing building (Hotel in this case) and is being converted to Multifamily housing so it would fall under performance compliance as a change of occupancy, and then follow that to section 310 of IEBC. It sure appears that we should not have to have these clearances, but I thought I would throw it out to experts to see.

I appreciate the help in understanding this, Thank you,

SPS 366.1401 Performance compliance methods.
(1)  Applicability. Substitute the following wording for the requirements in IEBC section 1401.2: The provisions of sections 1401.2.1 through 1401.2.5 shall apply to existing occupancies that will continue to be, or are proposed to be, in Groups A, B, E, F, M, R, and S. These provisions may not apply to buildings with occupancies in Group H or Group I.

IEBC Chapter 310

310.1 Scope. The provisions of Sections 310.1 through 310.9 apply to maintenance, Change of Occupancy, additions and alterations of existing buildings, including those identified as historic buildings.

Exception: Type B dwelling or sleeping units required by Section 1107 of the International Building Code are not required to be provided in existing buildings and facilities being altered or undergoing a change in occupancy.

 

[e hilton]

I have questions, not answers. Was the previous building like a Holiday Inn? Typical 12x20 rooms with a bathroom just inside the door? Are they planning to enlarge the rooms or keep the existing walls? Reason i ask … i guess it makes economic sense to convert a hotel to apartments, but i don’t think i would want to live there.

 

[Shane-RA]

I have questions, not answers. Was the previous building like a Holiday Inn? Typical 12x20 rooms with a bathroom just inside the door? Are they planning to enlarge the rooms or keep the existing walls? Reason i ask … i guess it makes economic sense to convert a hotel to apartments, but i don’t think i would want to live there.

This was more of a boutique hotel, all of the rooms had larger closets and kitchenettes. There were even a couple one and two bedroom suites. There is a housing shortage where we are at and adaptive re-use makes a lot of economic sense with building prices where they are at.

 

[fatboy]

Welcome Shane-RA!

I follow your line of thought, have you sat down with the Plan Reviewer and laid out your path?

 

[Shane-RA]

Welcome Shane-RA!

I follow your line of thought, have you sat down with the Plan Reviewer and laid out your path?

The plan reviewer that I am dealing with tends to be set in his ways, so I am trying to amass as much knowledge as a I can before I sit down with him. If the general consensus is that this is fairly black and white and not as subjective as some areas can be it will help my case. I have also reached out to several plan reviewers from the state of Wisconsin; this particular reviewer is from a local municipality.

 

[Paul Sweet]

When was the hotel built? The HUD Fair Housing Act amendments might not apply if it was first occupied before 1991.

Does the section 101.132(2)(a) th reviewer is citing refer to NFPA 101?

 

[Shane-RA]

When was the hotel built? The HUD Fair Housing Act amendments might not apply if it was first occupied before 1991.

Does the section 101.132(2)(a) th reviewer is citing refer to NFPA 101?

The statute that he is citing is Wisconsin SPS101.132(2)a, which I copied and pasted below. In his interpretation anything that was not housing before and is now housing would need to meet all accessibility requirements; which doesn't make sense to me.

(2)  Discrimination against persons with physical disabilities prohibited.
(a) Design and construction of covered multifamily housing. In addition to discrimination prohibited under s. 106.50 (2), (2m) and (2r) (b), (bg), and (br), no person may design or construct covered multifamily housing unless it meets all of the following standards:
1. There is at least one accessible entrance for each building and that entrance is on an accessible route. All other entrances that are at grade level shall be accessible to the greatest extent feasible. The department shall promulgate rules that define “to the greatest extent feasible" to ensure maximum accessibility in a way that is not disproportionate to the entire project's cost and scope. If the covered multifamily housing units are at grade level and are served by separate entrances, each unit shall be on an accessible route. If the units have a minimum number of required exits, as determined by rules that shall be promulgated by the department, all required grade-level exits shall be accessible.
2. Public and common use areas are accessible to persons with disabilities.
3. Interior and exterior doors, and interior passages, are sufficiently wide to allow passage by persons with disabilities who use wheelchairs.
4. Light switches, electrical outlets, circuit controls, thermostats and other environmental controls are all located in accessible locations; reinforcements in bathroom walls are installed to allow later installation of grab bars around the toilet, tub, shower stall and shower seat, when such facilities are provided; kitchens and bathrooms allow an individual in a wheelchair to maneuver about the space; and, upon the request of a renter and without cost to a renter, lever door handles are on all doors and single lever controls, or other controls that are approved by the department by rule, are on all plumbing fixtures used by residents.

 

[my250r11]

The way I was told with the IEBC is there are 3 paths. The designer pics 1 and must stick with it. Can't jump to another. The AHJ's job is to make sure they follow the path and stay complaint with that path. Unless State law says other wise the plan reviewer doesn't get to pick the path for you. Only make sure it is complaint with the path you chose.

 

[Mr. Inspector]

he statute that he is citing is Wisconsin SPS101.132(2)a, which I copied and pasted below. In his interpretation anything that was not housing before and is now housing would need to meet all accessibility requirements; which doesn't make sense to me.

What is the definition of housing? Isn't R1 housing?

 

[Shane-RA]

What is the definition of housing? Isn't R1 housing?

He is saying it was transient housing before and is not multi-family housing. This is where I'm at too; if this was the case, why would we have the existing building code at all. If all buildings converted to apartments needed to meet ANSI requirements regardless of the level of work, we could just omit that entire section of the code.

 

[e hilton]

The issue that we are having is the plan review is currently on hold because the existing units do not meet Type B clearances. .

What specifically are you not meeting?

 

[Shane-RA]

What specifically are you not meeting?

clear floor spaces in front of showers, toilets and sinks.

 

[Paul Sweet]

How does the Wisconsin law define "covered multifamily housing", and does it have an appeals process?

A hotel falls under ADA because it is "a place of public accommodation or a commercial facility", while multifamily housing would falls under the HUD Fair Housing Act amendments. The IBC has incorporated almost all of the requirements of both standards, but having an elevator would require all units in a multifamily building to be Type B, while a hotel would only require 5% of each type of room to be accessible.