Core and shell built then interior fit-out happening 3-5 years later

[AArchitect]

I'm working on a two story 75k SF building thats type IIB. The client wants to build the core and shell (exterior walls, enclosed egress stairs, and elevator hoistways, electrical rooms) but do the fitout in a few years once they have more money. There wouldn't be any separation between floors while it sits as an empty shell since there are some areas that are open to the floor above.

Is there any specific code implications this would have that would need to be done before the fit-out starts? The building will have temporary heating, power, and sprinkler system.

 

[walker.t]

Is there any specific code implications this would have that would need to be done before the fit-out starts?

Not sure if the building owner knows what the actual use will be, but I can think of the following:

1. Are you sure the egress stairs can carry the anticipated occupant load?
2. Any chance you’ll need three exits from the second floor based on occupant load per 1006.2.1.1?
3. If mixed use and occupancy, is there a chance that the floor will need to be rated to provide the required separation of the occupancies per Table 508.4? Per Table 601, IIB does not require rated floors, so you might end up needing a rated floor.

Also…
1. Your sprinklers will need to be redesigned to fit the interior layout once that is determined.
2. You might need extra parking depending on the use per your zoning regulations.

 

[AArchitect]

Not sure if the building owner knows what the actual use will be, but I can think of the following:

1. Are you sure the egress stairs can carry the anticipated occupant load?
2. Any chance you’ll need three exits from the second floor based on occupant load per 1006.2.1.1?
3. If mixed use and occupancy, is there a chance that the floor will need to be rated to provide the required separation of the occupancies per Table 508.4? Per Table 601, IIB does not require rated floors, so you might end up needing a rated floor.

Also…
1. Your sprinklers will need to be redesigned to fit the interior layout once that is determined.
2. You might need extra parking depending on the use per your zoning regulations.

We know what the use will be as we are designing the fit-out at the same time as core and shell and will submit both sets at the same time. The building is mixed use with F-1, B, A (accessory occupancy), and S-1 occupancies. The whole building complies with F-1 occupancy.

1. If its sitting empty they would not be using the building besides storing items they are buying in the meantime for fit-out so the building would not be occupied and I would say it would be S-1 if need ed to provide a classification while we wait to build
2. We already have 3 rated egress stairs that will be built as part of the core and shell
3. shouldn't be an issue and the floor is concrete on metal deck.

They understand that the sprinklers will need to be redone and this is built on a campus that has parking lots the building will use. Zoning is already fine with provide a couple of spaces for deliveries and people coming to the building.

 

[steveray]

Energy code maybe?

 

[walker.t]

We know what the use will be as we are designing the fit-out at the same time as core and shell

That makes things easier. Reading your responses, it sounds like you’ve basically designed the building and are just phasing the construction.

and will submit both sets at the same time

If the intention is to get two building permits at this time, I would think the permit for the interior work might expire if no inspections have been requested for that permit.

1. If its sitting empty they would not be using the building besides storing items they are buying in the meantime for f

If the building is being used for storage, wouldn’t that be considered a form of “occupancy” (it’s being used for a purpose even if people usually aren’t in the building.) So if the building is being used for storage, even of materials for future construction work, do you need to provide restrooms for the S-1 use? And if you’re going to use it, the shell would need to have a certificate of occupancy, no? Will your building department issue a certificate of occupancy on such a shell?

 

[AArchitect]

That makes things easier. Reading your responses, it sounds like you’ve basically designed the building and are just phasing the construction.


If the intention is to get two building permits at this time, I would think the permit for the interior work might expire if no inspections have been requested for that permit.


If the building is being used for storage, wouldn’t that be considered a form of “occupancy” (it’s being used for a purpose even if people usually aren’t in the building.) So if the building is being used for storage, even of materials for future construction work, do you need to provide restrooms for the S-1 use? And if you’re going to use it, the shell would need to have a certificate of occupancy, no? Will your building department issue a certificate of occupancy on such a shell?

I guess that's the main question I need to ask the town, how long will the permit last before it expires. f they are fine considering it a shell and consider it under construction I don't think we would need toilet rooms but if they do require it then we need to build out one of the toilet rooms now.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

We know what the use will be as we are designing the fit-out at the same time as core and shell and will submit both sets at the same time. The building is mixed use with F-1, B, A (accessory occupancy), and S-1 occupancies. The whole building complies with F-1 occupancy.

1. If its sitting empty they would not be using the building besides storing items they are buying in the meantime for fit-out so the building would not be occupied and I would say it would be S-1 if need ed to provide a classification while we wait to build
2. We already have 3 rated egress stairs that will be built as part of the core and shell
3. shouldn't be an issue and the floor is concrete on metal deck.

They understand that the sprinklers will need to be redone and this is built on a campus that has parking lots the building will use. Zoning is already fine with provide a couple of spaces for deliveries and people coming to the building.

What's "a few years"? If the fit-out will not happen for several years, there's a good chance a new code will have been adopted, and the fit-out will have to comply with all requirements of the new code. The building won't have a certificate of occupancy, so it won't be allowed to be used for any purpose. In fact, it's possible that even storing materials and equipment for the future fit-out may not be allowed.

Further, if (as should be expected) the energy code becomes more restricted, any mechanical equipment purchased now may not comply with whatever requirements may be in force at the time you (or your client) seek a permit for the fit-out.

We recently went through that with a business in town. The owner took out a permit to erect a pre-engineered metal building, to be used as a warehouse and offices. He applied for a shell-only permit. We tried to tell him he'd be better off doing it all at once, but he insisted. His design professional assured him there wouldn't be any problem.

There were problems. The state adopted a newer edition of the ICC codes between the time of the shell permit and the application for the office fit-out permit. The design professional couldn't (or wouldn't) deal with the code changes. Ultimately, the owner fired that design professional and brought in someone more competent.

In your case, apparently your client doesn't have the money to do the fit-out at this time. That's a fact. But IMHO it's a mistake. As to submitting both sets of construction documents at the same time -- why? If you get a permit for the fit-out now and then don't pursue it -- the permit will become void in 180 days, so what's the point?

 

[steveray]

Ask for an extension every 180 days and the permit lives forever....

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

Oops. This is in Pennsylvania? I see Pennsylvania deleted all of Chapter 1 of the IBC in adopting it. The 180-day expiration on permits is in Chapter 1, so you'll have to look up whatever Pennsylvania replaced Chapter 1 with, and see if that's addressed.

 

[AArchitect]

What's "a few years"? If the fit-out will not happen for several years, there's a good chance a new code will have been adopted, and the fit-out will have to comply with all requirements of the new code. The building won't have a certificate of occupancy, so it won't be allowed to be used for any purpose. In fact, it's possible that even storing materials and equipment for the future fit-out may not be allowed.

Further, if (as should be expected) the energy code becomes more restricted, any mechanical equipment purchased now may not comply with whatever requirements may be in force at the time you (or your client) seek a permit for the fit-out.

We recently went through that with a business in town. The owner took out a permit to erect a pre-engineered metal building, to be used as a warehouse and offices. He applied for a shell-only permit. We tried to tell him he'd be better off doing it all at once, but he insisted. His design professional assured him there wouldn't be any problem.

There were problems. The state adopted a newer edition of the ICC codes between the time of the shell permit and the application for the office fit-out permit. The design professional couldn't (or wouldn't) deal with the code changes. Ultimately, the owner fired that design professional and brought in someone more competent.

In your case, apparently your client doesn't have the money to do the fit-out at this time. That's a fact. But IMHO it's a mistake. As to submitting both sets of construction documents at the same time -- why? If you get a permit for the fit-out now and then don't pursue it -- the permit will become void in 180 days, so what's the point?

A few years would be 3-5 years. Thats the biggest issue I see, the energy code getting more strict and there not being enough space for larger equipment.

Oops. This is in Pennsylvania? I see Pennsylvania deleted all of Chapter 1 of the IBC in adopting it. The 180-day expiration on permits is in Chapter 1, so you'll have to look up whatever Pennsylvania replaced Chapter 1 with, and see if that's addressed.

This is in Delaware. Currently myself and the MEP engineers are gathering information to present to the client on everything that would be impacted by waiting a few years. We hope to have a meeting with the city soon to see exactly what they would want from us in this scenario.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

? ? ?

What does Delaware use for a building code? UpCodes doesn't show any building code for Delaware.

 

[AArchitect]

? ? ?

What does Delaware use for a building code? UpCodes doesn't show any building code for Delaware.

Its by the county for Delaware which determines the code version and modifications. the one I am using is 2018 with only a couple modifications.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

Its by the county for Delaware which determines the code version and modifications. the one I am using is 2018 with only a couple modifications.

Okay, then unless the county deleted it, Section 105.5 provides that "Every permit issued shall become
invalid unless the work on the site authorized by such permit is commenced within 180 days after its issuance, or if the
work authorized on the site by such permit is suspended or abandoned for a period of 180 days after the time the work is
commenced."

There is provision for an extension of 180 days, but any extension has to be requested in writing and must state a valid cause for the delay or cessation of work.

 

[Paul Sweet]

It would be best to design to the 2021 or 2024 code.