Existing A2 converting to B/A3

[jar546]

I have an older, single story, 4,000 square foot existing type VB unsprinklered building (never built to any particular code) that was most recently a bar/restaurant. It is being converted to an office building with an A3 training/meeting area which will make up approximately 500 square feet of the existing 4,000.

The construction will be under the 2006 I-Codes and Chapter 34 for existing since they did not declare the IEBC, only the IBC. In PA they have a choice of one or the other but not both.

Extensive renovations, moving walls, structural repairs in the basement (piers, beams, etc), etc. will be taking place.

There are 3 existing bathrooms, none of which are accessible under the ANSI 117.1 2003 which is what applies in PA.

They will be removing one of the bathrooms and leaving the other 2 in place which will service part of the office are but not any particular office.

They will be installing 2 new bathrooms which will be ANSI 117.1 compliant for a grand total of 4, only half are accessible. The existing 2 that are not accessible are not clustered together.

The DP is trying to declare an occupant load of 40 by taking office space of 4,000 and dividing by 100. He is not taking into consideration that 500 of the 4,000 is already declared A3 with loose chairs as seating which would give us 72 just in that room alone.

1) Can the 2 existing that are not accessible remain without being accessible?

1) How would you treat the occupant load?

My initial opinions are as follows:

1) The 2 existing bathrooms cannot remain without being accessible.

2) The submitted occupant load of 40 is incorrect. He can deduct the bathrooms, basement stairway openings, etc., and recofigure the A3 space for loose tables and chairs to reduce the load otherwise he will have to add bathrooms.

Thanks in advance.

 

[kilitact]

Re: Existing A2 converting to B/A3

The training area of 500 sq. ft. could meet the exception from section 303, so it would be a B, the occupant load of that space would be 35 by putting in some tables, and occupant load of the office is 35. This gives the space a total occupant load of 70, this would required 2 wc per gender. I would say having to make the two existing bath rooms accessible would depend on how much is being spent to remodel this space and the cost of removing any other accessibility barriers.

 

[cda]

Re: Existing A2 converting to B/A3

I would not call it an "A" till you hit 750 sq ft in an office setting

just my way of unthinking

500/72 = 6.9???

unless they bring a lot of people in from the outside, the office is only 40 people if you go by the dp calcs, so somewhere you have to bring in another 32 people if all 40 office people show up for the meeting.

 

[jar546]

Re: Existing A2 converting to B/A3

My initial thought on the 500 sq. feet area is that it meets the exception to remain a B but the assembly portion of it for occupant load does not change. He submitted it as an A3. His mistake.

 

[vegas paul]

Re: Existing A2 converting to B/A3

Regardless of the occupancy classification, the occupant load is based on use/function, not occupancy classification. Don't let the DP argue that "B" divided by 100 equals... That's a bush-league mistake that can't be tolerated by anyone with a certification or license! So the original question seems two-fold. Does he need more than one restroom/plumbing fixture set for each gender, and can he leave the remaining non-accessible restrooms alone?

A change in occupancy requires compliance with the current code ( in many areas, not just accessibility and fixture count). Since he's building and demo-ing walls, and alreacy planning to break into the plumbing systems, I'd push for full compliance (change the two remaining restrooms to accessible).

His calculated occupant load WILL be greater than 40, however don't automatically use 15 s.f. per occupant in the training area unless he provides a furniture plan indicating tables. Otherwise it might be higher.

 

[jar546]

Re: Existing A2 converting to B/A3

Regardless of the occupancy classification, the occupant load is based on use/function, not occupancy classification. Don't let the DP argue that "B" divided by 100 equals... That's a bush-league mistake that can't be tolerated by anyone with a certification or license! So the original question seems two-fold. Does he need more than one restroom/plumbing fixture set for each gender, and can he leave the remaining non-accessible restrooms alone?A change in occupancy requires compliance with the current code ( in many areas, not just accessibility and fixture count). Since he's building and demo-ing walls, and alreacy planning to break into the plumbing systems, I'd push for full compliance (change the two remaining restrooms to accessible).

His calculated occupant load WILL be greater than 40, however don't automatically use 15 s.f. per occupant in the training area unless he provides a furniture plan indicating tables. Otherwise it might be higher.

I agree. He is currently showing 1 male bath with a WC, Urinal & Lav and 1 Female with WC & Lav, both of these new ones will be accessible. I am hoping they can incorporate one of the existing bathrooms into one of the offices to eliminate one of the bathroom issues. It wil come down to fixture count and occupant load. I don't see any relief for leaving the existing bathrooms that are not accessible alone.

 

[kilitact]

Re: Existing A2 converting to B/A3

In the State of Oregon, ORS 447.241 states that you’re required to spend up to 25% of the cost of renovations to an area of primary use, we are given a list that starts with (a) parking. Restrooms are (d) on this list, so if you spent your 25% before you get to (d) restrooms, they would not be required to be updated. Our Chapter 34 section 3406.1, states that change of use or occupancy alone shall not require compliance with chapter 34.

Is this the same in your State(s)??

 

[TJacobs]

Re: Existing A2 converting to B/A3

I agree with vegas paul.

 

[vegas paul]

Re: Existing A2 converting to B/A3

kilitact - in our state (Nevada) we use the un-amended language of 3406.1, which requires conformance to current code for any change of occupancy (with an exception for less hazardous uses if the BO allows it). 3406.1, as written, is pretty clear on this.

 

[mtlogcabin]

Re: Existing A2 converting to B/A3

It wil come down to fixture count and occupant load. I don't see any relief for leaving the existing bathrooms that are not accessible alone

This will ultimately be your call. If 3409.8.9 will allow a unisex restroom where it is "technically infeasible to alter existing toilet and bathing facilities" (plural) could you not allow the existing facilities to remain as long as signage is provided to direct a person to the accessible restrooms?

Just a thought.

3409.8.9 Toilet rooms.

Where it is technically infeasible to alter existing toilet and bathing facilities to be accessible, an accessible unisex toilet or bathing facility is permitted. The unisex facility shall be located on the same floor and in the same area as the existing facilities.

 

[JBI]

Re: Existing A2 converting to B/A3

2006 IBC, Chapter 34, Definitions:

TECHNICALLY INFEASIBLE. An alteration of a building or a facility that has little likelihood of being accomplished because the existing structural conditions require the removal or alteration of a load-bearing member that is an essential part of the structural frame, or because other existing physical or site constraints prohibit modification or addition of elements, spaces or features which are in full and strict compliance with the minimum requirements for new construction and which are necessary to provide accessibility.

That is one tough nut to crack.

 

[vegas paul]

Re: Existing A2 converting to B/A3

My experience has indicate that MOST technically infeasible issues can be solved by involving a more clever DP or increasing the original budget - or both. Technically infeasible within the targetted budget is NOT an acceptable reason to ignore code.

 

[mtlogcabin]

Re: Existing A2 converting to B/A3

I agree with you two I have never seen a technically infeasible situation. Just trying think outside the box and what is the code trying to accomplish. Compliant accessible restrooms facilities which they are going to do. The additional fixtures may not be any more accessible then the existing facilities they will be just be located in the same rooms as the accesible fixtures.

If he follows IBC 104.10 he is just agreeing with what the DP submits. Remember the intent of ADA is the designers responsibility to meet not ours to enforce.