• Welcome to the new and improved Building Code Forum. We appreciate you being here and hope that you are getting the information that you need concerning all codes of the building trades. This is a free forum to the public due to the generosity of the Sawhorses, Corporate Supporters and Supporters who have upgraded their accounts. If you would like to have improved access to the forum please upgrade to Sawhorse by first logging in then clicking here: Upgrades

Existing Building, Change of Use

D

daves

Member
Joined
Jan 18, 2010
Messages
18
Location
Cleveland, OH
4 story office building, dates from mid 1970's. Developer looking to convert to multi family, R-2.

Chapter 34 says:

Subject to the approval of the buildingofficial, the use or occupancy of existing buildings shall be permitted

to be changed and the building is allowed to be occupied

for purposes in other groups without conforming to all the

requirements of this code for those groups, provided the new or

proposed use is less hazardous, based on life and fire risk, than

the existing use.
Click to expand...
What criterias are used to determine whether or not R-2 is less hazardous than B?

If R-2 is in fact decided to be a "greater hazard", and the building can't be reasonably altered, (example: the building diagonal dimension is 140', distance between entrance to stairs on each floor is 32', stairs enclosures are masonry. No way remoteness is satisfied.), we can have them look at compliance alternatives in order to not kill the potential. No one wants an empty 4 story building.
 
Re: Existing Building, Change of Use

If this project moves forward, you will be adding fire sprinklers. If the vertical exit enclosures are compliant, you would be eligible for the exception to 1015.2, 2006 IBC, allowing 1/3 of the maximum diagonal separation.

R-2 is more hazardous based on life safety risk than B. For starters, look at allowable areas based on construction type.
 
Re: Existing Building, Change of Use

daves - There is alot more to chap 34 than the small section you quoted. The answer to your question will become obvious after you have gone through the entire chapter and done the requisite calculations. It is, quite frankly, a pain in the a$$. But it will be necessary to obtain the correct answers.

Has your jurisdiction adopted the appendix as well? It is a bit more straightforward, but still requires alot of paperwork.
 
Re: Existing Building, Change of Use

one third of 140 feet is still 46.66 feet so the stairs would be too close together. Could the entry to the stairs be extended via an exit passagway on each floor to get the required separation? Otherwise, the design team could offer an alternate method of design by offering additional detection to offset the lack of remote egress.
 
Re: Existing Building, Change of Use

In all honesty, if you're going to convert an office building into dwellings, moving a stair is probably a minor expense...and probably even a benefit as it may free up unit layout.

If the project actually has any legs, it's a non-issue.

And to the extent it is an issue, an architect should be involved in the discussion anyway.
 
Re: Existing Building, Change of Use

Sorry to disappoint, but I'm the one with pencil who draw. I hope that doesn't count against me. We will be meeting with the CBO of course to discuss, but I like to be prepared.

Lot's of considerations I'm not looking for answers on. It's a concrete building, moving stairs not quite so easy. It's fully sprinkled, yahoo. etc, etc.

I crack the book from time to time, I know I can make it work with compliance alternatives in 3410. The opinion I seek is, in my opinion, central to Chapter 34: Can the occupancy of a building be changed without making the building comply with all of the requirements of the code for new work pertaining to the new occupancy. The answer is 'yes', as long as the BO agrees the new use is of less hazard than the existing use. Texasbo, you say it's in Table 503, I agree. Any other criteria for determining one occupancy as more hazardous than another? Occupant load has to be a factor too, no? R occupant loads are going to be way less than properly calculated loads for an office building. But sleeping and cooking might be considered bad.

I really appreciate your forum, and value your opinions. I used to frequent NAFFA's BCDG, but don't have the budget for a membership, less freqently the former ICC bulletin board. Glad you're here.
 
Re: Existing Building, Change of Use

The city of Seattle actually spent considerable effort trying to quantify hazards of occupancies in their IBC modified Chapter 34. I do not think it will support your basic hope that residential is less hazardous than business. While the fire loading in Buisiness could be more, the sleeping nature of R makes it more hazardous. Deaths and injuries occur in R more than B occupancies.

http://www2.iccsafe.org/states/Seattle2006/seattle_building/building_frameset.htm
 
Re: Existing Building, Change of Use

Exterior [ compliant ] stairs and compliant elevators ?



.
 
Re: Existing Building, Change of Use

daves said:
Sorry to disappoint, but I'm the one with pencil who draw. I hope that doesn't count against me. We will be meeting with the CBO of course to discuss, but I like to be prepared. Lot's of considerations I'm not looking for answers on. It's a concrete building, moving stairs not quite so easy. It's fully sprinkled, yahoo. etc, etc.

I crack the book from time to time, I know I can make it work with compliance alternatives in 3410. The opinion I seek is, in my opinion, central to Chapter 34: Can the occupancy of a building be changed without making the building comply with all of the requirements of the code for new work pertaining to the new occupancy. The answer is 'yes', as long as the BO agrees the new use is of less hazard than the existing use. Texasbo, you say it's in Table 503, I agree. Any other criteria for determining one occupancy as more hazardous than another? Occupant load has to be a factor too, no? R occupant loads are going to be way less than properly calculated loads for an office building. But sleeping and cooking might be considered bad.

I really appreciate your forum, and value your opinions. I used to frequent NAFFA's BCDG, but don't have the budget for a membership, less freqently the former ICC bulletin board. Glad you're here.
Click to expand...
Dave, I think you're going to have a tough time getting anyone to agree that R is less hazardous to life safety than B. Even in Ch 10, R occupancies must have corridors that are generally more protected than in B occupancies. The one break you're probably going to get is occupant load.

However, this building is going to be gutted anyway, and you will easily be able to extend your exit enclosures to get the required separation, so I would think Ch 34 isn't going to be of great consideration. Have you verified construction type, number of stories, allowable area, etc. for the R occupancy?
 
Re: Existing Building, Change of Use

daves said:
Sorry to disappoint, but I'm the one with pencil who draw. I hope that doesn't count against me. We will be meeting with the CBO of course to discuss, but I like to be prepared. Lot's of considerations I'm not looking for answers on. It's a concrete building, moving stairs not quite so easy. It's fully sprinkled, yahoo. etc, etc.

I crack the book from time to time, I know I can make it work with compliance alternatives in 3410. The opinion I seek is, in my opinion, central to Chapter 34: Can the occupancy of a building be changed without making the building comply with all of the requirements of the code for new work pertaining to the new occupancy. The answer is 'yes', as long as the BO agrees the new use is of less hazard than the existing use. Texasbo, you say it's in Table 503, I agree. Any other criteria for determining one occupancy as more hazardous than another? Occupant load has to be a factor too, no? R occupant loads are going to be way less than properly calculated loads for an office building. But sleeping and cooking might be considered bad.

I really appreciate your forum, and value your opinions. I used to frequent NAFFA's BCDG, but don't have the budget for a membership, less freqently the former ICC bulletin board. Glad you're here.
Click to expand...
NFPA 101 2003 classifies both New Business and New Apartment occupancies as ordinary hazard.

I take paypal.
 
Re: Existing Building, Change of Use

You could use the relative hazard tables (tables 912.4 thru 912.6) in the change of use section(chapter 9) of the 2006 International Existing Building Code. Even if the jurisdiction hasn't adopted the IEBC, it would carry some weight.

The tables rate the relative hazards on a scale of 1-5 with 1 being the highest hazard.

For Exiting: R2= 3, B=4

Height and Area: R2= 2, B=4

For Exposure; R2=3, B=3
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top