Fire job and rebuild

[RJJ]

Last week I was given a set of plans on an existing fire job to determine the level of code compliance for restoration.

10 units in an apartment. Approved back in the late 70's. Not sure yet if it is a certified building under PA UCC.

The units are laid out in this manner. Two units below grade that enter from the rear. Separated from above by 2hr rating. First floor two units left and right and again above. Between the units left and right is a 2hr wall. These units are not sprinklered. No ada compliance.

The left side is a total demo. The right side only paint and some dry wall repairs. I would classify this as a level III renovation. How would you classify the what code requirements are need.

1.Must bring the entire group of units up to code?

2.Must only bring up to code the Level III section / total demo?

 

[fatboy]

Seems to me we had a similar discussion before, maybe in that other place. So, if they rebuild with the same layout, is that a structural change? Or, is it merely a repair? Dang dude, tough call. I'd be leaning towards up to code on the demo/renovation side. JMHO

 

[TimNY]

If this is level 3, the fire sprinkler would apply to the work area only.

There are some elements that must be upgraded in the entire building (I think unenclosed stairways is one of them).

We have discussed this before... kinda.. I had a thread about replacing windows and doors throughout an existing motel.. but alterations only in small number of rooms..

There was another thread about a fire damaged building and we discussed "substantial structural damage".

Every scenario is different.

Tim

 

[mtlogcabin]

I would classify this as a level III renovation. How would you classify the what code requirements are need.

It is not your responsibility to determine the compliance method. The applicant can choose one of three ways

101.5 Compliance methods.

The repair, alteration, change of occupancy, addition or relocation of all existing buildings shall comply with one of the methods listed in Sections 101.5.1 through 101.5.3 as selected by the applicant.

 

[FredK]

......How would you classify the what code requirements are need?.....

I'd let the applicant decide, like mtlogcabin said.

 

[RJJ]

all good points! I had considered letting them decide. They asked me what I am going to require? The normal answer is what the code calls for. it seems clear they don't know the code.

TimNY they will be working in all areas to some extent. The ? comes into play what is the extent. The biggest issue is sprinklers. Besides the code the local ahj says sprinklers of every thing. Now is that new or is that fire damage? $64 dollar ?

 

[mtlogcabin]

The normal answer is what the code calls for. it seems clear they don't know the code.

That is why there should be a DP involved and the applicant chooses how to spend his money. The AHJ wants sprinklers, you say it is a level 3, the project is just about complete and a "friendly" DP points out it could have been done without a sprinkler throughout the entire structure for 1/3 the money if option 3 was used. Now the AHJ and you are being blamed for the extra cost involved. IMHO don't go that route. An AHJ telling an applicant what portions of the IEBC they have to use is defining the scope of work which is part of the design

2009 IEBC

This code provides three main options for a designer in dealing with rehabilitation of existing buildings. These are laid out in Section 101.5 of this code:

OPTION 1: Work for alteration, repair, change of occupancy, addition or relocation of all existing buildings shall be done in accordance with the Prescriptive Compliance Method given in Chapter 3. It should be noted that this same method is provided in Chapter 34 of the International Building Code .

OPTION 2: Work for alteration, repair, change of occupancy, addition or relocation of all existing buildings shall be done in accordance with the Work Area Compliance Method given in Chapters 4 through 12.

OPTION 3: Work for alteration, repair, change of occupancy, addition or relocation of all existing buildings shall be done in accordance with the Performance Compliance Method given in Chapter 13. It should be noted that this option is also provided in Chapter 34 of the International Building Code .

Under limited circumstances, a building alteration can be made to comply with the laws under which the building was originally built, as long as there has been no substantial structural damage and there will be limited structural alteration.

 

[TimNY]

Drywall repairs are just that.. repairs. Painting is maintenance. Is a permit required in this jurisdiction for a repair? As long as those are the only things going on in that section of the building, then I would say the work area ends where the actual alterations end.

Work incidental to the alterations also would not make the other areas part of the work area (ie if you had to run new electric.. or fire sprinkler piping... through the parts being painted).

The real question for the owner should be... since the fire sprinkler is required in the altered area.. would it make sense to sprinkler the whole building.. I mean.. how much of an insurance break do you get for 1/2 a sprinkler system?

 

[RJJ]

MT: I agree. But a third of the building needs to be removed. Total removal. There is a DP in charge. And you comments are great. Last point, after review I don't believe the building complied with BOCO and state fire and panic act. I see a number of things missed and so does the DP. It is getting interesting.

 

[mtlogcabin]

since 30% of the building needs to come down it might be more cost effective to raze the entire structure and start over when all the cost are considered such as tax write off due to a loss by fire, loss of income due to extended time to rebuild versus new construction and other factors. Glad to see you have a DP on board that agrees with what is deficient might make for a smooth project.

 

[Alias]

since 30% of the building needs to come down it might be more cost effective to raze the entire structure and start over when all the cost are considered such as tax write off due to a loss by fire, loss of income due to extended time to rebuild versus new construction and other factors. Glad to see you have a DP on board that agrees with what is deficient might make for a smooth project.

I have to agree. If 30% of the building needs to be demoed, start over if you can.

 

[RJJ]

That is a good thought, but I will have a hard time trying to sell it. It seems that getting the DP on the path of choosing a method of compliance is the first and major issue.

 

[mtlogcabin]

It seems that getting the DP on the path of choosing a method of compliance is the first and major issue.

Agree and then the remodel/repair cost can be compared to new construction. Lots of unknowns in remodels.

 

[SCBO1]

I've been following along and mtlogcabin appears to know how to use this IEBC code. This is the first city I have worked with that has adopted it.

Q. Does the IEBC code work? or is the IRC or IBC enough code to enforce?

 

[mtlogcabin]

Q. Does the IEBC code work? or is the IRC or IBC enough code to enforce?

It can be used for both the IBC and IRC. The different levels is where the flexibility comes into play for the owner or DP. The IRC does not offer any flexibilty and the IBC is strictly Chapter 34 which is incorporated into the IEBC. It can work very well if applied properly by the DP/Owner unfortunately most are to lazy to learn it.

 

[RJJ]

MT: I could not agree more and your post is spot on. It seems more & more the questions is raise "what do you want". My response is compliance to the code.

In this case they have a choice of paths to take, but don't want to take the time to read and figure it out.

I kinda like the IEBC a little better then chapter 34. It just seems to be a little easier to read and apply. May just be me.

In regards to the OP I have issued the demo permit. Waiting on details of plans for just what and how the re build will be accomplished. A few sections are unknown with the real extent of fire damage. Once the debris and unsafe conditions are removed we will be able to better determine the effects on the remaining structures. The local AHJ has a mandate that the building be sprinklered, so even though the IBC / IEBC would have allowed it to be put back the local ordinance will hold. Of course they can appeal. It doesn't matter to me!