Grey Box Finish

[cda]

Related to this old thread, at what point is the tenant buildout an alteration to an existing building vs. new construction? If you submit both at the same time sure, new construction. What if it's been a month, 2, 3, years?

Not my side of the railroad tracks, but I have seen ahj's handle it in different ways.

My thoughts are if someone builds, or starts building the shell first, any subliminal interior plans, are tenant finish out/remodel.

How an ahj handles the inspection process, is another story.

 

[mtlogcabin]

No matter the time frame a 1st time tenant buildout is new construction under the current adopted building code, not the code the shell was built under.
I will not consider it an alteration to an existing building for a couple of reasons.
1 there was nothing to alter.
2 there is no occupancy assigned since there has been no use of that space.
3 I do not want them using the IEBC since there are sections in the IEBC that will not require you to meet the requirements of the IBC for new construction.
Example: The IEBC does not have Common Path of Travel requirements

 

[fungineer]

@mtlogcabin That makes sense. My question then relates to how you handle the shell itself then. Even if no occupancy permit is requested/provided (as none should be) doesn't the shell still need AN occupancy defined to it to verify it meets the building height and area restrictions and the egress distance?

Theoretically, if you have a shell for a tenant being built. You expect it will likely be an A2 Restaurant, but it could end up being a B or M down the line (or if that tenant falls through). Shouldn't one need to be "picked" (or possibly design for "all 3" as non-separated occupancies). Lets say the area of this shell is small enough that no area triggers matter regardless of what is built.

 

[cda]

@mtlogcabin That makes sense. My question then relates to how you handle the shell itself then. Even if no occupancy permit is requested/provided (as none should be) doesn't the shell still need AN occupancy defined to it to verify it meets the building height and area restrictions and the egress distance?

Theoretically, if you have a shell for a tenant being built. You expect it will likely be an A2 Restaurant, but it could end up being a B or M down the line (or if that tenant falls through). Shouldn't one need to be "picked" (or possibly design for "all 3" as non-separated occupancies). Lets say the area of this shell is small enough that no area triggers matter regardless of what is built.

I think the shell should have a final, and maybe C of O.

Ahj here does neither for the shell and it creates trouble down the line. Especially when two different contractors involved,, one for shell,, one for interior

 

[fungineer]

I think the shell should have a final, and maybe C of O.

Ahj here does neither for the shell and it creates trouble down the line. Especially when two different contractors involved,, one for shell,, one for interior

Yeah it seems like a huge pain for the tenant (same contractor or not). Part of the point of the shell is so the envelope doesn't need to be updated. Especially in a strip building where 1 suite will be built "right away" and the rest won't, it wouldn't make sense for the rest to need to be updated to meet the envelope requirements of the current code for the tenant to go in...

 

[Yikes]

1. Shell is issued a certificate of completion, not a certificate of occupancy.
2. Tenant Improvement plans submitted one minute or more after shell certificate of completion are treated as an alteration, subject to whatever codes are in effect at time of T.I. submittal.
You can avoid re-visiting the previously approved shell by doing more work under the shell permit. For example, if you are in California: want to avoid thermal performance upgrades to the shell? Run your Title 24 shell performance calcs under the shell permit.

 

[mtlogcabin]

How do you not have any code violations in a shell building?

[A] 111.2 Certificate issued.
After the building official inspects the building or structure and does not find violations of the provisions of this code or other laws that are enforced by the department of building safety, the building official shall issue a certificate of occupancy that contains the following:

 

[Yikes]

How do you not have any code violations in a shell building?

[A] 111.2 Certificate issued.
After the building official inspects the building or structure and does not find violations of the provisions of this code or other laws that are enforced by the department of building safety, the building official shall issue a certificate of occupancy that contains the following:

Have you ever issued a "foundation only" permit? Same concept. Final inspection under that permit does not have to result in a traditional certificate of occupancy. It either results in a signed off inspection card, or at most a "certificate of completion", which does not allow for occupancy.

A grey box does not meet CBC 202 definition of "occupiable space", so there is nothing to occupy. If the BO feels compelled to issue a "Certificate of Occupancy", the limitations and exclusions and stipulations can be enumerated as per 111.2 items 5, 8, and 12.

 

[steveray]

COA the shell...COO the tenant(s)

 

[SCBO1]

This is a very interesting topic. I came on board and had a shell building with a fire sprinkler room and no sprinkler system set up. The building had a CO issued. First tenant B occupancy and the second tenant was a day care. Neither tenant wanted to foot the bill for installing the sprinkler system nor did the owner of the building. The daycare tenant's architect designed the space with classroom egress doors hence eliminating the required sprinkler system and designed a fire wall between the B occupancy. So do you re-issue CO's to the tenant spaces?