IEBC - Level 3 Alteration 2nd floor only.

[BuildingOfficial89]

South Dakota - where state rules allow quite a bit of commercial work before you are required by law to have an architect (SDCL 36-18A-9).

So we have an existing brick building with wood-frame interior from 1890 where the second floor is having a Level 3 alteration to reconfigure 3 apartments. It is not a change of use as there were 3 apartments before however this is a major gut and redo. The ground floor tenant space is a retail store, was originally a bank wayyy back when.

Ignore the location of the stairs at the bottom left corner, the "drafter" (CAD Monkey?) is using a residential CAD program that doesn't model this feature accurately.

Issues:
1. Openings with 0'-0" to property line.
2. More than 35' dead end corridor.
3. Egress (from unit 3 bedroom) onto adjacent roof.

If they want to use the door to the other building, they will need to purchase that building and plat the 2 parcels together.



Any good suggestions to tell my customer other than NO!??

 

[steveray]

Without even looking at the plans....

1. The openings are already there and have been since 1890 are you replacing what is in them?
2. Is it changing?
3. Is it changing?

Hardly anything in L3 alteration for MOE is more aggressive than Level 2 and a "full gut" if you are not moving walls or rearranging is Level 1.....

 

[BuildingOfficial89]

Without even looking at the plans....

1. The openings are already there and have been since 1890 are you replacing what is in them?
2. Is it changing?
3. Is it changing?

Hardly anything in L3 alteration for MOE is more aggressive than Level 2 and a "full gut" if you are not moving walls or rearranging is Level 1.....

1. Owner intends to install new historically appropriate windows.
2. Corridor was longer than 35' - however the egress to second stair is through wall to property this owner does not own.
3. Bedroom at far left on plan is new - this was not a bedroom previously.

All interior walls, except corridor, are new. Corridor is down to studs and has new GWB.

 

[RLGA]

If the travel distance from the most remote point in Unit #1 to the exit stair is 125 feet or less, then one exit is permitted per IBC Table 1006.3.4(1).

That said, which situation provides a safer condition: one exit only with the travel distance nearly maxed out (code compliant), or a second means of egress to another stairway that is through a party wall (not compliant under current code)?

However, if the travel distance exceeds the 125-foot limit, a noncompliant situation arises under the current building code. Therefore, if you ignore the IEBC Level 3 alteration per the work area compliance method and use the IEBC Alterations section for prescriptive compliance method, you have Section 503.1, which states, in part, "Alterations shall be such that the existing building or structure is not less complying with the provisions of the International Building Code than the existing building or structure was prior to the alteration." Since the condition exists, they are not making the building more noncompliant than it was before.

Are they adding a sprinkler system?

 

[Tim Mailloux]

FWIW a level 3 alteration is when 50% of the Building Area is being renovated. Without seeing plans, there is a chance this project may be a level 2 alteration if its limited to one floor of a multistory building.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

FWIW a level 3 alteration is when 50% of the Building Area is being renovated. Without seeing plans, there is a chance this project may be a level 2 alteration if its limited to one floor of a multistory building.

This was my immediate question. And, just to split hairs, the actual language in the IEBC is that it becomes a Level 3 alteration when the work area exceeds 50% of the building area. So 50.00 percent is still Level 2, but 50.01 percent is Level 3.