DTBarch
SAWHORSE
Question for my valuable posse of building officials, plan examiners and forum co-members.
If my building owner / landlord client wishes to make incremental improvements to a grey shell space (162,000sf) in his new warehouse building, but has no idea whether the tenant he will lease to is going to be an S-1, and S-2, or an F occupancy user, does the AHJ have a code-based justification for requiring that we classify the space as one of the options in our shell improvement project?
My client's goal is to build out a 3,000sf spec office space and install minimal evap coolers and warehouse lighting so that the space is more marketable, and the required quantity of improvements from lease negotiation to occupancy is more manageable, financially minimal, and expeditious. In the ultra competitive and hot industrial market such as the Phoenix metro area is experiencing, timing is everything when competing for a tenant prospect.
Due to the long and shallow nature of the 162,000 sf warehouse space with the original developer's office setup being at one end of that space, installing additional restrooms to satisfy the warehouse restroom travel distance requirement is rolling the dice. The future tenant may very well end up being a manufacturing F Occupancy space that requires a secondary production office and larger set of restrooms in an entirely different and specific area of the warehouse, at which point the speculative restrooms that my client has sawcut 500 feet away is a complete waste of his money.
In our case, the AHJ initially rejected our submittal stating that if we did not classify the warehouse space, we would necessarily need to apply for another tenant improvement once the space was leased, and they "suggested" that we may want to pick a classification to assign to this project. Our response to this rejection was that we entirely expect to go through another tenant improvement project for the future tenant. After receiving no clarification response to our request to explain, we resubmitted with additional explanation of why we were okay with the additional future permit, and why we didn't want to incur the risk involved in the extra expense for occupancy specific improvements. This time they rejected it stating, "After further discussion with the Building safety department, it has been agreed that you may not submit for landlord Spec improvements without classifying both the office and storage."
Many other local AHJ's like Phoenix, for example, issue Certificate of Completions to projects where there is no tenant, requiring an inspection and re-application for CofO upon tenant occupancy. I know that all AHJ's handle CofO's differently, but again, is there a code based justification for outright rejection of a 1st generation shell improvement project that is purely speculative in nature?
I understand that the real estate industry has a tendency to abuse and avoid the permitting process, but why should a building owner should be forced into compliance under a specific randomly selected warehouse occupancy classification when he's just making basic initial speculative improvements to his property, primarily for the office space.
Opinions or code references? Am I entirely off base with my reaction to this?
If my building owner / landlord client wishes to make incremental improvements to a grey shell space (162,000sf) in his new warehouse building, but has no idea whether the tenant he will lease to is going to be an S-1, and S-2, or an F occupancy user, does the AHJ have a code-based justification for requiring that we classify the space as one of the options in our shell improvement project?
My client's goal is to build out a 3,000sf spec office space and install minimal evap coolers and warehouse lighting so that the space is more marketable, and the required quantity of improvements from lease negotiation to occupancy is more manageable, financially minimal, and expeditious. In the ultra competitive and hot industrial market such as the Phoenix metro area is experiencing, timing is everything when competing for a tenant prospect.
Due to the long and shallow nature of the 162,000 sf warehouse space with the original developer's office setup being at one end of that space, installing additional restrooms to satisfy the warehouse restroom travel distance requirement is rolling the dice. The future tenant may very well end up being a manufacturing F Occupancy space that requires a secondary production office and larger set of restrooms in an entirely different and specific area of the warehouse, at which point the speculative restrooms that my client has sawcut 500 feet away is a complete waste of his money.
In our case, the AHJ initially rejected our submittal stating that if we did not classify the warehouse space, we would necessarily need to apply for another tenant improvement once the space was leased, and they "suggested" that we may want to pick a classification to assign to this project. Our response to this rejection was that we entirely expect to go through another tenant improvement project for the future tenant. After receiving no clarification response to our request to explain, we resubmitted with additional explanation of why we were okay with the additional future permit, and why we didn't want to incur the risk involved in the extra expense for occupancy specific improvements. This time they rejected it stating, "After further discussion with the Building safety department, it has been agreed that you may not submit for landlord Spec improvements without classifying both the office and storage."
Many other local AHJ's like Phoenix, for example, issue Certificate of Completions to projects where there is no tenant, requiring an inspection and re-application for CofO upon tenant occupancy. I know that all AHJ's handle CofO's differently, but again, is there a code based justification for outright rejection of a 1st generation shell improvement project that is purely speculative in nature?
I understand that the real estate industry has a tendency to abuse and avoid the permitting process, but why should a building owner should be forced into compliance under a specific randomly selected warehouse occupancy classification when he's just making basic initial speculative improvements to his property, primarily for the office space.
Opinions or code references? Am I entirely off base with my reaction to this?