• Welcome to The Building Code Forum

    Your premier resource for building code knowledge.

    This forum remains free to the public thanks to the generous support of our Sawhorse Members and Corporate Sponsors. Their contributions help keep this community thriving and accessible.

    Want enhanced access to expert discussions and exclusive features? Learn more about the benefits here.

    Ready to upgrade? Log in and upgrade now.

Older Home converted to commercial child care facility

vegas paul

vegas paul

Silver Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2009
Messages
495
Location
Salina, KS
This is going to be a tough one, lots of politics involved, so bear with me...

A charitable organization (not a church) bought an older 3-story home (plus basement), and wants to open a child-care facility on the first floor ONLY. No use/occupancy (so they say) on any other floor. No one living in the house full-time. Less than 24 hour care, infants and children, so classification is unusual. They state 5 infants and 15 children, for a total of 20, plus 3 staff. The 1st floor is approximately 6 ft above grade level due to the basement height.

Issues:

Occuapancy classification (I've told them, they disagree)

Mixed occupancy or single occupancy

Classification of 2nd and 3rd floors and basement

Separation

Sprinklers

Accessible restrooms and required number

Exit doors to exterior (if they choose E occupancy)

What to do with the kitchen

Ramp design

Fire Alarm/smoke detectors

Window guards/bars or safety glazing for full wall height windows.

Give me opinions, please.
 
Occuapancy classification (I've told them, they disagree) need letter from them on age. if more then 5 under 2 1/2 and cannot meet exception "I-4" otherwise "E" letter should state they understand that if classified an E and I-4 is caught building shall meet I-4 requirements.

Mixed occupancy or single occupancy ????????

Classification of 2nd and 3rd floors and basement ?????????????? U- undecided, since area not specified for use. once again would require letter of understanding.

Separation::: see above

Sprinklers:: no unless I-4

Accessible restrooms and required number

Exit doors to exterior (if they choose E occupancy)::: not sure the question

What to do with the kitchen:: cook fish sticks only, more then likely they will use it, not sure if you classify it commercial

Ramp design: not a ramp man

Fire Alarm/smoke detectors:: "E" if under 50 no I appears answer is yes,

Minimum would ask for smoke alarms in sleeping areas.

Window guards/bars or safety glazing for full wall height windows.

does the state also regulate day cares, and if so what would they want???
 
Opinion

308.5 and not knowing the layout of the floor of LOED it is hard to interpret that they would meet the exception of 308.5.2 so therefore in my opinion it’s a I-4 and all applicable protection, detection, alarm and separations apply.



Despite political attention, it would difficult for interpretation of “E” for this day care center and who knows when and if business gets better and they start to use the 2-3 floors or receive more little ones. It’s a charitable operation. Maybe the political pressure can develop an assistance program or grant or low interest loan through some type of community development grant to aid them in bringing the building up to code.
 
If the room they INTEND to use for < 2.5 year-olds has direct exit to exterior, but the remainder of the rooms (older than 2.5 years) don't, then can you still classify the whole facility as E? Note that these are not separately separated rooms such as in a school, they are various rooms in an old house - with no doors separating them to corridors. I envision all kids wandering around throughout the facility.
 
5 or fewer under 2.5 year olds is a Group E occupancy. I have worked on several of these types of projects. I do not guess or assume what they are going to do. I have them state specifically the use, clients, ages, etc and base my code analysis on that documentation. Spell out the issues, determine the requirements and document, document and document some more. Nice baptism to the heartland VP.
 
Note that these are not separately separated rooms such as in a school, they are various rooms in an old house - with no doors separating them to corridors. I envision all kids wandering around throughout the facility.
Click to expand...
Exactly, and it will happen therefore my opinion that it’s a I-4 since 308.5 says “occupied by persons of any age” and regardless of the out for 5 or more maybe the single room can be looked at as E but I believe the intent is associated to larger facilities not one that house various age occupants like the I-4 will.





I do not guess or assume what they are going to do. I have them state specifically the use, clients, ages, etc and base my code analysis on that documentation. Spell out the issues, determine the requirements and document, document and document some more.
Click to expand...


I understand this rationale but then when a guy like me comes in for an annual or licensing inspection, someone else could have egg on their face and one can be assured it would also be well documented.





[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]
 
I would have to agree with the FM... Group I-4. 308.5 seems to cover the scenario. We can't get to E by using 305.2, because that only covers children over 2 1/2 years. We can't use the exception to 308.5.2 because that exception requires all of the rooms where child care is given, to have an exit directly to the exterior. I can't find any other section that would get us to Group E.
 
308.5.2 Child care facility.

A facility that provides supervision and personal care on less than a 24-hour basis for more than five children 21/2 years of age or less shall be classified as Group I-4.

Exception: A child day care facility that provides care for more than five but no more than 100 children 21/2 years or less of age, when the rooms where such children are cared for are located on the level of exit discharge and each of these child care rooms has an exit door directly to the exterior, shall be classified as Group E.

I don't think from your posts it meets the exception so my vote is I-4. But then if all the interior doors are removed would that be one big room and then meet the exception for exit door?????
 
when the rooms where such children are cared for are located on the level of exit discharge and each of these child care rooms has an exit door directly to the exterior, shall be classified as Group E.
Click to expand...
I thought this was refering to the children under 2.5 years of age.

308.5.2 Child care facility.

A facility that provides supervision and personal care on less than a 24-hour basis for more than five children 21/2 years of age or less shall be classified as Group I-4.

The OP says 5 children 2.5 or less in age it is not an I-4

Check the state liscensing laws and base the numbers of children by the maximum amount permitted under their liscense.
 
so you have a building with 2 1/2 years and younger and all the rooms except the bathroom the 2 1/2 or younger uses, have a door to the outside, because the bathroom does not it is automatic and I-4????????

They have to use the bathroom at some point in the day
 
Brudgers - What live load would you apply to this occupancy? Classrooms are 40/1000. Is there another classification I should be looking at?
 
100 psf stairs and exits.

100/80 psf corridors.

Classrooms @ 40 psf in former bedrooms.

Offices @ 50 psf or 2000 concentrated in former bedrooms.

I shouldn't say it will never meet it, but the egress component loading is typically problematic, and so is the live load for former bedrooms.

Particularly if you are not slab on grade.
 
Well, brudgers, that's part of the problem. They SAY that they only want to use the main floor (so stairs aren't an issue). Classrooms = Bedrooms in current code for live load, so I could possible agree that they are compliant, although I have no idea what design load they originally accommodated. The conceptual plan doesn't indicate any office, but who knows... What I am REALLY concerned with is that they are analyzing ONLY the main floor of a 4 story house (3 stories plus habitable basement). They are basically ignoring the remainder of the structure, saying "We're not going to use it". So, how would you respond to a partial analysis of an older home (4300 sq. ft.) where only 1900 sq. ft. is analyzed for use?
 
3406.1 Conformance.

No change shall be made in the use or occupancy of any building that would place the building in a different division of the same group of occupancy or in a different group of occupancies, unless such building is made to comply with the requirements of this code for such division or group of occupancy. Subject to the approval of the building official, 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.

Was the existing use a residence or something else?

If you can classify it as an E occupancy then they could use 3410.1 which would provide a report from a design proffesional which will aid you in using 3406.1 if you need to for political reasons.

3410.1 Compliance.

The provisions of this section are intended to maintain or increase the current degree of public safety, health and general welfare in existing buildings while permitting repair, alteration, addition and change of occupancy without requiring full compliance with Chapters 2 through 33, or Sections 3401.3, and 3403 through 3407, except where compliance with other provisions of this code is specifically required in this section.
 
Does the State of Kansas have a rule that regulates the number of children permitted in a home day care setting? Could the building be considered as a single family residence with an allowable home based day care?
 
Ok so that potentially gets this place away from the protection for the I-4 due to 903.2.2 stuff for the "E" outs.

Sorry, today is my Friday :)

I know, if I don't like it make a proposal...........
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It can't be in a residence (IRC) per Kansas state law, so it's definately IBC. Besides, no one is going to be living in the home - it's owned by a charitable organization/business and will only be staffed when children are there. It's a mess, and I'm meeting with the architect this afternoon, so maybe I'll post some info tomorrow...
 
Paul, bedrooms are allowed to be 30 psf in IBC...in an older home, they might be more, they might be a lot less.

You still have the issues of corridors, stairs, and exit components.

My personal sense is that there is no way they will only occupy one floor unless the building is subdivided as part of the project...and you know I'm inclined toward finding a way to approve plans. It's just not a good situation once they get a CO.
 
Well, I met with them this afternoon and proposed that they seal off the access to the 2nd and 3rd floors, de-energize the electrical circuits to them, install smoke detectors in thos floors, and baxically ignore tha those floors exist. They can put a lockable door to the basement to use for emergency storm shelter, no other use.

We worked through the accessibility issues, and now they need to take the laundry list back to the owners to see if it is feasible. Would have made a lot more sense if they had had this conversation with us prior to purchasing the property!
 
cda - The occupancy is E. The older kids get E from 305.2, directly. The younger kids get there indirectly through 308.5.2, after discussion the revealed that there really would be more infants than 5. It gets somewhat complicated, since most of the kids will be there for months/years, and as they pass the "magic" age of 2.5 years, I can't see reclassifying the occupancy. So with both infants/toddlers, and young kids, we agreed on E. Total kids will be at least 20, maybe more.

It's still a mess, but at least they won't be crying to the Mayor...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top