Opinion: Trying their best

[Msradell]

Since the AHJ said you can't touch the existing restroom building without significantly increasing the fixture count what would happen if you just build an entirely new building? Don't even attach it to the bleachers, put it at the entrance and call it an administration building and it just happen to have a bunch of toilets? It certainly meets code for the occupancy load of that building.

 

[lpiburn]

Just another thought. What code where you under when the original bleachers where installed?

What was the fixture count then?

...

You should not have to provide more fixtures then what was required by the adopted code at the time the stadium was built.

Hopefully it was under the UPC code

I really don't know how old these things are but I would guess 70s? Actually even though it goes against my own point, why would it matter what code it was originally built under at all? If this were an electrical upgrade you wouldn't say that you should only have to design the electrical systems per the original code would you?

what would happen if you just build an entirely new building? Don't even attach it to the bleachers, put it at the entrance and call it an administration building and it just happen to have a bunch of toilets?

Asked and rejected. The bathrooms have to be sized for the area which they serve. It doesn't matter if those areas are inside or outside the new building.

Go to the board of appeals

Not going to happen. There wasn't even a design for this project. My firm isn't even going to be paid for the work we've done so far. All we can do is write a recommendation to the school that they not pursue a renovation at this time based on the AHJ's response. The one bit of good news is that there is supposed to be some great big bond measure up for vote which would let the school do a much more thorough renovation project. That's a ways off though so who knows...

 

[Mark K]

You should inform your client that the building department was acting arbitrarily and inconsistent with general practice in interpreting the building code. Suggest that if they want to build this project that they consult with an attorney. In my opinion you have a legal obligation to inform your client of the facts as you see them and what their options are. Also inform your client that when you pushed back the city retaliated by threatening to increase the occupant load.

There are other things that the school can do.

At the next event at this stadium place a banner over the entrance to the toilets that lets those in attendance know that the Building Department's unreasonable demands prevented the school from increasing the number of plumbing fixtures. Make sure you have press coverage.

If the current facilities are not fully ADA compliant let the local handicapped community know that the building department was standing in the way of providing more accessible facilities.

 

[kilitact]

It appears that the building official is right on target with the use of code. If you can come up with some code (other than vague interpretations) that would support your position than the building official or an appeal would support your position. good luck.

 

[lpiburn]

It appears that the building official is right on target with the use of code.

I appreciate the viewpoint. If you don't mind could you explain your reasoning a bit more?

I think we both understand that my proposal is definitely a deviation from code. The book says so many fixtures, I want to put less. However, the purpose of the fixture count requirements is to promote adequate sanitation facilities. In this case, sticking with the strict interpretation actually prevents the school from providing adequate facilities.

Instead of making some improvement to sanitation, none is made. How does this serve the purpose of the code?

 

[SCBO1]

lpiburn,

"It's Swingline Red Stapler Time!"

Try removing a bunch of bleachers and designate them as wheel chair seating reducing your butt count it doable!

pc1

 

[jdfruit]

It appears there are two distinct opinions in this thread;

Existing building code is applicable so the restroom project can be as first proposed since the existing + new are no less compliant than current existing.

Current code in effect applies for fixture count as restrooms are removed and replaced.

It is up to the AHJ to determine if the project will be considered as a "facility" for compliance overall due to multiple structures OR if considered building by building separately for compliance.

Any pro or con arguments to either opinion need to directly address the fundamental reasoning first. So far I haven't seen enough on either opinion to say which is correct.

Try and convince me, the Devil's Advocate.

 

[mjesse]

In this case, sticking with the strict interpretation actually prevents the school from providing adequate facilities.

Try and convince me, the Devil's Advocate.

Existing conditions have presumably been in place for many years.

Facilities are in need of repair/replacement due to age.

I don't remember seeing the existing fixture count, but let's say 5 for the sake of argument.

Applicant wants to improve existing conditions, possibly add ADA compliant stall(s)

Using current Code requirements, AHJ demands 50 fixtures.

Applicant cannot afford to "comply", project is abandoned.

Existing facilities continue their decline until it being shut down by the AHJ and/or health department.

Unusable, decaying facility erodes into darkness. Nearby property values decrease, urban decay follows. Can't demolish/rebuild facilities without increasing tax rate, school eliminates sports programs. Parents move their kids to other districts/private schools with better programs and facilities. Municipality loses tax base...etc., etc.

 

[mjesse]

Alternate situation:

AHJ allows reconstruction of similarly sized facilities as proposed.

No one is adversely impacted, and facilities have been improved thereby making the place more compliant.

Go to the Appeals Board, state your case in a public forum, get the Community on board

 

[north star]

& + & + &

"Go to the Appeals Board, state your case in a public forum, get the Community on board"

**lpiburn** is already not being paid for his work so far [ see Post # 50 ].IMO, I would not be in such a hurry to to pursue more free gratis efforts.

Someone show me the money "UPFRONT" and then we can talk !

& + & + &

 

[mjesse]

& + & + &**lpiburn** is already not being paid for his work so far [ see Post # 50 ].

IMO, I would not be in such a hurry to to pursue more free gratis efforts.

Someone show me the money "UPFRONT" and then we can talk !

& + & + &

Well, I'm not suggesting LP personally go for the appeal. But he should certainly advise his client to do so.

As a businessperson, offering to represent your client in such an exercise could be beneficial.

 

[mtlogcabin]

It is time for the school district superidendent of schools, or what ever the title to have lunch with administrator for the AHJ. Things could be worked out from the top down to come up with an acceptable number

why would it matter what code it was originally built under at all?

Because that is where the required number of fixtures comes from for the existing facility and under the IEBC the AHJ cannot require more than what was required at the time of construction

 

[lpiburn]

Could you provide a reference for that? Because that might just satisfy the devil's advocate and the AHJ.

 

[kilitact]

It is time for the school district superidendent of schools, or what ever the title to have lunch with administrator for the AHJ. Things could be worked out from the top down to come up with an acceptable numberBecause that is where the required number of fixtures comes from for the existing facility and under the IEBC the AHJ cannot require more than what was required at the time of construction

From the OP. "The school wants to replace the little building with something code compliant" The IEBC and/or chapter 34 doesn't apply. Brand spanking new building is being proposed. A code compliant design needs to be submitted by the DOR.

 

[lpiburn]

Just to be clear, the school wants to replace the building, but we were looking at all possible alternatives, including addition, a renovation, etc. Add to that the fact that the restrooms are built underneath the bleachers and they could quite easily be defined as a part of the overall A-5 building so that the IEBC would apply.

 

[steveray]

The bathroom building is PART of the overall facility....IEBC...If they want to treat it as it's own building, give it enough fixtures (or more as seen fit) to cover the square foot/ OL of the "new" building per "new" code and tell them to go blank in their hat. Again, they can't have it both ways....

 

[kilitact]

Just to be clear, the school wants to replace the building, but we were looking at all possible alternatives, including addition, a renovation, etc. Add to that the fact that the restrooms are built underneath the bleachers and they could quite easily be defined as a part of the overall A-5 building so that the IEBC would apply.

Please explain is this a stand alone building, or structurally part of another building?

 

[lpiburn]

Here's a picture from behind the main bleachers. I hadn't posted it before because it didn't seem relevant. According to my AHJ it doesn't matter whether we go under the IEBC or the IBC, the new portion still has to comply, which in their opinion includes fixture counts.

View attachment 1133

View attachment 1133

/monthly_2015_01/PB126240.jpg.abd9bad7261c764f16a924774c12e41d.jpg

 

[kilitact]

Here's a picture from behind the main bleachers. I hadn't posted it before because it didn't seem relevant. According to my AHJ it doesn't matter whether we go under the IEBC or the IBC, the new portion still has to comply, which in their opinion includes fixture counts.View attachment 2526

I don't see this has falling under the IEBC.

The International Existing Building Code is a model code in the International Code family of codes intended to provide alternative approaches to remodeling, repair or alteration of existing buildings. A large number of existing buildings and structures do not comply with the current building code requirements for new construction. Although many of these buildings are potentially salvageable, rehabilitation is often cost-prohibitive because compliance with all the requirements for new construction could require extensive changes that go well beyond the value of the building or the original scope of the rehabilitation. At the same time, it is necessary to regulate construction in existing buildings that undergo additions, alterations, renovations, extensive repairs or change of occupancy. Such activity represents an opportunity to ensure that new construction complies with the current building codes and that existing conditions are maintained, at a minimum, to their current level of compliance or are improved as required to meet basic safety levels. To accomplish this objective, and to make the rehabilitation process easier, this code allows for options for controlled departure from full compliance with the International Codes dealing with new construction, while maintaining basic levels for fire prevention, structural and life safety features of the rehabilitated building.

This code provides three main options for a designer in dealing with rehabilitation of existing buildings. These are laid out in Section 301 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 4. 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 5 through 13.

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 14. 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