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.
I sincerely doubt that no alterations will be required.charlie said:I have a request to allow a hair salon to operate out of a (R-1) single family residence. There is to be no alterations to the building.
I would expect some plumbing and electrical work would be required. At the least, ventilation needs to change.brudgers said:I sincerely doubt that no alterations will be required.
Door width, probably structure for anything built off grade, hoods for cooking equipment - all sorts of stuff...like sprinklers for a building containing an R occupancy.iggentleman said:I would expect some plumbing and electrical work would be required. At the least, ventilation needs to change.
gbhammer said:IEBC 2009 605.2 exceptions: the provision for accessibility do not apply with alterations limited to electrical and mechanical alterations
Our local codes have been amended to not require a sprinkler system in R3 occupancies. Even if as I just noted the building is an R1 so long as it has less than ten occupants living in dwelling units then it can fall under R3.mtlogcabin said:As far as ADA our state ammendment for businesses located in a residence is almost word for word what Mark postedWe also do not require sprinklers in R occupancies of 8 dwelling units or less
Check local codes for ammendments
The new occupancy requires sprinklers because it is in a building with an R occupancy.gbhammer said:"The new occupancy as described in this OP (hair salon B use) would not require a sprinkler and even if it did only the area that has the new occupancy would be required to have the sprinkler system."
Me thinks that you are intentionally being obtuse. :shock:brudgers said:The new occupancy requires sprinklers because it is in a building with an R occupancy.
Section 419 would apply only if the RDP wants to use it. The RDP can classify the building in whatever manner he sees fit, mixed use is still allowed and the IEBC or chapter 34 of the IBC can be used. 419 is an option to a mixed use occupancy not a requirement.Big Mac said:Check out Section 419 / Live-work units
In so far as the new occupancy needs to comply with the IBC, 903.2.7 applies.gbhammer said:Me thinks that you are intentionally being obtuse. :shock: The Existing Building code is so very clear on the subject of whether or not a sprinkler is required, in the case where no alterations take place only the new occupancy applies the new occupancy with no consideration from the existing occupancy. Or you can follow mt’s thread through chapter 8 and come to the same conclusion.So you must just be playing dumb, because I know you’re smarter than the average dog. :roll:
Absolutely and if that new use (you know that new B use) needs a sprinkler systems then by golly it would get one, but not the rest of the existing building that has no alterations being done in it.brudgers said:In so far as the new occupancy needs to comply with the IBC, 903.2.7 applies.
Obviously and unsurprisingly, you did not read the cited code section.gbhammer said:Absolutely and if that new use (you know that new B use) needs a sprinkler systems then by golly it would get one, but not the rest of the existing building that has no alterations being done in it. A use group B may need a sprinkler system if it is an ambulatory health care facility or exceeds its height and area limitations for the type of construction, thats about it. The R3 if build before the 2009 codes does not trigger a sprinkler requirement if there are no alterations or limited (as described above) alterations.