R-2

[cda]

What is this "live/work R-2" thing?? in the 2009

see any potential problems for abuse of this type??

can you have a stand alone (single) r-2 live/work???

 

[mtlogcabin]

can you have a stand alone (single) r-2 live/work???

2009 IRC R101.2 Scope.

Exception: Live/work units complying with the requirements of Section 419 of the International Building Code shall be permitted to be built as one- and two-family dwellings or townhouses. Fire suppression required by Section 419.5 of the International Building Code when constructed under the International Residential Code for One- and Two-family Dwellings shall conform to Section 903.3.1.3 of the International Building Code .

 

[cda]

I guess there maybe some zoning issues with these things???

 

[Papio Bldg Dept]

If we adopt the 2009 IRC, we will most likely not adopt the sprinkler requirements. Not sure how we would look at it under the 2009, in that regard, but currently, we do require occupancy separations, as required by the 2006 IBC. As CDA mentioned, this does present all kinds of zoning issues, and usually we end up with a lively city council meeting or two and a special use permit being issued. Accessibility is another touchy point. I have been accussed of hindering small business and the right to work for enforcing the code. There is never cheese with the whine, and we usually get a nice long list of neighbors who are doing the same work/live (usually salons and lawncare businesses) without compliance or permits. Fun for everybody.

 

[MarkRandall]

Accessibility for a new live/work unit shouldn't be a big deal. It's just not that hard to provide when you plan for it. But using an existing residence for home/work unit is a double edged sword. (Using Papio uses he mentions) On one side, you have a salon where the customer must come to your location for services...makes total sense to me to be accessible. On the other side, what need does a lawn care business have with accessibility? Lawn care is performed somewhere else and all that happens in the live/work unit is bookkeeping/phone calls by the operator of the business...I see little need for accessibility, so what's the point.

I have a part time architectural business from my home and have had two clients who were disabled (in wheelchair). Accessibility has never been an issue. I generally meet with my clients at their location and very few of my clients (disabled or not) visit my work location. I see little reason to comply. I've never done any comprehensive study of ADA to see what is actually required for a home based business, but in general my feeling is ADA should not apply to all home based business.

 

[mark handler]

LIVE/WORK UNITS

Specific requirements for live/work units -including accessibility- are established for the first time in IBC 2009.

Under the new Section 419 in IBC 2009, a live/work unit is defined as a dwelling unit or sleeping unit in which a significant portion of the space includes a nonresidential use that is operated by the tenant.

Although live/work units are not considered mixed occupancies and are classified as Group R-2 occupancies, residential and nonresidential uses have different requirements when it comes to accessibility.

According to the new Section 1103.2.13, the portion of the live/work unit utilized for nonresidential use must be accessible, while the residential portion of the unit must be evaluated separately according to the accessibility requirements of Group R-2 occupancies.

http://www.madcad.com/newsletters/sep09/newsletter-sep-09-web.html

 

[Papio Bldg Dept]

Mark, I believe our zoning allows home based businesses which use less than 10% of the habitable floor area and don't have public visitation or on site employment are considered accessory to the residential occupancy. In most cases that would apply to a lawn care service or at home architect such as yourself. When I first started as an architectural intern, we worked in the architects walk-out basement. In that case, with employees/interns, I would recommend accessibility compliance.

 

[mtlogcabin]

Here is our state requirement. Goes along with what MarkRandall stated

(f) Business or commercial occupancies which are open to the public and located in portions of a private residence are required to be accessible even if those portions used for the business or commercial purposes are also used for residential purposes. The accessibility requirements extend to and include an accessible route from the sidewalk, through the doorway, through the hallway and other portions of the home, such as restrooms, used by clients and customers of the business or commercial occupancy.

 

[mtlogcabin]

When I first started as an architectural intern, we worked in the architects walk-out basement

Only if needed "Reasonable Accomodations" for employees would come to mind

 

[Architect1281]

saw enough problems in RI to DELETE it entirely from the IRC

way to liberal a work area in residentially ZONED properties

 

[garrett]

saw enough problems in RI to DELETE it entirely from the IRC way to liberal a work area in residentially ZONED properties

Really? That is ridiculous. What if someone wanted to build a live/work facility on an appropriately zoned parcel?

Just because there is a section in the code on live/work units it does not mean they would automatically be a permitted use everywhere.

Land-use codes and design-review commissions can easily control where these things are allowed.

I can't believe you would delete something from code like that.

It's not your department.

Maybe you should rethink your logic. Live/work is a great building type, get with the times.

 

[mtlogcabin]

Just because there is a section in the code on live/work units it does not mean they would automatically be a permitted use everywhere

Agree the building code defines all kinds of uses but never says where they are permitted. That is up to the local AHJ.

 

[Architect1281]

The live work cross link to the IRC as an exception in 101.2 to allow Live Work units to comply with the IRC was deleted. They still exist in RI within the IBC 419 but must remain within the IBC and cannot use the IRC as 1 & 2 Family or even townhouse.

We have several Mills that use Artist Loft type Live Work and have done well in conversions for years with the RI REHAB - almost IEBC type code

commercial code better control better results.

 

[garrett]

Ahhh. Thanks for your explanation. I still wonder if it is the right move to do so, but I see your point. Hopefully what it does is helps to ensure licensed professionals are the ones working on the project, rather than an inexperienced owner-building trying to pull off something that could endanger the public.

 

[Francis Vineyard]

see any potential problems for abuse of this type??

We've a number of units already in existence and probably been there since the early 1900s. Fire Marshals don't like it because they will get confuse seeing locks on egress doors and not able to inspect the private residential portion. Another problem is how do you monitor the use of the dwelling converting into an apartment?

In my code update training the Fire Marshal use the City of Charlottesville as an example.

Think this is the payback for the sprinkler provision in the IRC but Virginia deleted that out anyhow.

 

[peach]

R2 are always going to be built by the IBC... which is what is required by the IRC for live work units.