• Welcome to the new and improved Building Code Forum. We appreciate you being here and hope that you are getting the information that you need concerning all codes of the building trades. This is a free forum to the public due to the generosity of the Sawhorses, Corporate Supporters and Supporters who have upgraded their accounts. If you would like to have improved access to the forum please upgrade to Sawhorse by first logging in then clicking here: Upgrades

R2 vs R3 occupancy

R

righter101

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2009
Messages
604
I have a 22 unit apartment complex.

There are 8 separate buildings.

3 of the buildings each have 4 individual 1 bedroom apartments. This would clearly make them R2.

The remaining 5 only have 2 individual apartments (2 and 3 bedrooms units).

Are those considered R3 because they "do not contain more than 2 dwelling units".

Or are they still considered R2 beacuse R2 specifically refers to "apartment houses" and R3 refers to "not classified as ....R2...."

I think they are all R2.

But then again I may be wrong.
 
If they were built as duplex even if the property owner is calling them apartments for rent I wouldn't think that makes them R-2's.
 
What they are, primarily depends on how they are designed and which code was used for design. The two-unit buildings certainly could have been designed using the IRC. This would make them detached two-unit dwellings, not R-3's.

It is possible that the four unit buildings could be desinged using the IRC also, but then they would need to qualify as townhouses. No likely for 1-unit dwellings. If designed as townhouses using the IRC, they would need to provide two one-hour walls between each of the units. Once again, townhouses are not R-3, they are townhouses.

If they design using only one-hour walls between units, the design would be governed by the IBC.
 
didn't we just have this cussion??

SECTION 302

CLASSIFICATION

302.1 Gen eral. Structures or portions of structures shall be

classified with respect to occupancy in one or more of the

groups listed below. Structures with multiple uses shall be classified

according to Section 302.3. Where a structure is proposed

for a purpose which is not specifically provided for in

this code, such structure shall be classified in the group which

the occupancy most nearly resembles, according to the fire

safety and relative hazard involved.

http://www.inspectpa.com/forum/showthread.php?7567-R1-Occupancy-or-IRC-residential-structure
 
cda said:
didn't we just have this cussion??SECTION 302

CLASSIFICATION

302.1 Gen eral. Structures or portions of structures shall be

classified with respect to occupancy in one or more of the

groups listed below. Structures with multiple uses shall be classified

according to Section 302.3. Where a structure is proposed

for a purpose which is not specifically provided for in

this code, such structure shall be classified in the group which

the occupancy most nearly resembles, according to the fire

safety and relative hazard involved.

http://www.inspectpa.com/forum/showthread.php?7567-R1-Occupancy-or-IRC-residential-structure
Click to expand...
I started that last thread about a different project.

If you look at the buildings with 2 dwellings, they could, by themselves, be considered "2 family dwellings" or an R3, except that the R3 language specifically refers to only those R occupancies that do not fit in to any of the other catagories.

That is why I feel they would be R2, I just wanted to bounce that off everyone.

Also, that last discussion had a fairly divided opinion on the classificaiton.
 
I think though it gets lost in

occupancy type vs do you build to IBC or IRC

is it a motel or is it a house
 
I have a 22 unit apartment complex.There are 8 separate buildings.
Click to expand...
IBC will require "B" type accessible units

IRC will require nothing accessible

No matter what occupany group you decide to classify them in or what code is used I believe Fair Housing will still be applicable if it is one complex.

CYA and advise the owner/designer
 
For the sake of arguement, lets say this is a new permit, not an existing facility. If they are proposing 30 buildings that have 2 units (2 and 3 bedroom apts.) and then 40 buildings that have 4 units but are only 1 bedroom units, you believe that the 30 buildings can be built under the IRC, and the 40 buildings would need to be built under the IBC as R2's.

I guess I get confused when the IBC says the # of accessible units must be distributed amongst the various "types" of units. How could you require one of the IRC structures to provide accessibility? Just tell the disabled folks that they are limited to 1 bedroom apartments because Brugers says so? Shouldn't we apply the most restrictive code when a conflict exists?

Seems like a flaw in the book, not my reading of it, but......
 
righter101 said:
For the sake of arguement, lets say this is a new permit, not an existing facility. If they are proposing 30 buildings that have 2 units (2 and 3 bedroom apts.) and then 40 buildings that have 4 units but are only 1 bedroom units, you believe that the 30 buildings can be built under the IRC, and the 40 buildings would need to be built under the IBC as R2's. I guess I get confused when the IBC says the # of accessible units must be distributed amongst the various "types" of units. How could you require one of the IRC structures to provide accessibility? Just tell the disabled folks that they are limited to 1 bedroom apartments because Brugers says so? Shouldn't we apply the most restrictive code when a conflict exists? Seems like a flaw in the book, not my reading of it, but......
Click to expand...
The accessibility requirements of the IBC apply to buildings or structures constructed under the IBC. Buildings or structures constructed under the IRC are outside it's scope.

FHA has its own scope, as does the ADA.

The Owner is responsible for complying with both in so far as the project falls within their scope.

Even though the building department is not necessarily responsible for enforcing them.

If you need clarification, I recommend sitting down with your jurisdiction's attorney and asking for her legal opinion.

BTW, discriminating against the disabled is the Owner's job, not yours.
 
brudgers said:
The accessibility requirements of the IBC apply to buildings or structures constructed under the IBC. Buildings or structures constructed under the IRC are outside it's scope.

FHA has its own scope, as does the ADA.

The Owner is responsible for complying with both in so far as the project falls within their scope.

Even though the building department is not necessarily responsible for enforcing them.

If you need clarification, I recommend sitting down with your jurisdiction's attorney and asking for her legal opinion.

BTW, discriminating against the disabled is the Owner's job, not yours.
Click to expand...
Point taken. Thank you for laying that out for me.
 
IRC buildings, not IBC. Doesn't matter if they are meant for rental or ownership.

We don't enforce Fair Housing (federal government), however, it's maybe not a bad idea to tell them that compliance with the IRC isn't safe harbor for ADA compliance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top