Single R3 in a mixed use

[Sifu]

Existing building, just a few years old, under the same code administered when it was originally constructed. 2 story, VB, NFPA 13, non-sep. mixed use B,M,S1,A2 (A2 most restrictive). 2 suites were left unfinished core shell spaces, main suite consistes of a small warehouse, offices, conference room. Proposal now to make one of the 2 unfinished units an apartment (they call it a "caretaker suite"). Does not work as a live-work due to the restrictions. A few questions for a meeting today:

-Would this be an R3, with no effect on the mixed use? Inside the dwelling unit is a private garage, no common walls between the garage space and the commercial use space. Is that a group U private garage?

-Bedroom is on the 2nd story, it has a door to a large balcony but must re-enter the commercial space to exit the building and no openable windows. Needs an EERO correct?

-Accessibility to and within the R3 not required since less than 4 units correct?

I don't do P&Z. It is currently zoned light industrial, not sure they will allow it, but ASSUME so for the sake of the questions.

 

[Joe.B]

My immediate reaction is a hard NO, but I can't find a specific code citation to back it up, so... No citation, no violation...

 

[steveray]

Still needs to be separated....Needs an EERO unless 2 MOE, is the "balcony" interior?

 

[Sifu]

I see no existential issues, just some technical issues they will need to overcome such as separation, EERO, energy and other plan details. Balcony is on one end, enclosed by solid 42" height walls about 16' above grade, no MOE off it except back in the door from which they arrived, through the bedroom.

BUT

In typical P&Z bureaucratic fashion this is already way beyond the tire-kicking phase, they are ready to put forth complete construction documents. Until I brought up whether it was allowed by zoning. Apparently there is a "caretaker" provision in the zoning, which after hearing them describe they don't meet, but were told by planning they do meet back in the tire-kicking phase (before large amounts of time and money were invested). And of course zoning doesn't define or describe what a caretaker is, or how many. The ordinance refers to everything in the singular (caretaker, tenant, owner rather than caretaker(s), tenant(s) and owner(s)), but no other limitations, descriptions or definitions. It also only allows these units to be on the upper floors, but this is lower and upper. How do they write LAWS without such clarity?

So now zoning needs to contort themselves to cover their mistake, and wants to put restrictions on use, occupants etc. I told them to do whatever they want, I will review what is submitted as an R3 and they can deal with the future violations of their restrictions. I don't know if their restrictions are enforceable, or even legal but that's not under my purview.

IMHO this is way more than what the caretaker ordinance intended, but it's their law, not mine. It is a 2,200sf² complete dwelling unit with an 800sf² balcony adjacent to the business, but with no communication to it. They said it was to deter theft at the landscape yard. A fence and Doberman would be cheaper but wouldn't generate income in the winter I guess.

Typically I get involved when someone from zoning said they could do something that violates building code. In this case, someone from zoning said they could do something that violates zoning, so I am in the rare position of not being the bad guy. Yet.