Sleeping room(s) in a Fire Station

[righter101]

I thought this topic had been discussed, but I scrolled pages of old posts and couldn't find it, so my apologies if we have hashed it out. Guess every once in a while you need a new dead horse to beat.

Small Fire Station, not quite done. Built under 2006 I codes.

Lower floor has truck bay (S2) and an office, restroom, and kitchen (B).

Upstairs was origially storage/office. They revised the plans and changed the upstairs to 2 "sleeping rooms". Included with this are 2 restrooms. One has a shower, one does not.

The upstairs is less than 3000 square feet so an accessible route is not required.

Originally I classifed these rooms as "R2", however, in re-reading the code, it seems they could be R2 or R3.

Questions are these:

What is the appropriate occupancy classification for sleeping rooms at fire stations.???

They want to eliminate one of the upper floor restrooms (which is fine, given the plumbing occupant load (CH 29 is heavily ammended by the State of Washington).

Did I error in allowing the restroom on the 2nd floor with a shower given that there is not one on the lower floor??

I am reading IBC 1106 and 1107 and trying to decipher this one.

Feedback appreciated. This might be a good post for accessibilty as well, but the occupant load question drove me here.

thanks.

 

[righter101]

I think I figured this one out on my own.

I reread the occupancy classificaitons for R2 and R3. It seems that this could be considered a "congregate living facility with less than 16 occupants" and therefore an R3.

As such, 1107 for "R3" only addresses instances with 4 or more sleeping units. Since that is not the case, it would not apply.

Then 1109.2 for "toilet and bathing facilities", per exception #2, when not required by 1107, would remove this requirement.

I think I answered my own question.

Hope all is well with everyone today.

 

[syarn]

r-1...??

http://www.dos.ny.gov/DCEA/pdf/firestaticlassified.pdf

 

[cda]

r-something

did they sprinkle it???

 

[righter101]

r-somethingdid they sprinkle it???

Yes it has been sprinkled. This was done when they added the residential portion, regardless of which R.

The R1 vs R2 vs R3 will dictate the upstairs shower question.

The R occupancies seem to have some reasonable delineations between them, however, they do have areas that cross between the two.

I considered the residents non-transitory. The commentary for these sections seems to suggest that the familiarity or unfamiliarity with a building will be important in its construction based on occupancy.

It seemed reasonable for this to be considered non-transitory. You will have the same guys week in and week out living here.

With only 2 rooms, i came up with an occupant load less than 16 and went with R3, per the R2 definition.

 

[cda]

r-1 firefighters are transient, but that would also kick you to r-3 for ten or fewer

 

[righter101]

r-1 firefighters are transient, but that would also kick you to r-3 for ten or fewer

Interesting point. I can see it both ways. You are correct, either way, it can be an R3.

Would it be a stretch to call these "live/work" units??

 

[cda]

Yes it is a stretch if I remember the definition correctly

 

[Builder Bob]

This may be ok per the builcing codes ...however,as a title 2 building, they may have ADA issues that they might need to re-visit...

 

[GBrackins]

you may want to review this previous post concerning fire stations and ADA requirements

http://www.inspectpa.com/forum/showthread.php?8107-Fire-Station-vs-accessibility&highlight=fire+station

 

[righter101]

you may want to review this previous post concerning fire stations and ADA requirementshttp://www.inspectpa.com/forum/showthread.php?8107-Fire-Station-vs-accessibility&highlight=fire+station

Thanks for the followup, I couldn't find those posts myself. I read them in their entirety. This seems to be another case of me being correct in my application of the building code but the building not meeting all of the ADA standards. This is due in large part to us not being charged with ADA enforcement.

They have a bathroom on the lower floor, fully accessible.

They have a bathroom on the upper floor, fully accessible, includes a shower.

They do not have a ramp or elevator to get to the 2nd floor becaue of the <3000 square foot exception.

Since the units on the upper floor do not require an accessible route to get to, it is then ok to have the only shower in the building on the upper floor.

They meet the IBC letter of the law but may or may not fall short in ADA compliance.

We have this issue on a number of other things.

 

[mtlogcabin]

Since the units on the upper floor do not require an accessible route to get to, it is then ok to have the only shower in the building on the upper floor.

No the shower needs to be on the accessible floor

2009 IBC

1109.2 Toilet and bathing facilities

. Each toilet room and bathing room shall be accessible . Where a floor level is not required to be connected by an accessible route , the only toilet rooms or bathing rooms provided within the facility shall not be located on the inaccessible floor.

 

[righter101]

No the shower needs to be on the accessible floor2009 IBC

1109.2 Toilet and bathing facilities

. Each toilet room and bathing room shall be accessible . Where a floor level is not required to be connected by an accessible route , the only toilet rooms or bathing rooms provided within the facility shall not be located on the inaccessible floor.

What about exception #2 that states "This section is not applicable to toilet and bathing

rooms that serve dwelling units or sleeping units that

are not required to be accessible by Section 1107."

I used 1107 and determined that these "dwelling/sleeping units" (R3 as R1 w/ <10 occupants), would not need to be accessible sleeping/dwelling. Therefore, to me, exception 2 would apply and 1109.2 would not apply.???