type of constructoin Chapter 6

[joetheinspector]

Question: does the type of construction on the plans have to indicate the actual type of construction of the building?

Example: The design professional on a tenant improvement indicates on the plans the building is a VB. The building department knows that the building is a 2a.

However the design meets all the requirements of a VB.

Is this an acceptable type of construction to be listed on the plan submittal?

 

[Glennman CBO]

Re: type of constructoin Chapter 6

The plan submittal must indicate the approved building type of the original building, and the type of construction of the TI must be consistant with that type. Is the building actually a IIA, or does it simply have the characteristics of that type? The building can be approved as a VB, yet built with the materials that are found in a IIA (see section 602.1.1, 2006 IBC).

Now, what a person requires at plan submittal is one thing, and what actually has to be built may be another. How will it be verified that the type of construction is going to be maintained if it isn't reflected in the plans, and, how will the building inspector know what to look for during his inspections if the building types and approved materials are not in the plans?

 

[JBI]

Re: type of constructoin Chapter 6

Short answer: Yes.

Read the description of Type V construction. Any materials permitted by this code.

The advantage comes in the build out portion where some proposed work may not make the higher construction type. By declaring type V they may save $$$ on the interior work. Doesn't work the other way around though.

 

[barlovian]

Re: type of constructoin Chapter 6

If I have no idea of the construction type of an existing building, I usually assume that the designation made by the architect is correct. If I don’t know and the architect doesn’t know either, we assume that all new construction in the existing building must be non-combustible until an architect does the calculations. In some instances, there may be future plans for a building (an addition, a change in use from low- to moderate-hazard, or changes for mezzanines in unlimited area buildings) that could make what complies on the drawings today non-compliant with the ultimate plans for the building.

Usually I have records that tell me the building construction type originally designated by the designer of the shell building. If a subsequent architect submits drawings showing a lesser construction type, I inform the new architect of the discrepancy and ask for clarification. If the architect confirms that the intention is to change the building type, I require written authorization from the building owner as well as addition of “change of building construction type from ___ to ___” added to the description of work on the signed building permit application.

Shortly after I switched sides and started working as a plans reviewer, our State Fire Marshal told me a story about a plans reviewer in a neighboring jurisdiction. This county reviewer saw a sprinkler system called out on the drawings for a garden apartment complex and wrote to the permit applicant that the system was not required When the State Fire Marshal arrived to make his final inspection, the apartment buildings failed because the owner had not installed the fire sprinklers that were required by a (then new) state law. That was enough to convince me to never disregard requirements that the licensed design professional shows on drawings.

 

[TJacobs]

Re: type of constructoin Chapter 6

Here, if the shell building was designed, permitted and approved a IIA (with records on file) then I will inform the architect that the build-out must conform to IIA. If the architect wants to pay for a complete review of the shell building (and any existing tenant spaces) to determine the ramifications of changing to a VB and any conditions of approval, he'd have to ask the Building Commissioner.

 

[Mule]

Re: type of constructoin Chapter 6

This is similar, sort-of, to an earlier post on permit fees based on type of construction. Some interesting discussion.

The topic is HERE

 

[Gene Boecker]

Re: type of construction Chapter 6

The type of construction that is listed can always be less than what the actual type is. You can build the entire structure with steel and concrete and call it Type V. That way, if they want to add a wood roof or use wood for the interior framing it's possible. But, once the building is presented and approved as a Type V it will be very, difficult to get it to be a higher type shoudl that be desired at a later date.

 

[brudgers]

Re: type of constructoin Chapter 6

If the building meets the requirements of the type listed on the design documents, then it meets code.

Sign off of construction type by the building Owner is not a building code requirement.

The code official's job is to review the plans under the current code, not propose design options.

The very idea that the existing construction type should be determined based on a yellowed piece of paper in a file rather than analysis of actual conditions under the current code and project requirements is horrible public policy.

Although there are analogs of UBC, SBC, and Boca construction types in IBC, there is no such thing as an accurate translation table. That's why the "existing construction type" is determined by the current code.

BTW, I have seen code officials assign a construction type based on materials, particularly when they are using construction type to estimate project costs as the basis of plan review fees, e.g. CMU walls and wood truss roof = Type III (even if your building is 6000 square feet). I know of building departments where this was in fact policy for many years.

 

[brudgers]

Re: type of constructoin Chapter 6

Here, if the shell building was designed, permitted and approved a IIA (with records on file) then I will inform the man with pencil who draw that the build-out must conform to IIA. If the man with pencil who draw wants to pay for a complete review of the shell building (and any existing tenant spaces) to determine the ramifications of changing to a VB and any conditions of approval, he'd have to ask the Building Commissioner.

How do you determine the construction type for a fifteen year old building (i.e. one not built under the IBC)?

 

[barlovian]

Re: type of constructoin Chapter 6

Well, for starters, if the building was constructed to be Type 5B construction 15 years ago, it is unlikely to be anything other than Type Vb today.

And, if it was 2C 15 years ago, it will probably meet IIb today. I say "probably" only because the building could have been altered without a permit.

These generalizations will cover 95% of the building permit applications that I see from that era and allow me to spend my time on the more complicated questions.

 

[Gene Boecker]

Re: type of constructoin Chapter 6

The code official's job is to review the plans under the current code, not propose design options.The very idea that the existing construction type should be determined based on a yellowed piece of paper in a file rather than analysis of actual conditions under the current code and project requirements is horrible public policy.

BTW, I have seen code officials assign a construction type based on materials, particularly when they are using construction type to estimate project costs as the basis of plan review fees, e.g. CMU walls and wood truss roof = Type III (even if your building is 6000 square feet). I know of building departments where this was in fact policy for many years.

I have to mildly disagree with the first statement. The code official's responsibility is to review the plans presented - not second guess the designer.

But, I agree wholeheartedly that the building needs to meet current code. It would be wise to have the building inspected by either the local inspector or by an outside consultant/inspector (paid for by the design team - not under permit fees) before construction begins to verify field conditions so that when the inspector comes out and sees something that's not right, it's no big surprise to everyone involved.

Oh, and I also agree that the fee valuation table should be used with prudence. If the building is all concrete and steel but the designer is saying that its a Type V building (for whatever reason) then the fee should be based on the nearest "actual" construction type - not what's listed on the code block. Check how your ordinance/policy is written.

 

[brudgers]

Re: type of constructoin Chapter 6

Well, for starters, if the building was constructed to be Type 5B construction 15 years ago, it is unlikely to be anything other than Type Vb today.And, if it was 2C 15 years ago, it will probably meet IIb today. I say "probably" only because the building could have been altered without a permit.

These generalizations will cover 95% of the building permit applications that I see from that era and allow me to spend my time on the more complicated questions.

The issue isn't if a building constructed as 2c in 1995 meets IIb today.

The issue is does the building meet the requirements of the construction type proposed by the design professional.

IIb construction may not be necessary due to the differences between the old code and the new one (or the original occupancy and the current one)...or the original designation as 2c may have been based on unrealized assumptions, over classification (more common than one would hope), or other reasons having no bearing on the current proposal.

 

[brudgers]

Re: type of constructoin Chapter 6

I have to mildly disagree with the first statement. The code official's responsibility is to review the plans presented - not second guess the designer. But, I agree wholeheartedly that the building needs to meet current code. It would be wise to have the building inspected by either the local inspector or by an outside consultant/inspector (paid for by the design team - not under permit fees) before construction begins to verify field conditions so that when the inspector comes out and sees something that's not right, it's no big surprise to everyone involved.

Oh, and I also agree that the fee valuation table should be used with prudence. If the building is all concrete and steel but the designer is saying that its a Type V building (for whatever reason) then the fee should be based on the nearest "actual" construction type - not what's listed on the code block. Check how your ordinance/policy is written.

If the building official has a statutory authority to require a pre-inspection and charge for it, that's a great idea.

Otherwise, it's a good time for a deposition...the Mayor is probably the most expedient place to start.

 

[texasbo]

Re: type of constructoin Chapter 6

Brudgers said:

If the building official has a statutory authority to require a pre-inspection and charge for it, that's a great idea.Otherwise, it's a good time for a deposition...the Mayor is probably the most expedient place to start

I guess I'm confused about when the Building Official would not have the statutory authority to require an evaluation of an existing building to determine compliance at the owners expense. Do you mean like if the city deleted Section 3410.4, 2006 IBC by amendment?

 

[brudgers]

Re: type of constructoin Chapter 6

Brudgers said:

If the building official has a statutory authority to require a pre-inspection and charge for it, that's a great idea.Otherwise, it's a good time for a deposition...the Mayor is probably the most expedient place to start

I guess I'm confused about when the Building Official would not have the statutory authority to require an evaluation of an existing building to determine compliance at the owners expense. Do you mean like if the city deleted Section 3410.4, 2006 IBC by amendment?

Normally the owner would cause the required evaluation of the existing building systems as part of the architectural services.

There's nothing in there that allows the building department to charge the Owner should the building department decide to conduct a pre-inspection (and the Owner allow them to conduct one)...and certainly nothing that requires the Owner to conduct additional investigation beyond what would be typical for architectural services.

Even if the code official thinks architects are nincompoops, from a legal standpoint there isn't a more qualified group of experts than the architect and his design team.

 

[MarkRandall]

Re: type of constructoin Chapter 6

First, if nobody knows the construction type of the shell, somebody (design professional) needs to do an analysis and that should be submitted as part of the review. If it is not provided, the plan reviewer should request an analysis of the existing building type. Once the analysis is done or if the original type is known, the Tenant Improvement shall meet those requirements.

If the shell is 2a, then tenant improvement is 2a. If the shell is 5b, then tenant improvement is 5b. You can not mix construction types without having separation between the construction types.

Let me add one more thing. If the shell was 2a and calculations work as 5b, you can downgrade the construction type. But it's difficult to ever go back to a higher level. I always provide the lowest possible construction type on a shell unless I know future plans would require a higher construction type. I frequently design all steel construction buildings as type Vb even though it could be classified higher.

 

[JBI]

Re: type of constructoin Chapter 6

"from a legal standpoint there isn't a more qualified group of experts than the man with pencil who draw and his design team."

Actually, no. From a legal standpoint the only opinion that matters is the Code Officials'.

And as for 'deposition' time, you haven't gone through the administrative appeals process as yet, therefore your lawsuit is not 'ripe for judicial review at this time'.

brudgers, please stop dispensing poor legal advice... this forum is for building code professionals and building code issues. If you want to sue everybody for having a different opinion, then go back to school, get your law degree and open a law office. Until then we'd appreciate it if you would play nice with the other members, thank you.

 

[Mule]

Re: type of constructoin Chapter 6

Even if the code official thinks architects are nincompoops, from a legal standpoint there isn't a more qualified group of experts than the man with pencil who draw and his design team.

Any proof to back up this statement? I'm talking about the "more qualified group of experts than the man with pencil who draw and his design team", not the "code official that thinks architects are nincompoops". That's a known fact!

 

[brudgers]

Re: type of constructoin Chapter 6

Even if the code official thinks architects are nincompoops, from a legal standpoint there isn't a more qualified group of experts than the man with pencil who draw and his design team.

Any proof to back up this statement? I'm talking about the "more qualified group of experts than the man with pencil who draw and his design team", not the "code official that thinks architects are nincompoops". That's a known fact!

What sort of professional are you proposing as more qualified to analyze an existing building than an architect?

 

[brudgers]

Re: type of constructoin Chapter 6

"from a legal standpoint there isn't a more qualified group of experts than the man with pencil who draw and his design team." Actually, no. From a legal standpoint the only opinion that matters is the Code Officials'.

And as for 'deposition' time, you haven't gone through the administrative appeals process as yet, therefore your lawsuit is not 'ripe for judicial review at this time'.

brudgers, please stop dispensing poor legal advice... this forum is for building code professionals and building code issues. If you want to sue everybody for having a different opinion, then go back to school, get your law degree and open a law office. Until then we'd appreciate it if you would play nice with the other members, thank you.

At some point, building code officials need to realize that they are just one hurdle in the entitlement process.

The goal is not winning the case, it's moving the project forward.

As with any bureaucracy, the path of least resistance typically prevails.

Thus bringing political pressure onto the code official, and radically expanding the loss of efficiency associated with the project create disincentives for obstructionist code interpretations.

Bog the building official down with meetings for "the sake of working things out."

Of course keep up a steady stream of written correspondence.

And whatever you do, pretend there is no impasse so you can keep requiring additional responses.

 

[peach]

Re: type of constructoin Chapter 6

Section 602:

A building or portion thereof shall not be required to conform to the details of a type of construction higher than the type of construction higher than that type, which meets the minimum requirements based on occupancy even though certain featuires of such a building actually conform to a higher type of construction.

That means.. even if looks like type 2 construction.. if it can be a type V, it's a type V.

 

[texasbo]

Re: type of constructoin Chapter 6

Brudgers said:

As with any bureaucracy, the path of least resistance typically prevails.

And that path is code compliance. Yet time and time again, we are faced with the proverbial Man with Pencil Who Choose the path less traveled...

 

[MarkRandall]

Re: type of constructoin Chapter 6

if it can be a type V, it's a type V.

Peach, I mostly agree with you as that is my philosophy with one exception. As the lead design professional, I may know more about a project than the plans examinar, contractor or even my own consultants. I may know that it is likely they'll do an addition 5 maybe 10 years down the road. If I state on my drawings that the project is to be built type 2a, that's the way it is to be built, nobody gets to second guess it. It may not be required at this time, but I may know it'll be required when phase II or phase III comes around.

The key word in section 602 is "required". It's not required to conform to a higher type of construction, but if I say it's type 2a, it is type 2a even if type 5b may work.

 

[brudgers]

Re: type of constructoin Chapter 6

if it can be a type V, it's a type V.

Peach, I mostly agree with you as that is my philosophy with one exception. As the lead design professional, I may know more about a project than the plans examinar, contractor or even my own consultants. I may know that it is likely they'll do an addition 5 maybe 10 years down the road. If I state on my drawings that the project is to be built type 2a, that's the way it is to be built, nobody gets to second guess it. It may not be required at this time, but I may know it'll be required when phase II or phase III comes around.

The key word in section 602 is "required". It's not required to conform to a higher type of construction, but if I say it's type 2a, it is type 2a even if type 5b may work.

It's only 2a at the time it's built.

After that it's an existing building and must be evaluated based on what is actually present in the field and whatever is required by the future code.

If there is future expansion planned, what matters is the construction not the classification.