# Grey Box Finish



## gbhammer (Dec 13, 2011)

How do the AHJ's on this site handle grey box finishes?


----------



## permitguy (Dec 13, 2011)

What is a grey box finish?


----------



## gbhammer (Dec 13, 2011)

Where some one builds the shell of a building, stubs in the utilities, leaves a portion of the floor un-poured for future plumbing, and as tenant spaces are leased they complete just that space.


----------



## permitguy (Dec 13, 2011)

Gotcha!

Certificate of completion for the shell (no occupancy permitted).

Individual plan reviews and permits for the tenant improvements, with Certificates of Occupancy issued to each upon completion.


----------



## Mac (Dec 13, 2011)

After Planning approves the zoning and site plan, we issue one building permit for the building & infrastructure, then individual permits for each tenant space build-out.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Dec 13, 2011)

Same as permitguy


----------



## north star (Dec 13, 2011)

** * * **

gb,

The "grey box finish" in this AHJ, in addition to what the others

have stated, would include an architectural review board approval

...a planning commission approval and the elected officials

approval.....Here, they want to know what the Grey Box "finished

product" is going to look like........A lot of variables are addressed

here before a the project is actually permitted!.......Things like

aesthetics, ...sidewalks, ...landscaping, ...color schemes, ...utility

locations [ i.e. - above grade or below grade electrical power ],

...signage, ...customer, as well as, emergency resources access to

the site and other.

FWIW, around these parts, these type projects are referred

to as "vanilla box" projects.....Plain, ...no frills, ...unfinished!

** * * **


----------



## fatboy (Dec 13, 2011)

We call them white box, as they typically are sheetrocked at demising walls. Same as permit guy and others.


----------



## gbhammer (Dec 13, 2011)

fatboy said:
			
		

> We call them white box, as they typically are sheetrocked at demising walls. Same as permit guy and others.


We have always allowed a no frill white box; where things are finished to the absolute minimum, such as just the rough in and all the drywall taped. The grey box will be a bit new, where they will only have to finish the shell with open walls and floors, sewer; water stubbed 5' into building, and minimum heat and power. We never issued or had on the books the ability to issue occupancy certs, and now we can so grey box will work. We think.


----------



## iggentleman (Dec 13, 2011)

gbhammer said:
			
		

> We have always allowed a no frill white box; where things are finished to the absolute minimum, such as just the rough in and all the drywall taped. The grey box will be a bit new, where they will only have to finish the shell with open walls and floors, sewer; water stubbed 5' into building, and minimum heat and power.....


I've always called that a "cold dark box." Very common around here.


----------



## brudgers (Dec 13, 2011)

fatboy said:
			
		

> We call them white box, as they typically are sheetrocked at demising walls. Same as permit guy and others.


  White box is different because the tenant build out need not include MEP - though it can.  Basically, white box, means that a the space could be occupied more or less as is, though, most tenants will modify the configuration at least somewhat.


----------



## gbhammer (Dec 13, 2011)

brudgers said:
			
		

> White box is different because the tenant build out need not include MEP - though it can.  Basically, white box, means that a the space could be occupied more or less as is, though, most tenants will modify the configuration at least somewhat.


thats how we see a white box


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (Dec 14, 2011)

permitguy said:
			
		

> Gotcha!Certificate of completion for the shell (no occupancy permitted).
> 
> Individual plan reviews and permits for the tenant improvements, with Certificates of Occupancy issued to each upon completion.


same as permit guy.  in addition we allow both types of permits to occur simultaneously with CO for the tenant finish dependent upon the completion of the shell (grey box) permit.  We see this a lot in strip malls and out door malls.


----------



## gbhammer (Dec 14, 2011)

Papio Bldg Dept said:
			
		

> same as permit guy.  in addition we allow both types of permits to occur simultaneously with CO for the tenant finish dependent upon the completion of the shell (grey box) permit.  We see this a lot in strip malls and out door malls.


I could see allowing them to complete at the same time.


----------



## Architect1281 (Dec 14, 2011)

Same as permit guy with exit signs and alarm and supression if required by H&A by any proposed allowable use.

If you say but we dont know what the use is going to be and I have to assume I assume H


----------



## Mule (Dec 15, 2011)

Haven't really called them anything that I can recall.... However we issue a CO for the building and then each lease space will require a tennant finish out and that will include a CO for that tennant.


----------



## fatboy (Dec 15, 2011)

Not trying to be argumentative, but how can you issue a CO for the shell, when there is no established occupancy? That's why we, like others have stated, issue a Certificate of Completion for the shell, then a CO for tenant finishes.


----------



## Mule (Dec 15, 2011)

Argumentative is okay.. I'm not offended. Besides it's a dicussion.

We don't actually issue a CO... I guess I wasn't really thinking. We just give a building final and when the space is finished with whomever whatever we will then issue a CO for that.


----------



## peach (Dec 15, 2011)

here they have a "core and shell" CO for the well, core and shell of a building.. the predominate occupancy is stated (usually B or R-2), and they develop the floors/tenants separately.  The core and shell means all basic life safety is in place.


----------



## fatboy (Dec 16, 2011)

What gets complicated, when there is a separate tenant finish, that starts as soon as possible after the shell is up, then wants a CO before the shell is not entirely complete. They don't like it when you tell them sorry, your space may be done, but the building isn't. Talk to the GC.


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (Dec 16, 2011)

fatboy said:
			
		

> What gets complicated, when there is a separate tenant finish, that starts as soon as possible after the shell is up, then wants a CO before the shell is not entirely complete. They don't like it when you tell them sorry, your space may be done, but the building isn't. Talk to the GC.


That is always one of my comments when we have simultaneous tenant finish permits and the shell is still active at issuance.  I haven't found saying 'no CO for you' to be complicated.  The only exceptions we make are for escrowed landscaping/sidewalks and other similar cold-weather issues, and in those cases we issue a Temp CO with a 6 month expiration.  Then I jingle a chain and padlock and say 'bah humbug.'


----------



## gbhammer (Dec 16, 2011)

Thanks for the responses. We are going to start allowing grey boxes, and we intend to handle it pretty much like most of you have described.


----------



## fatboy (Dec 16, 2011)

Same here, we always make it a red-line comment, and will do escrow/bonding for non-building issues. But inevitably, comes down to final inspections on the tenant finish, and GC hasn't finished sidewalks, landings, guards/handrails, then we point to the red-lines and say......sorry, get-r-done.........


----------



## fungineer (May 27, 2021)

Related to this old thread, at what point is the tenant buildout an alteration to an existing building vs. new construction? If you submit both at the same time sure, new construction. What if it's been a month, 2, 3, years?


----------



## cda (May 27, 2021)

fungineer said:


> Related to this old thread, at what point is the tenant buildout an alteration to an existing building vs. new construction? If you submit both at the same time sure, new construction. What if it's been a month, 2, 3, years?




Not my side of the railroad tracks, but I have seen ahj's handle it in different ways. 

My thoughts are if someone builds, or starts building the shell first, any subliminal interior plans, are tenant finish out/remodel.

How an ahj handles the inspection process, is another story.


----------



## mtlogcabin (May 27, 2021)

No matter the time frame a 1st time tenant buildout is new construction under the current adopted building code, not the code the shell was built under.
I will not consider it an alteration to an existing building for a couple of reasons.
 1 there was nothing to alter.
 2 there is no occupancy assigned since there has been no use of that space. 
 3 I do not want them using the IEBC since there are sections in the IEBC that will not require you to meet the requirements of the IBC for new construction.
Example: The IEBC does not have Common Path of Travel requirements


----------



## fungineer (May 27, 2021)

@mtlogcabin That makes sense. My question then relates to how you handle the shell itself then. Even if no occupancy permit is requested/provided (as none should be) doesn't the shell still need AN occupancy defined to it to verify it meets the building height and area restrictions and the egress distance?

Theoretically, if you have a shell for a tenant being built. You expect it will likely be an A2 Restaurant, but it could end up being a B or M down the line (or if that tenant falls through).  Shouldn't one need to be "picked" (or possibly design for "all 3" as non-separated occupancies). Lets say the area of this shell is small enough that no area triggers matter regardless of what is built.


----------



## cda (May 27, 2021)

fungineer said:


> @mtlogcabin That makes sense. My question then relates to how you handle the shell itself then. Even if no occupancy permit is requested/provided (as none should be) doesn't the shell still need AN occupancy defined to it to verify it meets the building height and area restrictions and the egress distance?
> 
> Theoretically, if you have a shell for a tenant being built. You expect it will likely be an A2 Restaurant, but it could end up being a B or M down the line (or if that tenant falls through).  Shouldn't one need to be "picked" (or possibly design for "all 3" as non-separated occupancies). Lets say the area of this shell is small enough that no area triggers matter regardless of what is built.



I think the shell should have a final, and maybe C of O.

Ahj here does neither for the shell and it creates trouble down the line. Especially when two different contractors involved,, one for shell,, one for interior


----------



## fungineer (May 27, 2021)

cda said:


> I think the shell should have a final, and maybe C of O.
> 
> Ahj here does neither for the shell and it creates trouble down the line. Especially when two different contractors involved,, one for shell,, one for interior


Yeah it seems like a huge pain for the tenant (same contractor or not). Part of the point of the shell is so the envelope doesn't need to be updated. Especially in a strip building where 1 suite will be built "right away" and the rest won't, it wouldn't make sense for the rest to need to be updated to meet the envelope requirements of the current code for the tenant to go in...


----------



## Yikes (May 27, 2021)

1.  Shell is issued a certificate of completion, not a certificate of occupancy.
2.  Tenant Improvement plans submitted one minute or more after shell certificate of completion are treated as an alteration, subject to whatever codes are in effect at time of T.I. submittal.
You can avoid re-visiting the previously approved shell by doing more work under the shell permit.  For example, if you are in California: want to avoid thermal performance upgrades to the shell?  Run your Title 24 shell performance calcs under the shell permit.


----------



## mtlogcabin (May 27, 2021)

How do you not have any code violations in a shell building?

[A] 111.2 Certificate issued.
After the building official inspects the building or structure *and does not find violations of the provisions of this code or other laws that are enforced by the department of building safety, *the building official shall issue a certificate of occupancy that contains the following:


----------



## Yikes (May 27, 2021)

mtlogcabin said:


> How do you not have any code violations in a shell building?
> 
> [A] 111.2 Certificate issued.
> After the building official inspects the building or structure *and does not find violations of the provisions of this code or other laws that are enforced by the department of building safety, *the building official shall issue a certificate of occupancy that contains the following:


Have you ever issued a "foundation only" permit?  Same concept.  Final inspection under that permit does not have to result in a traditional certificate of occupancy.  It either results in a signed off inspection card, or at most a "certificate of completion", which does not allow for occupancy.

A grey box does not meet CBC 202 definition of "occupiable space", so there is nothing to occupy.  If the BO feels compelled to issue a "Certificate of Occupancy", the limitations and exclusions and stipulations can be enumerated as per 111.2 items 5, 8, and 12.


----------



## steveray (May 28, 2021)

COA the shell...COO the tenant(s)


----------



## Pcinspector1 (May 28, 2021)

This is a very interesting topic. I came on board and had a shell building with a fire sprinkler room and no sprinkler system set up. The building had a CO issued. First tenant B occupancy and the second tenant was a day care. Neither tenant wanted to foot the bill for installing the sprinkler system nor did the owner of the building. The daycare tenant's architect designed the space with classroom egress doors hence eliminating the required sprinkler system and designed a fire wall between the B occupancy. So do you re-issue CO's to the tenant spaces?


----------

