# 2009 IBC 1104.4 (ADA) Elevator?



## Nate P (Aug 2, 2016)

If someone can tell me how to attach a picture of the building that would make this much easier.  (the image short cut does not let you select a file)

We are a builder building a model home that will also serve as our office.    The office is on a walkout foundation and is a two story house on top of that walkout.  There is what looks like a garage attached to the 1st floor (fake garage doors) and this framed floor also has the full basement under it that is part of the walkout that is under the house.  This garage area that is connected the 1st floor is also office space and is 624 square feet.  The first floor office space is connected to the basement level office area by a commercial code stair case.  The basement is the functional office for our employees (my office is the only office on the 1st floor in in what looks like the garage).  The basement is around 2100 square ft (including the area below the 1st floor office space).  The house (which is 2 stories) sits above the balance of the basement and is around 2800 square ft for both floors (not including the garage/office area).  The house is staged like a model home with couches and beds etc (no offices).  The question comes if I need an elevator to the first floor (one level up from the basement).  

The home (model portion) is called out on the building permit as "_being built to the 2012 IRC"_ (it is actually modular components) and the site built components called out as "_built to the 2009 IBC"_.  

There is also a note on the plan correction sheet that says that " the _office area first floor and office area lower level are to comply with 1103.1IBC_"   ADA

There is also a note that says _"the whole structure is a B use per section 302.1 IBC" _ 

I have 624 square ft of office space on the 1st level.  But I also have a 1st floor total (staged model home and garage/office area) of around 2200 square feet for the 1st floor.  We have a second floor square footage of around 1100 square ft (a loft over the great room and 2 small bed rooms).  The staged model home 2 floors total is 2700 and the 1st floor garage area is 624 which means total square footage above the basement level is 3300.

I am trying to avoid the elevator and would like to know everyone's thoughts on which exceptions I may or may not be able to use.


----------



## Francis Vineyard (Aug 3, 2016)

Clarify what is the aggregate area of the basement and second floor?

If 3,000 sf or more then the basement or second floor requires an accessible route; i.e. an elevator or ramp.


----------



## steveray (Aug 3, 2016)

I don't know how anyone could mandate it be a B entirely, Shirley it could be an R-3/B mixed use nonseparated...


----------



## cda (Aug 3, 2016)

Welcome

Being a forum supporter gives you permission to post.



http://www.thebuildingcodeforum.com/forum/threads/we-need-your-support.13284/


----------



## ADAguy (Aug 3, 2016)

I Take it this would be a topographically challenged site?
Yes, a cross section and/or plan would help clarify your question.
Have you considered using a LULA, or a platform lift if the height difference is less than 12'?


----------



## cda (Aug 3, 2016)

Build the entire thing to IRC??


----------



## ADAguy (Aug 3, 2016)

No, the issue at hand is use as an office, therefore requiring ADA Title III compliance. Then it "depends" (unless) you only make the model a "virtual Reality (with a head set)" walk through which could be done in your office without entering the model. Might not work for a sight impaired wheelchair buyer.


----------



## JCraver (Aug 3, 2016)

steveray said:


> I don't know how anyone could mandate it be a B entirely, Shirley it could be an R-3/B mixed use nonseparated...



Interesting.  You'd let them call part of it an R even though no one is going to live there?  If I understand the OP correctly it doesn't sound like a live-work deal to me - office folks will be there from 8-5 or whatever in the entire basement and a portion of the first floor, then it'll be empty at night.  I can't get any kind of R out of that.

Also, here in IL, if your floor area is greater than 1000 sf then you're putting in an elevator.


----------



## steveray (Aug 3, 2016)

JCraver said:


> Interesting.  You'd let them call part of it an R even though no one is going to live there?  I



Do you call it a change of use every time a house is vacant and for sale? Someone IS going to live there...


----------



## cda (Aug 3, 2016)

JCraver said:


> Interesting.  You'd let them call part of it an R even though no one is going to live there?  If I understand the OP correctly it doesn't sound like a live-work deal to me - office folks will be there from 8-5 or whatever in the entire basement and a portion of the first floor, then it'll be empty at night.  I can't get any kind of R out of that.
> 
> Also, here in IL, if you're floor area is greater than 1000 sf then you're putting in an elevator.




One of these days it will be someone's home??


If IBC route than does the basement need sprinkler, because of size??


----------



## JCraver (Aug 3, 2016)

_Will_ it be someone's home though? 

If the intent of the builder is to someday sell it as a residence, then I could go along with that;  as long as where it's located is zoned appropriately, and I believed the builder when he tells me that.  If they're just using it as a model though, and are going to base their business there for some unforeseeable/undetermined amount of time, then it's a lot harder to call it a house..


----------



## cda (Aug 3, 2016)

Yep, guess just how each city treats model homes

How big the subdivision is, as will it be built out in a reasonable time


----------



## ADAguy (Aug 3, 2016)

Don't like my alternate method?


----------



## steveray (Aug 3, 2016)

I imagine I could stretch it to a live/work unit under the IRC if I needed to, if that is really the intent (house) zoning could 86 it any time as a "business" in a residential zone if it stayed that way...


----------



## Francis Vineyard (Aug 4, 2016)

JCraver said:


> _Will_ it be someone's home though?
> 
> If the intent of the builder is to someday sell it as a residence, then I could go along with that;  as long as where it's located is zoned appropriately, and I believed the builder when he tells me that.  If they're just using it as a model though, and are going to base their business there for some unforeseeable/undetermined amount of time, then it's a lot harder to call it a house..



On a case by case basis; had a new house constructed to be used as a (non-profit) business for 3 - 5 yrs. then would sell as a single family residence.  With this intent they were permitted to construct under the IRC for the MEP and FSD. The main level and bedrooms upstairs however met the LL for B use. Also provided the accessible parking, route to the main floor bathroom and kitchen in accordance with IEBC for the change of occupancy to B from R.

This contingency was included on annual TCO.

Note to that Virginia amended out the sprinkler mandate in the IRC.


----------



## JBI (Aug 4, 2016)

steveray said:


> I imagine I could stretch it to a live/work unit under the IRC if I needed to, if that is really the intent (house) zoning could 86 it any time as a "business" in a residential zone if it stayed that way...


Live/Work Units are limited to Townhouses under the IRC. 
IF the 'model' is intended to ultimately be sold as a dwelling, then the IRC might be appropriate for design, but until it is sold it is a B occupancy (sales office) with the bulk of the building being a display area for the product being marketed. 
More details needed... If the building will maintain an office component in perpetuity, then it would be and remain a mixed use, R-3 and B. 
The elevator (or lift) would only kick in if the square footage thresholds are exceeded. That may be affected by a State or Local amendment to the provisions of the ADA, under the unaltered IBC I believe the threshold is 3,000 s.f. cumulative.


----------



## steveray (Aug 4, 2016)

RIOI.2 Scope. The provisions of the International Residential Code for One- and Two-family Dwellings shall apply to the construction, alteration, movement, enlargement, replacement, repair, equipment, use and occupancy, location, removal and demolition of detached one- and two-family dwellings and townhouses not more than three stories above grade plane in height with a separate means of egress and their accessory structures.

Exception: Live/work units complying with the requirements
of Section 419 of the International BUilding Code
shall be permitted to be built as one- and two-family dwellings
or townhouses. Fire suppression required by Section
419.5 of the International BUilding Code when constructed
under the International Residential Code for One- and
Two-familyDwellingsshall conform to Section 903.3.1.3 of
the International BUilding Code.

(Add) *304.1.1 In-home Group B occupancies.* Customary in-home business occupancies located within a single-family dwelling unit, that provide professional services and employ a maximum of one employee within the dwelling in addition to the residents of the dwelling unit, shall be classified as a Group R-3 occupancy or shall be permitted to comply with the requirements of the 2003 International Residential Code portion of the 2005 State Building Code.

We amend the heck out of Chapter one. And a bit on 3...I don't see the limitation to TH in ICC?


----------



## JBI (Aug 4, 2016)

_"I don't see the limitation to TH in ICC?"_
In both the first and second printings of the 2015 IRC the first exception states: "1. Live/work units located in _townhouses_ and complying with the requirements of Section 419..."
I think your red text is a State or Local modification. NYS also has a unique Chapter 1, but kept that language intact for our Supplement.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Aug 4, 2016)

2012 IRC 
.    Live/work units complying with the requirements of Section 419 of the International Building Code shall be permitted to be built as one- and two-family dwellings or townhouses. Fire suppression required by Section 419.5 of the International Building Code when constructed under the International Residential Code for One- and Two-family Dwellings shall conform to Section P2904.


----------



## JBI (Aug 4, 2016)

Year edition makes a difference. We skipped over the 2012 I-Codes...


----------



## steveray (Aug 4, 2016)

No offense to you of course JBI, but that is the dumbest code change ever....Why would you allow it in a townhouse but not a detached SFD?....I am going to chock that up to mistake and try to make sure we don't adopt it like that. Good thing we are in a rush to have new codes every 3 years.....


----------



## JBI (Aug 4, 2016)

No offense taken steveray, I don't write this stuff, I just read it (and scratch my head, of course...). 
ICC is very good at making bad changes and backpedaling in the next edition (or errata).


----------



## Francis Vineyard (Aug 5, 2016)

Interesting to know why that is . . .


*BCAC item G89-12 *

*G??– 15 *

*419.1, 419.1.1, 419.2 *

*Proponent: *Building Code Action Committee

*Reason: *The purpose of this code change is to address a conflict between the IBC and the IRC relative to live/work units. Following the addition of Section 419 to the IBC, an exception was added to Section R101.2 of the IRC allowing a one- and two- family dwelling and townhouses that contains a space which would qualify as a live/work unit under Section 419 of the IBC, but otherwise is within the scope of the IRC (i.e. not more than three stories above grade plane) to be constructed under the IRC, provided the work area meets the requirements of IBC Section 419 and an automatic sprinkler system is installed. However, IBC Section 419.2 states that live/work units must be classified as a R-2 occupancy, and the IBC does not permit Group R-2 buildings to be constructed per the IRC.

This proposal adds two new exemptions to Section 419. First, a new exception to the general compliance requirement for a live/work unit is added for an office less than 150 square feet. Some dwelling units can be as small as 900 or 1000 square feet. To comply with the existing 10% limit for such a dwelling would result in an office size that is barely feasible, and may not be workable at all. The new exception would allow a reasonably sized room in a small dwelling or dwelling unit to be used as an office without surpassing the 10% limit and thus triggering all of the requirements associated with a live/work unit.

The second exception permits a detached one- or two-family dwelling, and certain townhouse buildings, containing an area large enough to trigger Section 419 to be classified as Group R-3 instead of R-2. Group R-2 is typically associated with apartments, condominiums, and other buildings containing multiple dwelling units. The owner of a detached single-family dwelling who wants to maintain an office large enough to qualify the dwelling as a _live/work _unit should not be required to construct (or upgrade) the residential portions of the dwelling to requirements intended for multifamily or commercial construction. Similarly, townhouse units otherwise within the IRC scope but passed over to IBC Section 419 from IRC Section 101.2, Exception #2 need to be able to be classified as Group R-3 buildings to preserve the ability to otherwise use the IRC.

If this proposal is successful, a companion proposal will be developed for the IRC in Group B to coordinate the scoping language in IRC Section 101.2, Exception #2 and restore detached one- and two-family dwellings to the IRC exception. For additional clarity the exceptions and limitations from Section 419 will be mirrored in the IRC.

*Cost Impact: *This proposal will decrease the cost of construction. Small dwellings or dwelling units that meet the 150sf exception will only need to comply with the Section 508 requirements for accessory occupancies, not the more stringent egress, accessibility, ventilation and structural requirements of Section 419. One- and two-family dwellings and townhouses that otherwise fall within the IRC scope except for the specific requirements applying to the work area will see additional savings. The savings is anticipated to be 5-10% of the construction cost as structures under the IRC can be constructed without retaining a registered design professional (architect or engineer). Additional savings would accrue from being able to follow requirements appropriate for a small residential structure rather than a large multifamily condominium or apartment building

http://www.iccsafe.org/wp-content/uploads/bcac/Occupancy_IBC_sections.pdf


----------



## Francis Vineyard (Aug 5, 2016)

continues . . .

http://www.iccsafe.org/wp-content/uploads/bcac/G89-12.pdf

PART IV – IRC

Revise the International Residential Code as follows:

IRC R101.2 Scope.

The provisions of the International Residential Code for One- and Two- family Dwellings shall apply to the construction, alteration, movement, enlargement, replacement, repair, equipment, use and occupancy, location, removal and demolition of detached one- and two- family dwellings and townhouses not more than three stories above  grade plane in height with a separate means of egress and their accessory structures.

The provisions shall also apply to usage of the surrounding site and access to and from the building, structure or site, as necessary to achieve the purpose of this code.

Exceptions:

1. Live/work units complying with the requirements of Section 419 of the International Building Code shall be permitted to be built as one- and two- family dwellings or townhouses. Fire suppression required by Section 419.5 of the International Building Code when constructed under the International Residential Code for One- and Two- family Dwellings shall conform to Section P2904.

2. Owner-occupied lodging houses with five or fewer guestrooms shall be permitted to be constructed in accordance with the International Residential Code for One- and Two- family Dwellings when equipped with a fire sprinkler system in accordance with Section P2904.


----------



## steveray (Aug 5, 2016)

Thanks FV...Of course we will continue to amend out IRC sprinklers so I will have to read my soon to be adopted 2012 codes and amendments carefully.


----------



## HForester (Aug 12, 2016)

"ICC is very good at making bad changes and backpedaling in the next edition (or errata)."

Two completely different Committees having different viewpoints about the type of buildings covered by the scopes of those codes (IBC versus IRC). The Code Officials are making the final vote to be inconsistent. Who really knows that they are thinking? Maybe there are some considerations about the cost/feasibility/loss-of life-potentials "analysis" going in their heads. OR, they might be just following the recommendations of the committee for that code. The voting Code Officials might not be the same people for each code! Large jurisdictions might have separate departments handling Commercial buildings versus IRC buildings. The Code Officials sometimes figure out that what they decided on has "unintended consequences" and approve proposals to fix the problem (or even reverse the original position.) With a consensus process and non-unanimous voting criteria, I guess that happens sometimes.

Errata, as I understand it, is where ICC Staff makes a mistake in publishing the results of the code development process. The approved proposal changes the code in certain ways and the code book shows something technically different (or doesn't reflect the proposal change at all). I wish they could get a better handle on those issues.


----------



## ADAguy (Aug 12, 2016)

We are not all perfect but sometimes confused, "it depends"


----------



## sergoodo (Aug 12, 2016)

This is a model home and will be sold as a home.  Real Estate agents stage homes all the time and use the space as an office during showings, open house etc.  The basement area usually has utility/mech equipment and is not an area containing a primary function.  Setting up office in the basement does not create a primary function for a home.

if public activity/use is to be carried out in the basement then an accessible path will be required.  Show that all public accommodation can be provided at the temporary garage level office.


----------



## ADAguy (Aug 15, 2016)

Sergoodo "gets it", yeah!


----------



## steveray (Aug 17, 2016)

On further thought, a person needing an accessible home is not going to buy one they can't get into to look at....Certainly not new construction anyway...


----------



## ADAguy (Aug 17, 2016)

Stevie "gets it" too.
Yes, many folks with disabilities have the ability to buy a house.


----------

