# 2009 IRC, code changes; R101.2 Exceptions



## Uncle Bob (Feb 8, 2010)

2009 IRC, R101.2 Scope.

(NEW Addition)

Exceptions:  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 903.3.1.3 of the International Building Code.

[F] 903.3.1.3 NFPA 13D sprinkler systems.  Where allowed, automatic sprinkler systems installed in 0ne- and two-family dwellings and townhouses shall be installed throughout in accordance with NFPA 13D.

(Notes: Section 419, LIVE/WORK UNITS; of the 2009 IBC is also new

2009 IBC, Section 419, LIVE/WORK UNITS.

419.1 General.  A Live/work unit is a dwelling unit or sleeping unit in which a significant portion of the space includes a non-residential use that is operated by the tenant and shall comply with Section 419. through 419.8.

Exception:  Dwelling or sleeping units that include an office that is less than 10 percent of the area of the dwelling unit shall not be classified as a live/work unit.

419.1.1 Limitations.  The following shall apply to all live/work areas:

1.  The live/work unit is permitted to be a maximum of 3,000 square feet;

2.  The non-residential area is permitted to be a maximum 50 percent of the area of each live/work unit;

3.  The non-residential area function shall be limited to the first or main floor only of the live/work unit; and

4.  A maximum of five non-residential workers or employees are alllowed to occupy the non-residential area at any one time.

419.2 Occupancies.  Live/work units shall be classified as a Group r-2 occupancy.  Separation requirements found in Sections 420 and 508 SHALL NOT apply within the live/work unit when the live/work unit is in compliance with Section 419.  High-hazard and storage occupancies shall not be permitted in a live/work unit.  The aggregate area of storage in the non-residential portion of the live/work unit shall be limited to 10 percent of the space dedicated to non-residential activities.

419.3 Means of Egress.  Except as modified by this section, the provisions for Group R-2 occupancies in Chapter 10 shall apply to the entire live/work unit.

419.3.1 Egress capacity.   The egress capacity for each element of the live/work unit shall be based on the occupant load for the function served in accordance with Table 1004.1.1.

419.3.2  Sliding doors.  Where doors in a means of egress are of the horizontal-sliding type, the force to slide the door to it's fully open postion shall not exceed 50 pounds with a perpendicular force against the door of 50 pounds.

419.3.3  Spiral stairways.  Spiral stairways that conform to the requirements of Section 1009.9 shall be permitted.

419.3.4  Locks.  Egress doors shall be permitted to be locked in accordance with Exception 4 of Section 1008.1.9.3.

419.4  Vertical oenings.  Floor openings between floor levels of a live/work unit are permitted without enclosure.

419.5 Fire protection.  The live/work unit shall be provided with a monitored fire alarm system where required by Section 907.2.9 and an automatic sprinkler system in accordance with Section 903.2.8.

419.6  Structural.  Floor loading for the areas within a live/work unit shall be designed to conform to Table 1607.1 based on the function within the space.

419.7  Accessibility.  Accessibility shall be designed in accordance with Chapter 11.

419.8  Ventilation.  The applicable requirements of the International Mechanical Code shall apply to each area within the live/work unit for the function within that space.

(Well, that's it folks, Enjoy)   

Uncle Bob


----------



## vegas paul (Feb 8, 2010)

Re: 2009 IRC, code changes; R101.2 Exceptions

The biggest problem I see with this concept is that it allows non-accessible retail or office businesses in these units.  No requirement for accessibility in the IRC for these.


----------



## Uncle Bob (Feb 8, 2010)

Re: 2009 IRC, code changes; R101.2 Exceptions

Paul,

I guess I should finish the whole section.  Accessibility is required per Chapter 11 of the IBC.

Everyone please hold on and I will finish the Original Posting of Section 419.

Sorry, I'm not good at organizing,

Uncle Bob


----------



## Mule (Feb 8, 2010)

Re: 2009 IRC, code changes; R101.2 Exceptions

Do you guys think it would be beneficial to post what the ICC summary is on these subjects or the "change significance"?


----------



## Mule (Feb 8, 2010)

Re: 2009 IRC, code changes; R101.2 Exceptions



			
				vegas paul said:
			
		

> The biggest problem I see with this concept is that it allows non-accessible retail or office businesses in these units.  No requirement for accessibility in the IRC for these.


Non-Vegas Paul;

According to the summary in the IRC Significant Changes 2009 (I'm going to start calling this SC) the ICC says.

The added language in the IRC recognizes live/work units constructed as one and two-family dwellings and townhouses, but sends the user to IBC Section 419 for the specific limitations and requirements that apply to both the dwelling portion and the work portion of the unit.

Then it goes on to say;

The IBC provisions for structural loading, means of egress, accessibility for persons with disabilities, fire alarm systems, and fire sprinkler systems apply to live/work units.


----------



## Uncle Bob (Feb 8, 2010)

Re: 2009 IRC, code changes; R101.2 Exceptions

Ok,  I finished the whole thing in the original post.  My typing is up to 50 WPM now.   

The way it is worded; you'd think someone with influence at ICC had this added to fit their specific design.

Remember this thing is going into a residential and/or townhouse community.  I believe there will be zoning ordinance conflicts here.

Example: A permenent Real Estate Office with 20 agents; could create a lot of traffic.  "Oh, we will only have 5 agents at any one time." (complies with 419.1.1 limitations # 4.)  Sure, I believe that crap.  :roll:

Uncle Bob


----------



## vegas paul (Feb 8, 2010)

Re: 2009 IRC, code changes; R101.2 Exceptions

Mule and UB - IBC 419.2 says the ENTIRE live/work unit shall be classified as R-2, and of course, in Chapter 11, R-2 has no requirement for accessibility in non-dwelling/sleeping units!   Therefore, the retail store/office does not require accessibility!


----------



## Uncle Bob (Feb 8, 2010)

Re: 2009 IRC, code changes; R101.2 Exceptions

Paul,

 "IBC 419.2 says the ENTIRE live/work unit shall be classified as R-2, and of course, in Chapter 11, R-2 has no requirement for accessibility in non-dwelling/sleeping units! Therefore, the retail store/office does not require accessibility!"

419.7 Accessibility. Accessibility shall be designed in accordance with Chapter 11.

In Chapter 11 they added;

1103.2.13 Live/work units.  In live/work units constructed in accordance with Section 419, the portion of the unit utilized for non-residential use is required to be accessible.  The residential portion of the live/work unit is rquired to be evaluated separately in accordance with Sections 1107.6.2 and 1107.7.

(So the non-residential portion of the live/work unit is required to be accessible.)

Does this help?

Uncle Bob


----------



## vegas paul (Feb 8, 2010)

Re: 2009 IRC, code changes; R101.2 Exceptions

It does help, thanks, however it is very cumbersome.  Essentially they are stating that an R-2 occupancy has to be held to a level of accessibility that is not applicable to an R-2!  After all, a single living unit (R-2) on the 2nd floor wouldn't have any accessibility requirements.   But a retail store (occupancy class R-2 !!!) requires accessibility?  To what standard?  Just accessible entrance(s) or full accessibility?  Are the restrooms (in an R-2) considered public?

The code says you can build it to the IRC standards, but of course, you can't, because it has to be accessible.  Jumping around between codes was SUPPOSED to be avoided, and eliminated - once you are in the IRC, you should stay there!  (just my less-than-humble opinion).


----------



## Uncle Bob (Feb 8, 2010)

Re: 2009 IRC, code changes; R101.2 Exceptions

Paul,

That's why I thought of this little project.  It gives us an opportunity to explore the new code requirements; and help us in adoption and amendment decisions for our AHJs.

If they would stay out the IBC; and put it in the IRC it could be easier to understand.

In the Introduction of the Preface of the IRC; it states; "This comprehensive, STAND ALONE residential code establishes minimum regulations for one- and two-family dwellings and townhouses using prescriptive provisions."

All the requirements of Live/Work Units; should not take up any more pages than the Fire Sprinkler Requirements; if they just added them to the IRC.

Maybe, in the 2012 IRC the ICC will move the Live/Work Units to the IRC and simplify it.  I can't believe I said that; it makes too much sense; they'll never do it.   

Uncle Bob


----------



## RJJ (Feb 9, 2010)

Re: 2009 IRC, code changes; R101.2 Exceptions

I have read this section and those referenced in the IBC. This is a mess! So is the plumbing electrical and Hvac to be governed by the IRC? Is this to become a pick what fits you best code?

I see more of a problem the Zoning! :?  :?  :?


----------



## beach (Feb 9, 2010)

Re: 2009 IRC, code changes; R101.2 Exceptions

I agree Rjj, the IRC may allow a live/work unit, but our zoning laws won't allow it in a res. neighborhood. They will however allow a live/work units in certain commercial areas zoned for it.....quite a few got built about 8 or ten years ago, I call them the "Conarb Specials".......... PEX plumbing, TJI joists, chip board sheathing, CPVC fire sprinklers, Tyvek wrap, etc.... :mrgreen:


----------



## RJJ (Feb 11, 2010)

Re: 2009 IRC, code changes; R101.2 Exceptions

Can anyone explain why this exception would, should or could have been included in the IRC? I must have missed this big time at the hearings. Is there really a need across the country for this in residential construction?

Could this mean one could have office help in the work unit? A cash register? etc?? :roll:


----------



## brudgers (Feb 12, 2010)

Re: 2009 IRC, code changes; R101.2 Exceptions



			
				RJJ said:
			
		

> Can anyone explain why this exception would, should or could have been included in the IRC? I must have missed this big time at the hearings. Is there really a need across the country for this in residential construction?Could this mean one could have office help in the work unit? A cash register? etc?? :roll:


The allowable work would be governed by the zoning.

There are a good reasons for creation of such districts.

First and foremost, such practice is and will always be common irrespective of zoning requirements because it is an archetype of human habitation.

Zoning codes should reflect the way people live not abstract planning theories.


----------



## RJJ (Feb 13, 2010)

Re: 2009 IRC, code changes; R101.2 Exceptions

brudgers: Some of what you say is true. However, zoning is a reflection of how an ahj wants their community to develop. This has just open a can of worms as a national level mandate for how residential properties can be constructed. It would have been better off just left out of the IRC.

I don't see any value in the section that has been added. It is just going to cause confusion.


----------



## brudgers (Feb 13, 2010)

Re: 2009 IRC, code changes; R101.2 Exceptions



			
				RJJ said:
			
		

> brudgers: Some of what you say is true. However, zoning is a reflection of how an ahj wants their community to develop. This has just open a can of worms as a national level mandate for how residential properties can be constructed. It would have been better off just left out of the IRC.I don't see any value in the section that has been added. It is just going to cause confusion.


The IRC is nothing but a collection of special interest passages.

While sprinklers and live work are obvious examples, IRC 2006 basically outlawed traditional zero lot line development when it changed exterior wall fire ratings to be based on distance from property line rather than distance between buildings.

Despite years of successful and safe zero lot line development, the Ick changed it for the sake of change based on pet peeves.

That's where the slippery slope for zoning began.  Live work is just a different collection of special interests getting their petty preferences in the code.


----------



## FM William Burns (Feb 13, 2010)

Re: 2009 IRC, code changes; R101.2 Exceptions

Once again, another tune I can sing too


----------



## RJJ (Feb 13, 2010)

Re: 2009 IRC, code changes; R101.2 Exceptions

brudgers: I can agree in part and can sing the same tune! But zoning being compared to theoretical planning either abstract or not is a seat of the pants response.

By the way what part of the south are you located in?


----------



## packsaddle (Feb 14, 2010)

Re: 2009 IRC, code changes; R101.2 Exceptions

And zoning is just another form of social engineering masquerading as land use regulation.


----------



## peach (Feb 14, 2010)

Re: 2009 IRC, code changes; R101.2 Exceptions

Exactly how is the developer supposed to know it'll be a live/work unit?

What if I buy one of these lovely IRC structures, then decide to open a gym in the den, where I provide personal training or fortune telling?  Who is going to make me change the 21 steps from the street to a ramp?

Won't it be an existing structure at that point?

It's a zoning issue, which is actually easier to appeal than the building code.


----------



## Architect1281 (Feb 14, 2010)

Re: 2009 IRC, code changes; R101.2 Exceptions

well the sane way to handle this is as in RI

Delete without substitution...........

adoption hearings coming up to ammendment in early March


----------

