# Occupancy  Group  Type  For  Military  Bldgs.



## north star (Jan 22, 2018)

*> < >*

Greetings all !

I am reviewing some plans for some existing, single story, military
barracks to be renovated & updated.......Also, an existing building
that will be used as centrally located Male & Female Latrines,
near the three separate bldgs. [  the 3 separate barracks  ].

The RDP is using the 2012 IBC.......They are saying that these
barracks are an R-2 [  i.e. - basically, occupants will be permanent
in nature  ], however, the intent of the barracks is to house soldiers
while they are in a training status, ...from a few weeks to a few
months........My thoughts are that the soldiers are transient in nature,
and thereby more closely fit an R-1 Occupancy classification.
The RDP is also classifying the Male & Female Latrine Bldg. as an
R-2........The Male & Female Latrine Bldg. is approx. up to 150 ft.
away from all 3 barracks, but still close enough to be convenient.

ADA requirements will not apply to these any of these bldgs.,
because the soldiers are required to be "able bodied".

Your thoughts...  Are the 3 barracks bldgs. more of an R-2 or an
R-1 ?........What about the one bldg. being used as a centrally
located Male & Female Latrine ?.....Is this an R-2 Occ. Type, or
something else ?.........If not an R-2, then what ?

Presently, I do not have the square feet of each bldg., because
I am away from my office........I have the square footage at
work though !

As always, thanks for your input !

*> < >*


----------



## cda (Jan 22, 2018)

north star said:


> *> < >*
> 
> Greetings all !
> 
> ...





On public or federal property???


----------



## north star (Jan 22, 2018)

*@ = @*

Federal, ...at a very large military training center !

*@ = @*


----------



## fatboy (Jan 22, 2018)

I could support an R-2. Some occupants may be transient........but there are others that are not, and familiar with the building. None probably are staying merely a night or two, so I think pushing to R-1 would be a reach. 

The latrine...an accessory to the R-2?

JMHO


----------



## fatboy (Jan 22, 2018)

And I am surprised you are reviewing, being federal property.


----------



## cda (Jan 22, 2018)

north star said:


> *@ = @*
> 
> Federal, ...at a very large military training center !
> 
> *@ = @*




Thought they followed ufc and some other stuff
GSA

https://www.wbdg.org/FFC/DOD/UFC/ufc_1_200_01_2016.pdf


----------



## cda (Jan 22, 2018)

Seems like they would want the latrine to be a B

Does it matter much if r 1 or 2???

Plus military sprinkles everything ,,, correct?


----------



## north star (Jan 23, 2018)

*@ = >*

fatboy & cda,

Thanks for your input !


fatboy,

Yes, the RDP is designing the combo Latrines as an Accessory structure
to the 3 barracks.......Why are you surprised that I am reviewing for
a Federal installation ?.......I am not a municipal Code Official.......I
wear many hats.


cda,

Yes, the UFC Standards are being applied as well [  i.e. - anti-terrorism,
blast resistant, anti-ballistic, etc.  on some components  ].

*< = @*


----------



## fatboy (Jan 23, 2018)

north star said:


> *@ = >*
> 
> fatboy & cda,
> 
> ...



Ah.......... assumptions...........you said you were reviewing.

I should have just asked what your role was in this?

More curious than anything.


----------



## north star (Jan 23, 2018)

*@ = >*

One of my current roles is to co-review the plans for the 3 barracks
and the combo latrines, for Codes & Standards compliance.

In the past, Codes & Standards review has been woefully absent,
and the RDP's have had their way in design & installation......Current
Leadership wants other "sets of eyes" on the projects before the
contracts get awarded.

As always, ..."Much Thanks" for your input !

*< = @*


----------



## steveray (Jan 23, 2018)

I would definitely get behind R2 for all....Even though ADA "may" not apply, Chapter 11 and/or and/ or accessibility in the IEBC does...


----------



## cda (Jan 23, 2018)

Fed Building and no ADA??


----------



## north star (Jan 23, 2018)

*@ = >*

I have asked about the ADA requirements on the Federal side
and other.......I was told that because the soldiers [  on Orders  ]
using the facilities will all be "able bodied", or else not allowed
to be there using the facilities.......No civilians & no public access !

It sure seems like a gray area to me...

*< = @*


----------



## mark handler (Jan 23, 2018)

cda said:


> Fed Building and no ADA??


Typically Federal buildings are under the Architectural Barriers Act (ABA),  Accessibility Standards, NOT the ADA.
https://www.access-board.gov/guidelines-and-standards/buildings-and-sites/about-the-aba-standards.


----------



## Rick18071 (Jan 23, 2018)

_I have done some plan reviews and inspections for military bases. The local government cannot require it but the military makes the contractor do it. We use the ICC codes without any state or local changes including chapter 11 accessibility._


----------



## north star (Jan 23, 2018)

*@ ~ @*

Thanks Rick for the input !

In my case, since the military can [ seemingly ] enforce
what they want to, they can also decide to not require
Accessibility compliance from Ch. 11, and the reference
to the ICC A117.1........ I have asked repeatedly !

*@ ~ @*


----------



## fatboy (Jan 23, 2018)

We were asked a few years ago if we would do inspections on a new Air National Guard building, that was being built on city owned property, that was being leased to the ANG. If the lease ever terminates, the building reverts back to the city, so the ANG agreed to let us inspect, in case the city ever had to take posession. We went to the first pre-con meeting, and when reviewing plan comments, were told in no uncertain terms that the ANG, and Uncle Sam, did not need to be concerned with accessibility to the second floor, as they had no "need" for it, their personnel was able bodied. The first correction that we wrote up was for a required second exit out of the electrical room (which had changed from the original plans). We were never invited back for another inspection.


----------



## north star (Jan 23, 2018)

*@ * @ * @*

fatboy,

That's good stuff right there !......It's pretty much the same thing here.

*@ * @ * @*


----------



## Sleepy (Jan 23, 2018)

We do a lot of design work for the military and wrestle with the ABA/ADA thing quite a bit.  The military has it's own criteria for invoking ABA in UFC 1-200-01 and it boils down to the only real exception being if the facility is used exclusively by able bodied military personnel.  It usually turns out that that is not the case because there are civilian employees, visitors, inspectors, instructors or such that will visit the facility at some point. 

For the original question, IBC offers a definition of "transient" as "Occupancy of a dwelling unit or sleeping unit for not more than 30 days". That could figure in to the R-1 vs. R-2 decision.


----------



## north star (Jan 23, 2018)

*$ - $ - $*

Thanks ***Sleepy***......That helps clarify things a lot for me.  

I can only debate [ read - "argue  ] with the military "Powers-That-Be"
up to a point......For the most part, they do not understand the in-depth
dynamics & minutia of the Codes, nor are they willing to challenge the
RDP's on their designs, or lack thereof.

*$ - $ - $*


----------

