# I-1 to R-4 to R3, Accessible Dwelling Unit



## Jim B (Aug 31, 2012)

I am looking at a project for a drug rehab home.

There are 15 persons that live in the 3 story building and are capable of self-preservation.

This starts out as an I-1 but then switches to R-4 as per the section below:



_IBC 2009; 308.2 Group I-1. This occupancy shall include buildings, structures or parts thereof housing more than 16 persons, on a 24-hour basis, who because of age, mental disability or other reasons, live in a supervised residential environment that provides personal care services. The occupants are capable of responding to an emergency situation without physical assistance from staff. This group shall include, but not be limited to, the following:_



_Alcohol and drug centers_





_*A facility such as above, housing at least six and not more than 16 persons, shall be classified as Group R-4.*_

Once an R-4, the code requires that the R-4 meets the construction requirements of an R-3:

_IBC 2009; 310.1 R-4 Residential occupancies shall include buildings arranged for occupancy as residential care/assisted living facilities including more than five but not more than 16 occupants, excluding staff. _

_*Group R-4 occupancies shall meet the requirements for *_

_*construction *_

_*as defined for Group R-3*_

_, except as otherwise provided for in this code or shall comply with the International Residential Code provided the building is protected by an automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with Section 903.2.8._

So the question is:

Does this get treated for accessibility as an R-4 or an R-3?

An R-4 would need an accessible sleeping unit, and R-3 only Type B

310.1 states that the R-4 shall meet the construction requirements of an R-3, not accessibility requirements.

Thanks for any input.


----------



## jar546 (Aug 31, 2012)

I can't wait to see the opinions on this one.  I don't have one yet though.


----------



## brudgers (Aug 31, 2012)

Literal interpretation is that if built according to the IBC then R3 requirements apply, otherwise it may comply with IRC.

  From a practical standpoint, this allows existing single family dwellings to be used.

  Keep in mind that there Federal laws (Fair Housing and ADA) which come into play when dealing with Residential Care Facilities (the typical legal term).

  State law's affecting local government's ability to regulate Residential Care Facilities are also very common.

  To put it another way, if you make it difficult, don't be surprised to be deposed.


----------



## brudgers (Aug 31, 2012)

jar546 said:
			
		

> I can't wait to see the opinions on this one.  I don't have one yet though.


  Just use Milton's Rule.


----------



## Jim B (Aug 31, 2012)

Brugers, the section quoted state that the conduction shall meet R-3 requirements, it does not state that accessibility shall meet R-3 requirements

Thank for the advice on Milton’s Rule, I don’t know who Milton is or why he wrote this rule. Is he listed in IBC 2009, Chapter 35? If not, I don’t think that I can reference him in projects that I review.

My rule is to apply the building code in a logical, informed, responsible and fair manner. Therefore when projects are approved, I can feel that I did the best and rational job that I could do in a timely manner.


----------



## Jim B (Aug 31, 2012)

Correction to my post #5:

conduction= construction


----------



## brudgers (Aug 31, 2012)

Jim B said:
			
		

> Brugers, the section quoted state that the conduction shall meet R-3 requirements, it does not state that accessibility shall meet R-3 requirements   Thank for the advice on Milton’s Rule, I don’t know who Milton is or why he wrote this rule. Is he listed in IBC 2009, Chapter 35? If not, I don’t think that I can reference him in projects that I review.  My rule is to apply the building code in a logical, informed, responsible and fair manner. Therefore when projects are approved, I can feel that I did the best and rational job that I could do in a timely manner.


  The comment on "Milton's Rule" was in response to the post which I quoted.   However, I recommend applying it to your situation.

  The reason that the IRC is allowed is so that change of occupancy from a one or two family dwelling to a small residential care facility may proceed smoothly.

  It is intended to keep code officials out of court for violating FHA and/or ADA and/or state laws regarding civil rights.

  BTW, everything in the building code is "construction."


----------



## Jim B (Aug 31, 2012)

My mistake in not following the "chain of command" of your quoted post.

My post wasn't looking for a new rule or method to review plan, simply clarification on code.

As far as applying this rule; I feel that the method that I use is quite appropriate, but thanks for recommending.

I do not make the decision of IBC or IRC, that is an option permitted by the code and the design professional makes that call. The design professional has opted for the IBC approach.

I just received a emailed response from the ICC. Here it is: “_You follow Group R-3 unless something specific is provided for Group R-4.  Therefore, for accessibility, you use Group R-4.”._

So, R-4 as per IBC 2009, Chapter 11


----------



## brudgers (Aug 31, 2012)

Jim B said:
			
		

> My mistake in not following the "chain of command" of your quoted post.  My post wasn't looking for a new rule or method to review plan, simply clarification on code. As far as applying this rule; I feel that the method that I use is quite appropriate, but thanks for recommending.   I do not make the decision of IBC or IRC, that is an option permitted by the code and the design professional makes that call. The design professional has opted for the IBC approach. I just received a emailed response from the ICC. Here it is: “_You follow Group R-3 unless something specific is provided for Group R-4.  Therefore, for accessibility, you use Group R-4.”._  So, R-4 as per IBC 2009, Chapter 11


  That's all well and good.   But irrelevant if the project is built under the IRC (+ sprinklers).

  Keep in mind that Occupancy doesn't show it's face there.

  The design team gets to pick the book.

  Not you.


----------



## Francis Vineyard (Aug 31, 2012)

Jim B said:
			
		

> So the question isoes this get treated for accessibility as an R-4 or an R-3?
> 
> Thanks for any input.


IRC requires accessibility too;

*R201.3 *Terms defined in other codes. Where terms are not defined in this code such terms shall have meanings ascribed to them as in other code publications of the International Code Council.

*SECTION R320*

*ACCESSIBILITY*

*R320.1 Scope. *Where there are four or more _dwelling _units or sleeping units in a single structure, the provisions of Chapter 11 of the _International Building Code _for Group R-3 shall apply.

Francis


----------



## Francis Vineyard (Aug 31, 2012)




----------



## brudgers (Sep 3, 2012)

Francis Vineyard said:
			
		

> IRC requires accessibility too;  *R201.3 *Terms defined in other codes. Where terms are not defined in this code such terms shall have meanings ascribed to them as in other code publications of the International Code Council. *SECTION R320* *ACCESSIBILITY* *R320.1 Scope. *Where there are four or more _dwelling _units or sleeping units in a single structure, the provisions of Chapter 11 of the _International Building Code _for Group R-3 shall apply.  Francis


  Keep in mind that a sleeping unit needs cooking facilities or bathing facilities.   If the rooms where people sleep lack both, then the building is a single dwelling unit.


----------

