# multi tenant building



## Hyrax4978 (May 24, 2019)

Doing a renovation to a multi tenant building. IBC 2015.
BO asked to verity the demising walls meet code. 
As far as i can tell there is not a tenant separation section for a multi tenant building that each tenant has their own entrances. just for mall buildings, which this doesn't seem to meet the definition of. what am i missing. is the tenant demising wall then only based on use group separations etc? i thought there would be a section on tenant demising walls. 
Any help is greatly appreciated. 
Thanks,


----------



## cda (May 24, 2019)

Might be a local thing, we have one hr requirement unless sprinkled 

Or are you adding a different occupancy?!


----------



## ADAguy (May 25, 2019)

Is this for: retail, commercial, office, medical tenants


----------



## Hyrax4978 (May 28, 2019)

Same B use occupancy, the adjacent tenants are medical offices. 
I don't see it as a covered mall but can't for the life of me figure out if rated demising walls are needed or not. HELP please! 

Thanks,.....


----------



## classicT (May 28, 2019)

Fire barriers may have been used to reduce fire area such that fire sprinklers may be avoided.

Need more info. Type of construction, total building area, sprinkled, etc.??


----------



## cda (May 28, 2019)

Hyrax4978 said:


> Same B use occupancy, the adjacent tenants are medical offices.
> I don't see it as a covered mall but can't for the life of me figure out if rated demising walls are needed or not. HELP please!
> 
> Thanks,.....






Ask the nice BO what section that they cited,,,
So you can research it and give the BO the best answer possible

Plus post the section here


----------



## Hyrax4978 (May 28, 2019)

Construction type V
non sprinklered, 
17,000 SF Footprint, 2 stories.


----------



## ADAguy (May 28, 2019)

That would be 8,500 sq. ft/ flr?
Is the building immediately adjacent to buildings on either side or "0" lot line?


----------



## classicT (May 28, 2019)

Hyrax4978 said:


> Construction type V
> non sprinklered,
> 17,000 SF Footprint, 2 stories.


V-A or V-B?

If type V-B (more common), the maximum allowable area prior to adjustment from frontages is 9,000sf. This means that there is most likely a fire wall somewhere, or a frontage increase. The BO is right to inquire to the condition used to justify the building area.

If type V-A (less common), the the maximum allowable area prior to adjustment from frontages is 18,000sf. In this case, walls, floors, and primary structural frame should all be rated. The BO would similarly be right to inquire to the condition of fire resistance of these components.


----------



## linnrg (May 28, 2019)

IBC section 708 leads to the confusion because it uses the term tenant separation walls (and is you really read is it only points to those in covered and open malls).  They BO used the term demising walls which is not defined in the IBC and Section 508 comes into play.  From one dictionary source I found "*demising* partition or *wall*. A *wall* separating two tenants or separating a tenant's space from a corridor or other common area space".

My take on these possible tenant or demising walls is this.  If each space (Occupancy) is not required to be separated then the wall can be anything allowable for that building type.  But if each occupancy uses the above ceiling space as return air plenum  and their own air handler then the wall will go floor to deck above.  Most occupancy's that have suspended ceilings recognize the ease of someone going over these wall.


----------



## cda (May 28, 2019)

Need a code section requiring this, from the BO


----------



## Hyrax4978 (May 29, 2019)

The 17,000 is per floor. As in total footprint. I don't see any fire walls. My guess is it got to be this way a while back, and the town must be struggling with it and trying to make it more compliant through renovations. Im ok with that. Just want to do whats right. 
It is VB, not VA. that i am confident it also. 
I seem to agree with linnrg. 
I guess what one of my struggles is would a typical strip mall (layman's term) be an "open mall building" I am leaning towards no, because there are typically, 1 sided with all the access as independent ingress/egress from parking lot and not designed with the double loaded corridor concept with people exiting to a semi confined area between buildings. 
So maybe what i have is just a building (not an open mall) that is either separated uses, or non-separated use depending on design. 
Thoughts?


----------



## cda (May 29, 2019)

Need a code section requiring this, from the BO

Seems like you are chasing a gazzale, it knows where it is going and you don’t.

Stop and ask before money and time is wasted. Plus unless this is the first remodel in fifty years, seems like the bo should have asked the question before, and should have gotten a response


----------



## Paul Sweet (May 29, 2019)

One other thing to consider is what code it was built under, or if it was built before the jurisdiction adopted a building code.


----------



## steveray (Jun 7, 2019)

You are correct in there is no "tenant" separation other than malls....Just use and occupancy separations or dwelling units if you want to call that "tenant"....Seems like a mess....When was it built? CT?


----------



## Hyrax4978 (Jun 11, 2019)

It was built in the late 60's and or early 70's. Yes in CT. 
It is a mess. I talked with a former colleague who said he had looked at a reno in this building and said all his efforts to come up with anything definitive on the existing building, and how it got to be what it is today was fruitless, and wished me luck. LOL.


----------



## steveray (Jun 12, 2019)

71 would be our State code......Are there any C of O's ?....If there are any, then, for better or worse, it is "approved"....If it is not a use or H&A change, that might make it more hazardous, it gets to stay unless the FM writes a violation of the CSFSC.....

Level 1 and Level 2 alterations in the IEBC don't get into H&A issues just Change of Occupancy...

Just tell the BO.....Yes.....With no code section, just like he did for you.....


----------



## steveray (Jun 12, 2019)

(Amd) 102.6 Existing structures. The legal use and occupancy of any building or structure
existing on the date of adoption of this code shall be permitted to continue without change, except
as otherwise specifically provided in this code, the 2015 International Existing Building Code
portion of the 2018 Connecticut State Building Code or the 2018 Connecticut State Fire Safety
Code.


----------



## JBI (Jun 12, 2019)

I take it the IEBC has not been adopted?
'Demising wall' is not defined, referenced or used in the IBC. 
Proper Code terminology would be fire wall, fire barrier, fire partition, etc.
Tenant separations in malls are typically fire partitions and would not create separate fire areas (which could mitigate the need for sprinklers).
Fire barriers DO create separate fire areas when used in conjunction with rated horizontal assemblies, and are required when applying the separated mixed use provisions of Section 508 of the IBC.
Most fire partitions could be upgraded to fire barriers without too much effort.
Section 508 provides 2 distinct paths with regard to mixed uses. The applicant must choose a path and stay on it. 
Non-separated mixed uses will look at the most restrictive height and area provisions for the use(s) under consideration, as well as the most restrictive fire protection requirements. 
Separated mixed uses allow a proportioning of the space and typically allow more floor area and possibly limit the application of fire protection systems.

Definitely ask for Code sections being cited by the AHJ, they're supposed to do that anyway, then carefully read Section 508 in the IBC and decide which path works best for the project. 
And on the off chance the IEBC has been adopted, that's where this should start.
The IEBC will send you to the IBC as necessary.


----------



## Chrisjoneill (Jun 17, 2019)

Iebc has been adopted in CT...if the use isn't changing and the area isn't changing I don't see why there should be an issue with the existing separating wall construction...at most I'd expect the contractor to be on the hook for addressing un protected penetrations and other misc other code issues that are typical in older existing construction.


----------



## Chrisjoneill (Jun 17, 2019)

Also cannot stand when building officials don't cite the code section they are trying to enforce when they question something


----------



## steveray (Jun 18, 2019)

WooHoo!....We are up to like 5 people from CT...Welcome Chris! And I agree....The real debate would be whether or not the walls (if present) were rated at the time of installation...The BO can't really cite anything unless WWOP has occurred, the FM could possibly....


----------

