# 3 unit apartment conversion to 4 units



## jar546 (Sep 29, 2010)

If the 2009 IBC applied and the IFC applied only as referenced by the IBC, what would be your decision (that you can back up with code reference) for the following scenarios?

This is one of the most inconsistently answered questions.

1) 3 unit apartment building, existing and not sprinklered.  Owner wants to convert the large apartment into 2 making it a 4 unit apartment building.

Will the new apartment have to be sprinklered?

Will the entire building have to be sprinklered?

2) 3 unit apartment building, existing and not sprinklered.  Owner guts all of the apartments for a makeover with new plumbing, wiring, mechanical, etc.  Now plans on making it a 4 unit.  Does this change your answers for #1?

Have at it folks!!!


----------



## cda (Sep 29, 2010)

1. Would new construction have to meet present code which would require sprinklers, if yes then the entire building would require it

2. Can you use the 50% rule to require sprinklers???


----------



## mtlogcabin (Sep 29, 2010)

[F] 903.2 Where required.

Approved automatic sprinkler systems in new buildings and structures shall be provided in the locations described in this section.

It is not a new building and where is the lanquage to require the existing apartments to be retrofitted.

I remember this came up before if this really ment to be applied to "new buildings" only & I don't remember the final discussion


----------



## rshuey (Sep 29, 2010)

IEBC, alteration level automatically triggers sprinklers. Also, increase in fuel load issues...


----------



## mark handler (Sep 29, 2010)

It also triggers Fair housing requirements, 4 or more units.

Yes I know you don't enforce FH laws.....


----------



## mtlogcabin (Sep 29, 2010)

So who decides if the designer has to use the IEBC or Chapter 34 from the IBC. Last code cycle (03) the state allowed the designer to choose one over the other, could not mix them, Under the 06 codes the stae says it is the BO's decision. Does Pa say who decides?


----------



## jar546 (Sep 29, 2010)

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> So who decides if the designer has to use the IEBC or Chapter 34 from the IBC. Last code cycle (03) the state allowed the designer to choose one over the other, could not mix them, Under the 06 codes the stae says it is the BO's decision. Does Pa say who decides?


PA clearly states that they have to choose one or the other, not both or a combination of both.  It is up to the DP to decide which one they want to submit under.  Once they decide their path, they cannot change it.


----------



## jar546 (Sep 29, 2010)

Come on folks.  How about some opinion on requirements.......

I say that if you convert  1 of the 3 into another making it a fourth then both of the affected units must have a sprinkler system.  The one that was cut in half and the new one.  Increase in occupant load which meets the definition of change of use.

If they renovate the entire structure under level 2 and add an apartment by converting 1 into 2 then the entire structure must be sprinklered.


----------



## cda (Sep 29, 2010)

But when you sprinkle R for whatever reason. Thou shall sprinkle entire R


----------



## peach (Sep 29, 2010)

soooooo... then if a 700 unit apartment building (existing not sprinklered), splits one unit into two, the whole building needs to be sprinklered?

creating a new unit doesn't necessarily add occupants or fuel load.. it's not an addition.

In Jar's case, I'd say yes... it sounds like a level 2 or 3 alteration.. in my scenario, I'd say no... it's one wall.


----------



## cda (Sep 29, 2010)

Good point

Like the old days any new work had to meet present code


----------



## RJJ (Sep 30, 2010)

IEBC/06 404.1 Scope. level 2 alterations include the reconfiguration of space, the addition or elimination of any door or window, the reconfiguration or extension of any system, or the installation of any additional equipment.

It then list compliance with chapter 6 &7. 704 is the the code and the word "Shall" is a command word. Just follow the section.

Now: Chapter 34 speaks for itself.

I do not agree on added fuel load as a reason.

They are not over 50% if they add just one unit. But if they gut the building then yes all must meet the code.

They have the right to choose either IEBC or Chapter 34 in PA.

I believe they will be close to the same type of protection either way.


----------

