HomeMy WebLinkAboutRe: Plan review Roger Peitso
From: Metz, Greg (DLI) [Greg.Metz@state.mn.us]
Sent: _ Thursday, July 16, 2015 12:16 PM
To: 567Wade@GMail.com
Cc: � Jere Bar�aft;-6�+ Karen (DLI); Roger Peitso
Subject: : Plan Review
Attachments: 3435 Shoreline Drive.pdf
Ms.Wade,
I am writing to confirm our conversation when you called me at 11:10AM today.
We discussed different aspects of the Minnesota Building Code [Minnesota Rule 1305] which has adopted the
International Building Code (IBC)with amendments. We discussed aspects of the Minnesota Accessibility Code
[Minnesota Rule 1341] which has adopted the ANSI A117.1 Standards for Accessibility. We also discussed aspects of the
Minnesota Conservation Code for Existing Buildings [Minnesota Rule 1311] which has adopted the International Existing
Building Code (IEBC) with amendments.
The plans I received (attached) require two restrooms because the total occupant load of the space is 100 persons or
greater based upon occupant load densities(from IBC Table 1004.1.1)of 30 square feet per person for retail space and
300 square feet per person for storage space. [IBC 2902.2] We discussed that you were interested in reducing the
overall size of your lease space to take advantage of IBC 2902.2, exception 3 which obviates mercantile spaces from
providing separate facilities for men and women when the total occupant load is 100 persons or less.
The work discussed qualifies as a Level 2 Alteration in accordance with IEBC 504.1. IEBC Section 806 requires
compliance with the current Minnesota Accessibility Code.
The Minnesota Accessibility Code 1341, Section 1112.8.3 requires that restroom facilities are accessible. If separate
facilities are provided for men and women, then separate accessible facilities must be provided for both genders. If it is
technically infeasible to provide accessible separate facilities, an additional accessible toilet must be added. If only one
toilet facility is provided (which is the desired direction per our conversation), it shall be accessible.
The Minnesota Accessibility Code 1341,Section 1112.7 requires an accessible route to and through your tenant space,
including to the accessible toilets.
IBC Table 1015.1 requires two separate means of egress from spaces with more than 49 occupants.
IBC 1007.1,exception 1 exempts existing buildings from providing accessible means of egress. So, even if your occupant
load is greater than 49,the second means of egress is not required to be accessible.
SAC Determination is calculated by the city. They will often defer to the Met Council for a determination since the Met
Council charges them for SAC. Your designer may prepare a SAC determination to present to the city and request
acceptance for permitting with the agreement that if the Met Council makes a differing determination,that you would
be willing to pay the balance before obtaining your certificate of occupancy. (you would have had to pay it anyway)The
city may or may not agree to such an arrangement due to policies, but you can always ask.
Below is the email that I sent to Mr. Peitso this morning with my findings.
Best of luck to you and your project.
1
Greg Metz � Construction Code Rep � Architect
MN- DLI Construction Codes& Licensing Division
443 Lafayette Rd. N., St. Paul, MN
Desk: 651-284-5884 General: 651-284-5005
Gre�.Metz@Star�.MN.US
From: Roger Peitso [mailto:rpeitso@ci.orono.mn.us]
Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2015 9:27 AM
To: Metz, Greg (DLI)
Cc: Jeremy Barnhart; Gridley, Karen (DLI)
Subject: RE: Plan Review
G reg,
Thank you for yours and Karen's time and efforts in helping to clarify what the requirements of the building code in this
situation. I was also wondering if you have had any more contact with Ms. Wade and informed her of your findings from
the research you have conducted. If not would you be OK with me presenting this email to Ms. Wade?
Thanks for help sincerely,
Roger
From: Metz, Greg (DLI) [mailto:Greg.Metr@state.mn.us]
Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2015 7:17 AM
To: Roger Peitso
Cc: Jeremy Barnhart; Gridley, Karen (DLI)
Subject: RE: Plan Review
Roger,
This turned into a long email,so I have a summary at the bottom in bold. I included my findings so you can chase it
back if you would like.
Thanks for the plans. Karen Gridley has replaced Curt Weihle as the state's new accessibility expert. I understand that
Ms. Wade had a conversation with her last night, so I am looping her in on the email.
Also, Please read the following as one plan reviewer's opinion.
Ms. Wade indicated that her code consultant advised her that the code only required her to have one restroom. She
referred me to MN 1341,Section 1113.1.2 which pertains to accessibility requirements precipitated by a change in
occupancy. Her concern was that the last paragraph was being interpreted such that if it was technically feasible to
comply with the code for new construction,then this section would require the accessibility upgrade to meet the
requirements for new construction.
I have researched the compliance path options and found the following:
Initial CharQin� Lan�ua�e:
MN 1300.0040 SCOPE,Subpart 2 can be paraphrased to say that all buildings not identified as IRC-1 through IRC-4 shall
comply with Chapter 1305. Then there is exception 1 which states"existing buildings undergoing repair, alteration,
change of occupancy, addition or being moved;..." Which means that the architect has the option to either comply with
MN 1305 or MN 1311. Note that many sections of MN 1311 refer back to MN 1305, but the application back to 1305 is
only by reference from within MN 1311 for compliance at this point.
2
MN 1311,Section 301.1 makes provisions for three unique compliance paths. Adherence to any one of these three
compliance paths satisfies the requirements of the code.
1311.301.1 "Prescriptive Methods" states that repairs, alterations or changes of occupancy complying with Chapter 4 of
this(MN 1311) cbde shall be considered in compliance with the provisions of this code. Plumbing and fixture counts for
plumbing are NOT ADDRESSED in Chapter 4, even when related to change of occupancy. Accessibility refers to the 2015
Minnesota Accessibility Code.
1311.301.2 "Work Area Compliance Method" includes Chapters 5 through 13 of 1311. Chapter 10 deals with change in
occupancy, but the plumbing fixtures are only addressed when there is an increase or difference in plumbing fixture
requirements (Section 1010.1). The proposed project has a decrease in demand. It is gray if the difference (decrease)
in fixture count requirements could/should drive an increase in work scope, since a zero change in fixture count
requirements would not trigger the change. But, if a change requirement is interpreted,then 1311.1010.1 refers to
4715 which refers back to 1305 in 4715.12.10. Convoluted but true.
-similarly,Section 810.1 states that where there is an increase in plumbing fixture demand by more than 20%,then the
plumbing fixtures shall be provided in accordance with 1305. Code is silent on reduction of loading.
-Section 1012.1.4 states that all buildings undergoing a change of occupancy classification shall comply with Section
1012.8, which refers to the Minnesota Accessibility Code.
1311.301.3 "Performance Comqliance Method" refers to 1311, chapter 14. Section 1401.2.4 has the language that code
officials want to see..." can't alter the building to be less safe or less sanitary than the current building. If the current
level of safety or sanitation is reduced, it may not be reduced to that below Chapters 2-12 and 14-33 of the IBC. Note
that we never get here unless the designer opts for the Performance Compliance Method.
Bottom Line: Since the occupant load for the mercantile space is greater than 100,separate facilities are still required
for men and women. Since separate facilities exist,they need to continue to be provided,or they need to be replaced
with new meeting the current requirements. Accessibility Code 1341,section 1112.8.3 requires that if the existing
restrooms remain,they must be upgraded to provide wheelchair accessible stalls in both the men's and the women's
restrooms. If this is technically infeasible,then a separate accessible unisex toilet may be added. If the new tenant
opts to demolish the existing facilities and provide new,separate accessible toilets will be required for both genders.
Greg Metz � Construction Code Rep � Architect
MN- DLI Construction Codes& Licensing Division
From: Roger Peitso [mailto:rpeitso@ci.orono.mn.us]
Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2015 12:36 PM
To: Metz, Greg (DLI)
Cc: Jeremy Barnhart
Subject: Plan Review
G reg,
Here is a copy of the plans I was given. The architect didn't sign them and there was quite a few problems with the
clearances at the doors so I have a review letter into him. Also this is technically a basement, there is a story above this
that empties onto the street level. Any questions please give me a call.
Thanks,
Roger Peitso
Building Official
3