Pre-Incident Planning from Building Footprints question

[amarcz_cc]

Hello,

I am setting up this solution using in-house existing data and imported our organizations Building Footprints layer to begin setting up the Pre-Incident Plans layer within the solution.

My main question is how are you dealing with commercial buildings that contain multiple addresses. Are you splitting them into sections? What about buildings with addresses vs sub-addresses, are you approaching them differently?

See example below:

One building (top) is addressed with separate addresses, and the other (bottom) is split into Suites  or Units. How are you approaching these? 

Thank you for your thoughts!

[RPGIS]

We had this exact conversation since I had been tasked with overhauling our preplan solution. We tried using the Esri solution, but that solution will only work if:

1. You have clean data to work with or are starting from scratch
2. You are not having to consolidate several datasets into a single working dataset
3. The addresses, buildings, and anything else is updated in a timely manner

The workflow we created is we built ours in house in our enterprise sde and are using the building footprints as the base working feature and have it setup in this manner:

1. Building Feature/Footprint (polygon fc)
2. Property Table
   1. The table is related to the building feature using a single numerical field
   2. The relationship created is a one to one
3. Tenant Table
   1. The table is related to the building using the building id as the relational field
   2. The relationship to the building is a one to many

[amarcz_cc]

@RPGIS  That makes sense, I have also followed a similar concept except a few things. I used the building footprint layer in import data into the Pre-Incident Plans layer and use an attribute rule that will create a new Pre-Incident Plan feature whenever a new Building footprint feature is created.

To me, it sounds like you are not splitting the Building Footprints into individual suite features. So in this instance, all Site Considerations (Alarm, Fire Suppression, Hazardous Mats, Key Boxes, Utilities, Occupancies) are all referencing the same Building footprint as your Pre-Incident Plan.

[RPGIS]

Yes. Simply because tenants may vary but generally the building will have similar utilities and safety requirements. We have it setup so the building will primarily house anything regarding safety but the tenants will have their own unique attributes. Both the building footprint and tenant table schemas are nearly identical. This is to identify if a building is the same as a tenant or if it houses multiple tenants. It also keeps the data clean and easily configurable.

The other thing to consider is, as tenants are vacated in multi-tenant buildings, then that may impact other workflows such as addressing, billing, etc. We are working to create a dynamic addressing system so that instead of maintaining points, instead we will use a tool that will derive the information from the attributes and construct temporary address points.

[amarcz_cc]

Thank you for the response. I tend to agree with you, in that the maintenance of multi-tenant buildings will be more effort then any extra data we get out of it. With the frequency of splitting / merging suites to accommodate businesses, managing that within the Tenant feature layer instead of the BuildingFootprint (Pre-Incident Plan) layer makes more sense.