• Welcome to The Building Code Forum

    Your premier resource for building code knowledge.

    This forum remains free to the public thanks to the generous support of our Sawhorse Members and Corporate Sponsors. Their contributions help keep this community thriving and accessible.

    Want enhanced access to expert discussions and exclusive features? Learn more about the benefits here.

    Ready to upgrade? Log in and upgrade now.

Does this qualify as “one-story portion”?

Y

Yikes

SAWHORSE
Joined
Nov 2, 2009
Messages
4,105
Location
Southern California
The image below shows 2022 CBC table 601, footnote b.3, and my building concept. My building has a one story portion of an A occupancy, but it is on the 2nd level, above a parking garage. Put another way, it is not 2 stories of Type A; only one story is Type A.
Does it still qualify under this footnote? The owner wants exposed wood trusses.

IMG_3322.jpeg
 
Last edited:
Only if the garage story is constructed as a "podium building," which essentially makes the roof of the garage a new ground plane, on top of which you then construct a one-story building. It has nothing to do with use group classification. See IBC 510.2
 
Yankee Chronicler said:
Only if the garage story is constructed as a "podium building," which essentially makes the roof of the garage a new ground plane, on top of which you then construct a one-story building. It has nothing to do with use group classification. See IBC 510.2
Click to expand...
The A-3 use has an occupant load >300, so I can’t use the podium exception.
 
A little more info:
1. Truth be told, the owner had already removed the existing fire-rated ceiling from 1962 and exposed the wood trusses with an approved set of plans from 2007. The plans still called the building type III-1hr (type Iii-A) but there was no code analysis describing how this could possibly be approvable, so I was trying to de-rate the building down to Type IIIB.

However, I just remembered that prior to 2015, the IBC / CBC allowed for sprinklers to serve as a substitution for 1 hour construction when not otherwise being utilized for an area increase. So that must be how it previously got approved. I will not attempt any further de-rating of the building, and will keep it at Type III-A.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top