2006 IBC, Section 504.2 -- Height Increase Greater Than 20'

[alora]

Working on a Type II-B, PEMB, single-story, 85' high, group F-1 structure.

Local zoning allows the height without appeal.

Providing automatic sprinkler system.

Worked with building official to obtain approval for an appeal to the 20' height increase limit (increased to 30').

I've discussed this code section with different building officials from 4 other local municipalities, and their response is that they absolutely will not approve appeals regarding height increases above what Section 504.2/504.3 allows. Reasons were somewhat varied, including general life-safety and fire district requirements.

It was actually an eventful undertaking to get this particular building official to approve this.

Out of curiosity, would you (building officials, past & present) generally allow height increases above the code-stated limits through the appeal process? Why or why not?

 

[peach]

They can go 2 stories; the height limitation is going to probably be based on the FD capability to fight a fire that high. I'd require at least a fire pump before I allowed anything higher than 75'.

 

[mtlogcabin]

Out of curiosity, would you (building officials, past & present) generally allow height increases above the code-stated limits through the appeal process? Why or why not?

No appeals are to get a clarification on a code section not a variance to the code requirements

113.2 Limitations on authority.

An application for appeal shall be based on a claim that the true intent of this code or the rules legally adopted thereunder have been incorrectly interpreted, the provisions of this code do not fully apply or an equally good or better form of construction is proposed. The board shall have no authority to waive requirements of this code.

 

[texasbo]

Absolutely agree with Peach and MT; any building official who is giving you a "variance" is beyond the scope of his authority unless their jurisdiction has amended the code.

Approval of alternate method is allowed; did you provide something to justify the increase?

 

[alora]

... did you provide something to justify the increase?

That the structure is still single story.

That there are relatively few occupants. 36,000sf building with probably about 50 occupants max.

That the reason for the height requirement is due to an approximately 60' clearance required for the bridges to hoist up/down equipment. The remaining dimension is for structure & MEP.

That there is fire protection to be installed.

 

[mtlogcabin]

That the structure is still single story.That there are relatively few occupants. 36,000sf building with probably about 50 occupants max.

That the reason for the height requirement is due to an approximately 60' clearance required for the bridges to hoist up/down equipment. The remaining dimension is for structure & MEP.

That there is fire protection to be installed.

In that case

503.1.1 Special industrial occupancies.

Buildings and structures designed to house special industrial processes that require large areas and unusual building heights to accommodate craneways or special machinery and equipment, including, among others, rolling mills; structural metal fabrication shops and foundries; or the production and distribution of electric, gas or steam power, shall be exempt from the building height and area limitations of Table 503.

 

[alora]

Forgot to add ...

That there are (9) 48" wide egress doors separated by approximately 50' around the perimeter of the building.

 

[Frank]

Look at 503.1.1 Special Industrial Occupancies in 2006-2009 IBC Building is exempt from height and area limits. No need for modification or appeal

I see MT beat me to it

 

[alora]

Thank you.

Missed that before, but that fits the bill perfectly.

Now, to tactfully share what I've learned with the building official...

 

[Mac]

Yes, tactfully.