Ag buildings in Chapter 5, Appendix C and areas.

[REO]

First off, I appreciate this forum. I've lurked around for years, usually finding whatever answer I was searching for. However, I've now come to a problem/discussion for which I would greatly appreciate the input of Code Officials, Architects or other Engineers. Here is the situation.

We are working on a "complex" in a municipality under 2012 IBC.

There is an existing stall barn for their horses (72'x104' w/ 8' lean-to each side). They plan to construct an enclosed exercise area (80'x150') and a hay barn. They are currently located 10.5' apart. Two open-sided, covered walkways connect the stall barn and exercise area; the hay barn is standalone. The barns are in the middle of a 1700' by 3000' lot. The Code Reviewer sought clarification regarding the separation between the structures.

All construction is VB.

Initially we designed the project considering the separation between structures under table 602 for Group U with x = 10.5 feet. This is apparently incorrect. We should have referenced 705.3 for buildings on the same lot, wherein an imaginary line is constructed between structures, the distance from the exterior wall to this line is the 'x' value. Meaning, as our arrangement sits (with 10.5 feet between buildings) we would actually fall into the 1 hour separation requirement from 5

However, in the exemption of 705.3, two or more buildings may be considered as aggregate parts of one if the total area falls under the values from Chapter 5. And this is where it gets tricky...

Our facility clearly meets all requirements of Appendix C: Group U - Agricultural Buildings. In this Appendix, with surrounding yard distances exceeding 60 feet, we are permitted a one-story unlimited area for these structures (C102.2). So, can I consider the complex as one building with unlimited area under Appendix C meeting all other criteria. I cannot find explicit reference to Appendix C in the building areas table in Chapter 5.

I would like the input from folks on this forum. I just proposed the analysis yesterday afternoon.

UPDATE: The codes department accepted and approved my review within minutes of submittal. Nevertheless, if people have additional comments / insights I would like to hear them. Being educated in code is a critical part of my practice.

 

[JBI]

IMHO, this relies on how exactly 'Agricultural building' is defined ad regulated in the State and/or Local laws.

NYS has a narrow definition for 'agricultural', in other States/areas the definition is much broader.

 

[cda]

Welcome welcome

 

[mtlogcabin]

I agree with JBI since our state has specific language that deals with equestrian activities and buildings.

The problem I can see is the "enclosed exercise area (80'x150')" is also used by the public for horse shows or similar events. Providing adequate exits, signage and emergency illumination would ease my concerns.

 

[north star]

$ x $ x $

REO,

Welcome to The Building Codes Forum !

Did that AHJ specifically adopt Appendix C in to their list of adopted codes & standards ?

If not, ...there is a problem.



$ x $ x $

 

[REO]

They did adopt Appendix C. The reviewer happened to be discussing the project with his department supervisor at the time I proposed my solution. However, for exits, I did originally look at the structures as requiring egress routes as Group U from Chapter 5. The placement of access doors for the structure supplied multiple compliant exits (with signage).

Thank you for your comments. I truly do appreciate it. I had not considered the State's language of Agricultural facilities beyond that in the Appendix.

 

[RLGA]

Are the buildings sprinklered? If not, I don't see how each building, considered even separately, can comply with the allowable area requirements of a nonsprinklered Type VB building, which is limited to 5,500 sq. ft. Even with the maximum increase for frontage (which you can't because of the 10'-6" separation), the maximum allowable area is 9,625 sq. ft.

If the buildings are sprinklered, then you can consider both buildings as one, which, by my calculations, would be a total actual area of approximately 19,488 sq. ft. I don't know if the lean-tos are part of or in addition to the 72'x104' dimensions; if in addition to, then the actual area would increase to a maximum of 21,152. With a sprinkler system, the allowable area would be 22,000 sq. ft. You can add a frontage increase, which would be close to the maximum, and provide about another 4,000 sq. ft. of allowable building area for future growth.

 

[mtlogcabin]

Appendix C allows 12,000 sq ft V-B construction for a U occupancy with specific uses and unlimited area with 60 ft of open yards or public ways for non-sprinklered V-B and specific uses within a U Occupancy.

Even if the AHJ did not specifically adopt Appendix C they should be able to accept it under alternate design means and methods. The appendixes when not adopted are not required to be used however if a designer chooses and the BO/AHJ agree then I believe the Appendixes are permissible to use because it is the designers choice and not a demand of the BO/AHJ to meet requirements that where not adopted.

APPENDIX C

GROUP U—AGRICULTURAL BUILDINGS

The provisions contained in this appendix are not mandatory unless specifically referenced in the adopting ordinance.

 

[REO]

RLGA, The buildings are not sprinklered. For the allowable area(s) we went to Table C102.1 which modifies the values of Table 503 for "Group U - Agricultural Buildings" for a very limited use of structures defined in C101.1. That table allows VB at 12,000 sq. ft. However, then referring to C102.2 it allows a "shall not be limited" statement if the buildings are surrounded by public ways or yards not less than 60 feet. In definition of "building" in that statement we referred to the Exception for 705.3 "buildings on the same lot may be considered as portions of one if the aggregate area is within the limits of Chapter 5". That's where I seek confirmation: at what point do references to Chapter 5 allow us to move to Appendix C? We cannot find reference in commentary (online 2009), and I do not have access to any printed commentary 2012 or otherwise. My interpretation is the values in Appendix C would be "attached" directly to table 503.

As this forum certainly reaches across the Country, I will add this. In our area, livestock feeding/growing operations are prevalent. Hog or chicken barns can easily reach above 20,000 sq. ft. And though loss of the structure would clearly represent a significant loss, in terms of risk to humans, it is minimal. Protection of the structure through use of separation walls etc. would be prohibitive to the operations. This extends to various other structure uses that are spread around the region. That is probably why we have Appendix C.

 

[cda]

RLGA, The buildings are not sprinklered. For the allowable area(s) we went to Table C102.1 which modifies the values of Table 503 for "Group U - Agricultural Buildings" for a very limited use of structures defined in C101.1. That table allows VB at 12,000 sq. ft. However, then referring to C102.2 it allows a "shall not be limited" statement if the buildings are surrounded by public ways or yards not less than 60 feet. In definition of "building" in that statement we referred to the Exception for 705.3 "buildings on the same lot may be considered as portions of one if the aggregate area is within the limits of Chapter 5". That's where I seek confirmation: at what point do references to Chapter 5 allow us to move to Appendix C? We cannot find reference in commentary (online 2009), and I do not have access to any printed commentary 2012 or otherwise. My interpretation is the values in Appendix C would be "attached" directly to table 503.As this forum certainly reaches across the Country, I will add this. In our area, livestock feeding/growing operations are prevalent. Hog or chicken barns can easily reach above 20,000 sq. ft. And though loss of the structure would clearly represent a significant loss, in terms of risk to humans, it is minimal. Protection of the structure through use of separation walls etc. would be prohibitive to the operations. This extends to various other structure uses that are spread around the region. That is probably why we have Appendix C.

Have not done a struture like this before

But I would say depends on where the building is and total

Use.

If I'm the middle of the city versus in the middle of 200 acres of farm land

And would have public in it

 

[RLGA]

REO:

There is no tie between Chapter 5 and Appendix C. Each Appendix stands on its own and may have references back to the main content of the IBC. There is only one location in the main content of the IBC that references an IBC Appendix and that is for Appendix D on fire districts.

Logic would dictate that the reference to Chapter 5 in IBC Section 705.3 would also apply to any allowable area provisions. However, some hard-liner in a building department could justify that Appendix C is not part of Chapter 5 because of the lack of a direct reference.

But, to overcome that position, you can call the new building an "addition" to the existing building and use the covered connections between the two "buildings" as part of the connected building (this adds area to the building, but, what the heck, it will be unlimited in area). Thus you have a single building and the use of IBC Section 705.3 would not be applicable.

 

[REO]

RGLA, Thank you for the information. As an aside, and you certainly don't need to reply in this public forum, are you on Chief Arch or Autodesk forums? It seems I've come across "RLGA" before.

Thanks to all again. Perhaps this thread will help someone with a similar situation at some point down the road.

 

[RLGA]

REO:

No, I only participate here, on another code forum (limited participation), and 4specs.com discussion forum. I also participate in some LinkedIn groups and I manage the Building Code Consultants Group on LinkedIn.

 

[mtlogcabin]

Check him out here. We all learn a lot from him

http://specsandcodes.com/Articles.htm

 

[cda]

RGLA, Thank you for the information. As an aside, and you certainly don't need to reply in this public forum, are you on Chief Arch or Autodesk forums? It seems I've come across "RLGA" before.Thanks to all again. Perhaps this thread will help someone with a similar situation at some point down the road.

RLGA is great

Maybe you are thinking about """Rolf Jensen & Associates" RJA

They have gone thoruhg some name changes over the years

http://www.jensenhughes.com/jensen-hughes-receives-dbias-2015-national-design-build-projectteam-award/