• Welcome to the new and improved Building Code Forum. We appreciate you being here and hope that you are getting the information that you need concerning all codes of the building trades. This is a free forum to the public due to the generosity of the Sawhorses, Corporate Supporters and Supporters who have upgraded their accounts. If you would like to have improved access to the forum please upgrade to Sawhorse by first logging in then clicking here: Upgrades

Classification help

2012 IRC:
ACCESSORY STRUCTURE. A structure not greater than 3,000 square feet (279 m2) in floor area, and not
over two stories in height, the use of which is customarily accessory to and incidental to that of the dwelling(s) and which is located on the same lot.

BTW, no longer a size restriction in the 2018 IRC definition, but we are on the 2012. It is a "significant change" in the '18.
 
So if you're in the IBC then you're fully in it, right? So all the commercial provisions, commercial energy code compliance, posted occupancy limits, fire code requirements, plumbing fixture quantities for every occupancy (so you're building extra bathrooms, I'm guessing?), and of course all 3 occupancies will be fully ADA-compliant, yes?

Seems a bit much for a rent house and a barn............
 
Sifu said:
.does a commercial building, for residential use, on a residential lot get to use a frontage increase?
Click to expand...

Yes
The building code does not recognize what zoning restricts the land use to

Where a building has more than 25 percent of its perimeter on a public way or open space having a width of not less than 20 feet (6096 mm), the frontage increase shall be determined in accordance with Equation 5-2:
 
Sifu said:
2012 IRC:
ACCESSORY STRUCTURE. A structure not greater than 3,000 square feet (279 m2) in floor area, and not
over two stories in height, the use of which is customarily accessory to and incidental to that of the dwelling(s) and which is located on the same lot.

BTW, no longer a size restriction in the 2018 IRC definition, but we are on the 2012. It is a "significant change" in the '18.
Click to expand...


It's not in the '15 either. It is in the '09, which we used to be on, but we amended it out so apparently I'd forgot.
 
JCraver said:
So if you're in the IBC then you're fully in it, right? So all the commercial provisions, commercial energy code compliance, posted occupancy limits, fire code requirements, plumbing fixture quantities for every occupancy (so you're building extra bathrooms, I'm guessing?), and of course all 3 occupancies will be fully ADA-compliant, yes?

Seems a bit much for a rent house and a barn............
Click to expand...
Good points. I have advised to provide a code analysis based on the commercial codes. The one area I neglected to consider is accessibility. But yes to the rest, if that is the way it goes once my boss opines on it.
 
Detached from what? You can't attach a garage (or a barn, if you like) to any house? That don't make no sense...

We're not going to solve this for Sifu, he says his boss has the ball. So it will be what it will be. I just feel bad for this rancher, because if Sifu's boss sees this like some of you guys do then Mr. Rancher is going to have a whole bunch of money in this thing that he didn't need to / shouldn't have to spend.
 
So you know. Whether you do it out of the IBC or the IRC seems to have little effect. Our amended residential sprinkler section says if the total building area exceeds 7700s.f., including the accessory area then they must be suppressed. If out of the IBC, same thing since the only way to build it at these sizes would be to take a sprinkler increase and the frontage increase. The sprinkler systems would be the same as far as I can tell. To me the cleanest way to go is IBC, separated mixed use strategy, dry pipe sprinklers for the U's, 13D for the R3. BUT, that is in the designer's court. I have asked for his analyis, we'll see what he says.
 
Paul Sweet said:
The simplest thing might be to move the house a few feet away from the riding arena and provide a covered walkway between them.
Click to expand...
Did I forget to mention that it is our PZ department that says they must attach them?
 
Sifu said:
Did I forget to mention that it is our PZ department that says they must attach them?
Click to expand...


And the plot thickens

Is this written item or is this like a special use permit, where the city can ask for things
 
Paul Sweet said:
The simplest thing might be to move the house a few feet away from the riding arena and provide a covered walkway between them.
Click to expand...

Even better - I'd buy a singlewide trailer, wait until I got my CO, and then stick that singlewide in a corner inside the arena. The ranch hands won't care.
 
Which brings up a question, for those of you insistent that this be built under the IBC: What if Mr. Rancher wanted to build just this arena and stable? Would you be after him for that project to be built under the IBC, or would it be just like every other detached garage / barn?
 
cda said:
And the plot thickens

Is this written item or is this like a special use permit, where the city can ask for things
Click to expand...
I don't know, don't really want to. I keep my nose out of their business as much as I can. When this first came up I inquired just so I knew whether or not I would be contradicting their requirements, but outside of that I steered clear.
 
Another point of clarification. This is in a city, very urban, with select large residential parcels within the city for the homeowners. This is not a large ranch, it is a +/- 2 acre city lot. The "ranch" is just a hobby arena and stable for the owners who live on the same size lot next door, which will share a driveway. PZ is a big part of the local enforcement authority and I try not to get in their business.
 
Sifu said:
Another point of clarification. This is in a city, very urban, with select large residential parcels within the city for the homeowners. This is not a large ranch, it is a +/- 2 acre city lot. The "ranch" is just a hobby arena and stable for the owners who live on the same size lot next door, which will share a driveway. PZ is a big part of the local enforcement authority and I try not to get in their business.
Click to expand...


Seriously? I don't mean this personally, but this is ridiculous. This poor guy is getting screwed......
 
cda said:
2 acres and they need ranch hands
Click to expand...
My thought exactly. I can see where P&Z have issues
At best it would be what I would call a caretakers residence
1/2 acre under roof does not leave much land to support more than 1 or 2 horses

Sounds like P&Z are requiring the structures to be attached because the barn would be to large to be considered an accessory structure under the P&Z code
 
JCraver said:
Which brings up a question, for those of you insistent that this be built under the IBC: What if Mr. Rancher wanted to build just this arena and stable? Would you be after him for that project to be built under the IBC, or would it be just like every other detached garage / barn?
Click to expand...

Technically, if there is not a house there, we would have to use the IBC....
 
ACCESSORY STRUCTURE. A structure not greater than
3,000 square feet (279 m2
) in floor area, and not over two stories
in height, the use of which is customarily accessory to
and incidental to that of the dwelling(s) and which is located
on the same lot.
 
I don't take it personally, but I also don't make the rules. Either way, via the IRC or the IBC, these would require suppression. As would his house if he built it today. Lots of people think they are getting screwed by the codes, sometimes I even agree with them but I have a job description that says enforce these provisions, so I do. If the city decided to amend to allow, I would follow that rule as well. I tried to see if anyone had a better way...........with a basis in the code, but so far I don't see one. We even contacted the large neighboring jurisdiction since we know they have them, they said sprinklers too. If the city decided to amend to allow, I would follow that rule as well.
 
Here we can't have accessory structures without a primary structure on the lot. so if they owned both lots they would have to combine the lots before they could have built the arena. We also wouldn't require them to be attached for any reason.... every AHJ is different.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top