Sifu
SAWHORSE
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2011
- Messages
- 3,350
Serious quagmire alert, but I will start simple.
Stipulate that a greenhouse is a group U per 312.1.
2018 IBC t506.2, footnote i says "or the allowable area area shall be permitted to comply with table C102.1 of appendix C". That table increases the allowable area. Generally, the appendices are only used if adopted, but since the code directs us there does that change anything? Now, to add on...when I read appendix C in it's entirety, I notice that per C102.2, a greenhouse can be unlimited in area with 60' yards. But that is not tC102.1 as referenced in the footnote.
This AHJ has not adopted appx. C. So if I can use only t102.1 via the direct code reference I can use those values. But, I don't think I get to use anything else in the appendix, which is the real issue based on the size of the building.
Here is where it gets ugly. Made uglier by the fact that I am reviewing a proposed T/I in a core/shell which was previously approved using the info below for the "future" tenant.
Proposed structure is single occupant, one-story, IIB, partially sprinklered (more on that in a minute), 60' yards exist, they classify the greenhouse as F-2 (I suspect because their is no unlimited area provision for group U other than appx C). I think it should be U. The processing is proposed as F-2 (accurate), storage as S-2 (accurate) and office as B (accurate). Here are the numbers:
105,000² greenhouse
24,000sf² processing
6,000sf² storage
5,000sf² office
They propose that they are an unlimited area building per 507.3 for S-2 and F-2. They seem to ignore the B. There are no proposed rated separations. They propose to sprinkle everything but the greenhouse. They are proposing an accessory mixed use strategy based on the fact that under their proposal the F2 is 129,000sf² and the aggregate accessories total less than 10%. The greenhouse as a U changes that. If that is the case, I think the only mixed use option would require a separated strategy, which would require the B to be separated from the rest of the building (as a NS building since the whole building is not sprinklered). The proposed building was approved under the C/S and with a well-written AMMR allowing the unsprinkled greenhouse, albeit with the greenhouse as an F-2. If the appendix was adopted/used, I think they could have an unlimited area for the NS greenhouse, and no sprinkler requirements for any of the others, but the separation would still be required. If I point this out I will be contradicting the previous approval, and the criteria used in the AMMR.
At this point, I think the design could have been approved with an accurate assessment of the classification and mixed use strategy with a an AMMR that reflected these conditions if they didn't want the separation, and I am not eager to poke this bear in their already constructed building. So, if you can follow my saga at all, is there any guidance on it? Take it easy on me, this is my first pass at a project like this. The facility is NOT a cannabis facility.
Stipulate that a greenhouse is a group U per 312.1.
2018 IBC t506.2, footnote i says "or the allowable area area shall be permitted to comply with table C102.1 of appendix C". That table increases the allowable area. Generally, the appendices are only used if adopted, but since the code directs us there does that change anything? Now, to add on...when I read appendix C in it's entirety, I notice that per C102.2, a greenhouse can be unlimited in area with 60' yards. But that is not tC102.1 as referenced in the footnote.
This AHJ has not adopted appx. C. So if I can use only t102.1 via the direct code reference I can use those values. But, I don't think I get to use anything else in the appendix, which is the real issue based on the size of the building.
Here is where it gets ugly. Made uglier by the fact that I am reviewing a proposed T/I in a core/shell which was previously approved using the info below for the "future" tenant.
Proposed structure is single occupant, one-story, IIB, partially sprinklered (more on that in a minute), 60' yards exist, they classify the greenhouse as F-2 (I suspect because their is no unlimited area provision for group U other than appx C). I think it should be U. The processing is proposed as F-2 (accurate), storage as S-2 (accurate) and office as B (accurate). Here are the numbers:
105,000² greenhouse
24,000sf² processing
6,000sf² storage
5,000sf² office
They propose that they are an unlimited area building per 507.3 for S-2 and F-2. They seem to ignore the B. There are no proposed rated separations. They propose to sprinkle everything but the greenhouse. They are proposing an accessory mixed use strategy based on the fact that under their proposal the F2 is 129,000sf² and the aggregate accessories total less than 10%. The greenhouse as a U changes that. If that is the case, I think the only mixed use option would require a separated strategy, which would require the B to be separated from the rest of the building (as a NS building since the whole building is not sprinklered). The proposed building was approved under the C/S and with a well-written AMMR allowing the unsprinkled greenhouse, albeit with the greenhouse as an F-2. If the appendix was adopted/used, I think they could have an unlimited area for the NS greenhouse, and no sprinkler requirements for any of the others, but the separation would still be required. If I point this out I will be contradicting the previous approval, and the criteria used in the AMMR.
At this point, I think the design could have been approved with an accurate assessment of the classification and mixed use strategy with a an AMMR that reflected these conditions if they didn't want the separation, and I am not eager to poke this bear in their already constructed building. So, if you can follow my saga at all, is there any guidance on it? Take it easy on me, this is my first pass at a project like this. The facility is NOT a cannabis facility.
