Ignoring the requirements for an unlimited area building

[Simonsays]

I seem to have come across more than one project recently where the designer conceives and the building department (in another jurisdiction) allows an unlimited area building to violate the requirements found in Section 507.3 of the 2006 IBC. These are held up as examples I should follow.

Apparently, they both believe it is acceptable to place an unlimited area building tight against an existing building (or between existing non-sprinklered buildings) as long as a multi-hour rated wall is constructed between them.

In another example, the 60 foot clear area required to surround the building was compromised in a location on one side down to less than 22 feet. The fire official magnanimously allowed it, as his fire trucks "would never go back there."

Am I missing an "hidden" exception?

 

[FyrBldgGuy]

No you are correct. The fire departments answer indicates a lack of understanding regarding the possibility of a conflagration.

If the intent of the code is not understood then aspects of the code can be ignored. And then history will be repeated.

 

[Code Neophyte]

One of my biggest concerns is in the perpetuity of maintaining the open perimeter - i.e.) recording a deed restriction; otherwise, what's to prevent development in that area 40 years from now, when we're all gone and the codes have changed?

 

[Coug Dad]

The reduced clearance is allowed. The code was changed several cycles ago.

507.5 Reduced open space.

The permanent open space of 60 feet (18 288 mm) required in Sections 507.2, 507.3, 507.4, 507.6 and 507.10 shall be permitted to be reduced to not less than 40 feet (12 192 mm), provided the following requirements are met:

1. The reduced open space shall not be allowed for more than 75 percent of the perimeter of the building.

2. The exterior wall facing the reduced open space shall have a minimum fire-resistance rating of 3 hours.

3. Openings in the exterior wall facing the reduced open space shall have opening protectives with a minimum fire protection rating of 3 hours.

Still does not allow the condition described by the OP

 

[Gene Boecker]

I'm not sure about the exact condition so these are "guesses" about what they might also have happening:

1. The other building is also an unlimited area building. Multiple buildings on the same lot are allowed to be treated as one if they meet the requirements for height and area. If the other building is also an unlimited area building, then the separation between them is moot if they are considered two parts of the same building.

2. The 22 feet separation is to what? I have seen instances where the unlimited building was approved with less than the 60 feet (or 40 feet with a 3-hour wall) where the fire separation distance was to a utility easement or open body of water.

3. Is it an "unlimited area building" or is it a building with no limit on the allowable area (per Table 503)?

Those are the only "exceptions" that I can think of given the information.

 

[brudgers]

when we're all gone and the codes have changed?

When the codes have changed the building will be required to meet the new codes, just like today.

I predict they will change long before we are gone - like in 2012.

 

[Simonsays]

Thanks all. I like to call what I now have as, the "separated unlimited area building."

It results when a lack of building permit applications and a construction recession meet a potential project in a small town desparately looking for both jobs and the ensuing tax revenues.

Hey, if they want do go that route, at least place a description of what they propose under the registered design professional's seal on the cover sheet of the construction documents.

 

[FM William Burns]

Ironically enough we are looking at a Ag facility over 2.8 million s.f. and this perimeter thing is a stumblerand with TD of 300' for single story non sprinkled.

Wasn't there something in the old legacy about openings every X feet that would allow a reduction in the open perimeter?

It results when a lack of building permit applications and a construction recession meet a potential project in a small town desparately looking for both jobs and the ensuing tax revenues.

Yea, I'm waiting for that proposal too but our concern is the TD to exits and lack of exists proposed to date.

 

[Simonsays]

Another, older example, was the building department (elsewhere) allowing an A2 occupancy in an unlimited area building as long as there was a two-hour rated separation wall between the uses. I guess if one throws enough gypsum board at a problem, you can just wish it away. The icing on that cake was the designer selecting construction type 3B and failing to provide the two-hour rated exterior bearing walls (always required by construction type and not excepted by whatever fireseparation distance, reference Table 601 and footnote a under Table 602).

 

[jar546]

I just love how municipalities make up their own rules to suit them and businesses based on money regardless of minimum standards for fire safety.

topic

What is even more interesting is the increased amount of non-compliant submissions coming from architects that are not including required items such as sprinklers. When I call them on it they say it is what the client wanted and they knew it would get kicked back at plan review. I ask them what if it went to an idiot who reviewed it and did not know any better? Are you willing to accept responsibility with your license stamped on the prints? This is happening more and more because of the economy and guys are stamping things they would not normally stamp just to make ends meet.

 

[TJacobs]

I would have no problem with the OP as long as it is on the same lot owned by the same entity forever. Fat chance.

More fun will be had when they want to put the property line in AFTER the UL area buildings are built. Better to ask forgiveness than permission.

 

[hlfireinspector]

Unlimited building size still does not allow for exceeding the travel distance to exit. With the smoke and heat vent allowance done away with in the 2009 code many travel distance problems are popping up. A neighboring city just had to do a U shapped building because of just this issue.

 

[steveray]

There was something in an older BOCA code maybe 1990ish I believe (unless that was a CT amendment) that allowed another building to be connected to a BUA...I don't have it now but could get it if needed...we have 1 in town like this....many BUA