• 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

SFR?

Re: SFR?

Been following the thread. Have to agree with TJacobs. If the garage is not accessory to a dwelling unit in the structure, you end up with R-3 and S-2 (at a minimum, because who knows this may garage may become, I have seen garages like this become the fabrication shop for the owners stock car and everything in between) mixed use building and all seperations required etc. in the IBC need to be built in.

It is a duplex only when the garage goes with one or both dwelling units, and the required seperations are installed. Owner does not need to live there to make it a duplex or a SFR for that matter, but the garage has to be accessory to the dwelling units.

As soon as the garage is an independent use from the dwelling unit(s) it goes to the IBC.
 
Re: SFR?

I would disagree with Texas Transplant and Tjacobs; A single family resident with garage is designed out of the IRC. I can rent my house out and keep the garage for my toys and it would still be SFR. Point to a code section that takes the position that your taking.
 
Re: SFR?

I don't understand the "built per IBC but comply with IRC" thing.

Could we state this as "built per IRC" with alternate method of construction?

In my opinion, if you say you are going to build per IBC, you stick with IBC.

I think if we go with the decision this is an IRC building with an alternate method of construction, much of the debate is gone.

The largest issue will be zoning.
 
Re: SFR?

Jeff,

Have you issued a "Stop Work Order", a Suspension ( R105.6 ) because he has exceeded the limits of

the originally submitted plans? Until you have something on paper, seems like a lot of conjecture

to me. Once he submits some type of acceptable plans [ other than a ' napkin-esque ' drawing ],

then you would have a place to start your research. Giving the Zoning Dept. a ' heads up ' is a

good idea! You did not mention, but are there any applicable municipal ordinances in place that

would shed some light or strengthen your position, ...one way or the other?

 
Re: SFR?

This has all the trappings of "gotcha!"

If the owner was going to live in the building, there wouldn't be an issue.

If the owner let his son store his cars in the garage and allowed his son to padlock the garage and keep the key there wouldn't be an issue.

And if he allowed his daughter to fill up the other half of the second floor with the grand kids toys and use it for a playroom at her convenience, there wouldn't be an issue.

From a building code standpoint, I don't see anything under the IRC that applies.

So what if the guy is getting away with something?

Code Officials aren't responsible for that, just the building code.
 
Re: SFR?

so..if I don't own a car, and my neighbor doesn't have a garage, and I let him use my garage to park his car in.....it's a mixed use occupancy R-3/S-2?
 
Re: SFR?

So ok. I got this house submitted to me. One of the rooms in the basement is labelled bedroom #4. It is even drawn with the queen size bed neatly in the center of the room and a full height wardrobe. There is no window, well or ladder shown. I write my review and ask for compliance with the egress window, well and ladder. When it comes back the room is now labelled storage. The bed that was previously drawn neatly centered in the room is now shown drawn on its side (vertical) laying up against the wardrobe.

What changed?
 
Re: SFR?

rktect 1 said:
So ok. I got this house submitted to me. One of the rooms in the basement is labelled bedroom #4. It is even drawn with the queen size bed neatly in the center of the room and a full height wardrobe. There is no window, well or ladder shown. I write my review and ask for compliance with the egress window, well and ladder. When it comes back the room is now labelled storage. The bed that was previously drawn neatly centered in the room is now shown drawn on its side (vertical) laying up against the wardrobe.What changed?
The only thing that changed is now the C.O. says "No sleeping is permitted in the basement"
 
Re: SFR?

rktect 1 said:
So ok. I got this house submitted to me. One of the rooms in the basement is labelled bedroom #4. It is even drawn with the queen size bed neatly in the center of the room and a full height wardrobe. There is no window, well or ladder shown. I write my review and ask for compliance with the egress window, well and ladder. When it comes back the room is now labelled storage. The bed that was previously drawn neatly centered in the room is now shown drawn on its side (vertical) laying up against the wardrobe.What changed?
Or office, or den, or playroom, or bonus room, or study, or home theater room ("we like to lie in bed when we watch our movies"), etc. "If it quacks like a duck, it might not be a duck after all, it might be a cardinal acting like a duck. That code requirement does not apply to cardinals." "It's not what I meant to deceive you with." "You guys are too picky."

Columbo acted dumb but he was a pretty smart cookie.
 
Re: SFR?

Now that we have an apartment and storage for the building owner, he told me he plans on installing 2 electrical meters. The owner wants to place a door between sides and allow the tenant full access to the other side which will be delcared a weight room.

Other than the work done under the original permit, no other work has been started as he did not officially apply for a permit. Therefore there is no reason for a stop work order.

Now we will have:

1) A pole building with 2,400 sq ft of 1st floor storage & 1,200 sq ft of a personal use weight room for the building owner who resides elsewhere.

2) 1,200 square foot dwelling unit that will be rented out as an apartment.

3) The 1,200 sq ft weight room will be accessible to the tenant via a door.

There are not 2 dwelling units so it cannot be a two or more family dwelling.

It is appearing to me to be a SFR at this point.
 
Re: SFR?

IMHO it was always an SFR

would anyone have a problem if i had a 1st. floor residence and a basement garage?

how about a 1st. floor garage and a basement residence?

as long as i can maintain separation between garage and residence it doesn't matter how i configure.

i have even seen a small residence inside a garage for the motor home (snow birds)

what if i had a basement garage, open finished 1st. floor , and the rest on the 2nd. floor (kitchen, bathrooms, bedrooms)?

to me use is single family residence... IRC
 
Re: SFR?

I don't understand the "built per IBC but comply with IRC" thing.
R301.1.2 Construction systems.

The requirements of this code are based on platform and balloon-frame construction for light-frame buildings. The requirements for concrete and masonry buildings are based on a balloon framing system. Other framing systems must have equivalent detailing to ensure force transfer, continuity and compatible deformations.

R301.1.3 Engineered design.

When a building of otherwise conventional construction contains structural elements exceeding the limits of Section R301 or otherwise not conforming to this code, these elements shall be designed in accordance with accepted engineering practice. The extent of such design need only demonstrate compliance of nonconventional elements with other applicable provisions and shall be compatible with the performance of the conventional framed system. Engineered design in accordance with the International Building Code is permitted for all buildings and structures, and parts thereof, included in the scope of this code.

1) A pole building with 2,400 sq ft
A pole building is not light frame construction so an engineer would design the structure in accordance with the IBC. remainder of the building is IRC, Rise and run on stairs, no sprinklers required, etc.
 
Re: SFR?

mtlogcabin said:
It would be a duplex where the owner occupies one of the units.
I don't think that is a code requirement in the I-codes

It is just a duplex which the owner happens to occupy a unit. Sorry. My fault. It's R-3 two family dwelling.
 
Re: SFR?

kilitact said:
I would disagree with Texas Transplant and Tjacobs; A single family resident with garage is designed out of the IRC. I can rent my house out and keep the garage for my toys and it would still be SFR. Point to a code section that takes the position that your taking.
Kil, the duplex exceeds prescriptive path and therefore needs to comply with IBC requirements. IRC dwelling units are R-3. IRC private garages are ordinarily Group S or U. Whatever it is.

R301.1.3. This means that occupancy/use classification needs to be identified and given the nature of this being a pole-building construction. All conventional framing should only need to comply with IRC as IBC permits use of IRC for such anyway.

Also the garage is used by one one of the two dwelling units not both. So it is accessory to one of the units but not the other. The unit with the stairs down to the garage would be the unit the garage is accessory to.
 
Re: SFR?

jar546 said:
It can't be a duplex because there is only 1 dwelling unit per the definition of dwelling unit.
Ok, is this an apartment or a studio apartment?

They are supposingly making a change-order on the design to make it two dwelling units? Is it just renting out a bedroom or is the unit not occupied by the owner is going to have its own kitchen and bathroom. If it has its own kitchen (cooking area) and bathroom (sanitation) then it is a dwelling. Having a garage is NOT a requirement.

Edit: Explain - is the garage the only area to be used by the owner and as a storage space? If that is the case, it would just be a Group S - storage since the building has exceeded prescriptive path. It would be basically an accessory storage area. There would be no additional requirements between Group S storage to a R-3 multi-use (that I can think of) and an attached accessory storage area. If it is ever intend to be in the future to store a vehicle then it should be treated as a garage which will have same drywall requirements and it would need to meet requirements for a garage floor to handle weight of a vehicle.

It might just be a classification deal. Still is going to have a 1/2" drywall and maybe a 1-hour fire-rated drywall.

It could be designed in such a way that the garage can be accessible from the upper floor without going outside but somewhat segregated from the dwelling space. It would just be locked by the building owner.
 
Re: SFR?

Rick, the other side of the 2nd floor will have a bathroom only and completely open as an excersise room. There will be no cooking facilities, no kitchenette, no bedroom.

I will address these issues in the stipulations of the C of O.
 
Top