# Classification help



## Sifu (Jan 25, 2019)

I have a proposed residential project.  They are calling it a SFD, it is all for the private use of a resident who lives next door.  The attached house is for the ranch-hands.  It is a 1400s.f. house (wood frame), attached to a 20,000s.f. indoor riding arena (steel) attached to a 6,000s.f. stable (timber frame).  All on a single lot, no other structures.  Not sure how to classify this. I am using the 2012 IRC/IBC.  My first thoughts are separate the U's from the SFD per IBC t508.4 but I am not sure the U is even permitted by t503 unless they design as a type IIB with suppression.  If they do that can they get to non-separated??  I can't wrap my head around this.


----------



## classicT (Jan 25, 2019)

Based upon what you have so far, I think that SFD is well out of the picture.

House would be either R-2 (>16 ranch hands) or R-3 (16 or less). Arena and stable would tend to be a U. Per T508.4, use a 2-hr fire separation between the R and U. 

The issue comes in when you consider it all one building and use 508.4.2 when figuring the allowable area (calculate percent allowable; sum must be less than 1, etc). Appears that construction type is going to be key. Is the existing based upon II-B and V-B? Hard time imagining that this is sprinkled as well.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Jan 25, 2019)

1400 sq ft IRC with zero fire separation distance Table R302.1(1) 1 hour—tested in accordance with ASTM E 119 or UL 263 with exposure from both sides and no openings or projections


----------



## Sifu (Jan 28, 2019)

My issue is the use and nature of the arena and stable.  Both are too big to be considered accessory out the IRC.  If we do these out of the IBC then we must use one of the mixed occupancy strategies.  Using the accessory option, if the main occupancy is the SFD, then the others are too big.  I suppose we could use the arena as the main occupancy and consider the SFD the accessory, therefore no separation required. But out of the IBC the U building exceeds the allowable area without sprinkler increase, and if you include the stables then it would exceed it even with the increase.
UG!


----------



## mtlogcabin (Jan 28, 2019)

Two completely structurally and utility supplied independent buildings built under two different codes with zero fire separation distance


----------



## mark handler (Jan 28, 2019)

Does the arena have seating? How many people? Less than 50, it a B.
No observation area, I might allow a "U".


----------



## cda (Jan 28, 2019)

No farm exceptions in your state/city


----------



## Sifu (Jan 28, 2019)

My thinking right now is a SFD (type V), separated from a U (IIB), separated from a U (type V).  Problems arise in allowable area without sprinklers.  The combined U's = 26,288s.f., so it looks like it will only fit under t503 as an type VB R3 separated from a type IIB U, adjacent to a type VB U.  And, the type U's would all need to be suppressed due to exceeding the are limitations.  Additionally, unless a frontage increase can be taken on the residential lot (but I don't see how that happens), the arena and the stable combined at 26,288s.f. would exceed the limits even after a sprinkler increase, and would therefore need to be separated.

No seating in the arena (no reason to believe this is anything but residential use, for the sole use by the owners), no exemptions for farm or ranch.


----------



## JCraver (Jan 28, 2019)

Notwithstanding any zoning regulations - If this is on a residential lot, and the arena is not used to make a profit (no rodeos, other commercial ventures), then I would permit the new construction/attached house under the IRC.  I'd refer to table 302.1(1) for the wall that connects the buildings.

The IBC is not for SFD's.  I wouldn't use it here.


----------



## Rick18071 (Jan 28, 2019)

2015 IBC [A] 101.2 Scope. The provisions of this code shall apply to
the construction, alteration, relocation, enlargement, replacement,
repair, equipment, use and occupancy, location, maintenance,
removal and demolition of every building or
structure or any appurtenances connected or attached to such
buildings or structures.
Exception: Detached one- and two-family dwellings and
multiple single-family dwellings (townhouses) not more
than three stories above grade plane in height with a separate
means of egress, and their accessory structures not
more than three stories above grade plane in height, shall
comply with the International Residential Code.

*Cannot go by the residential code because it is not separate.*

[F] 903.2.8 Group R. An automatic sprinkler system
installed in accordance with Section 903.3 shall be provided
throughout all buildings with a Group R fire area.


----------



## JCraver (Jan 28, 2019)

The arena and stable are accessory to the SFD.  IRC applies.

If in a residential district and/or the proposed use is residential in nature, then your community/jurisdiction and your applicant are best served by permitting their projects under the IRC.  No good comes from using the IBC for a house.

What if there were no zoning concerns with size and the arena and stable were just a big garage?  Or a garage and a greenhouse?  The answer shouldn't be any different.


----------



## steveray (Jan 28, 2019)

I think I am with JC....If it is not a "commercial" venture, I would try to keep it IRC...


----------



## classicT (Jan 28, 2019)

From the very get go (the first response), I attempted to indicate that this was not a SFD.

Can someone give any justification as to how this is a SFD when the known intent is to house ranch hands? This meets the definition of a boarding house, but does not meet the IRC's scoping as given by R101.2.




Depending on the number of hands living in the house, it would be either a R-2 (>16 ranch hands) or a R-3 (16 or less); falls under non-transient boarding house.


----------



## JCraver (Jan 28, 2019)

From the o.p., it sounds like owner lives on one parcel and he owns this house/arena/stable that's on the next parcel (or something like that).  So, how would letting ranch hands live in it be any different than renting it to a family?  Answer = it wouldn't.  Not a boarding house, but a rental. 

IRC applies.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Jan 28, 2019)

1400 sq ft employee housing that meets the definition of a dwelling. As long as it meets the requirements of a Dwelling Unit then it can be built under the IRC

[A] DWELLING. A building that contains one or two dwelling units used, intended or designed to be used, rented, leased, let or hired out to be occupied for living purposes.

[A] DWELLING UNIT. A single unit providing complete, independent living facilities for one or more persons, including permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking and sanitation.

I would assume the employee housing is part of their wages and therefore they are not paying compensation to stay there and most ranches need year round employees to tend to the livestock

[BG] BOARDING HOUSE. A building arranged or used for lodging for compensation, with or without meals, and not occupied as a single-family unit.


----------



## classicT (Jan 28, 2019)

mtlogcabin said:


> ... employee housing is part of their wages...
> 
> [BG] BOARDING HOUSE. A building arranged or used for lodging for compensation, with or without meals, and not occupied as a single-family unit.



If the ranch hand fails to work, will they have to vacate the house? If so, it is for compensation and thus is a boarding house.

Beyond that, the two structures are classified under the IBC, so any separation between them would be under the IBC anyways.


----------



## my250r11 (Jan 28, 2019)

IMO, this would be okay under the IRC. When you look at the hazards and fuel loads for a fire, the the house itself is the larger hazard than a huge open arena. 1400sf house is not very big to house more than 16 after a kitchen & bath.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Jan 28, 2019)

Compensation is payment of some kind by the employer to the employee.
Boarding house do not pay (compensate) their tenants to reside there
*What is compensation?*
Compensation is the total cash and non-cash payments that you give to an employee in exchange for the work they do for your business. It is typically one of the biggest expenses for businesses with employees. Compensation is more than an employee’s regular paid wages. It also includes many other types of wages and benefits.


----------



## cda (Jan 28, 2019)

So this is a commercial endeavor on an existing residential lot???


Sounds like the new falls under IBC


----------



## classicT (Jan 28, 2019)

mtlogcabin said:


> [BG] BOARDING HOUSE. A building arranged or used for lodging for compensation, with or without meals, and not occupied as a single-family unit.





mtlogcabin said:


> Compensation is payment of some kind by the employer to the employee.
> Boarding house do not pay (compensate) their tenants to reside there



If the ranch owner makes the home available to the ranch hands, it is a portion of the total compensation paid to the employee. Free housing is a trade off of more pay.

The ranch hands do not directly pay the owner, but receive less paid compensation. This is the same as the owner paying each $500 more and then charging them $500 for lodging. The proposed use thereby meets the definition of a boarding house as you originally posted (see definition above).


----------



## steveray (Jan 28, 2019)

I missed the "ranch hands" part in my haste, but still do believe it could be IRC....


----------



## Sifu (Jan 28, 2019)

The accessory structures are limited by definition to 3000s.f. by the IRC.  These accessory structures are 20,000+ and 6,000+ in area.  That alone takes me to the IBC, where I would classify it as an R3.  I don't think there is a way to do this without separations and sprinklers but I keep looking!

To revisit an earlier comment I made (assuming I am correct in my IBC assumption)......does a commercial building, for residential use, on a residential lot get to use a frontage increase?  506.2 requires 25% on the public way, and public way is defines as a parcel of land that is deeded or otherwise permanently appropriated to the public, for public use.  This is important since without the frontage the combined arena and stable exceed the allowable area per t503 (with sprinkler increase) and would also need to be separated.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Jan 28, 2019)

I and the commentary will agree to disagree


----------



## JCraver (Jan 28, 2019)

Sifu said:


> The accessory structures are limited by definition to 3000s.f. by the IRC.



What?


----------



## Sifu (Jan 28, 2019)

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.


----------



## JCraver (Jan 28, 2019)

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............


----------



## mtlogcabin (Jan 28, 2019)

Sifu said:


> .does a commercial building, for residential use, on a residential lot get to use a frontage increase?



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:


----------



## JCraver (Jan 28, 2019)

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.




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.


----------



## Sifu (Jan 29, 2019)

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............


 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.


----------



## Rick18071 (Jan 29, 2019)

This will be an addition to the barn. Does "detached" mean anything to anyone that thinks it should be IRC. 
This is definitely a commercial operation.


----------



## steveray (Jan 29, 2019)

If they are all attached, there are no "accessory structures".....


----------



## JCraver (Jan 29, 2019)

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.


----------



## Sifu (Jan 29, 2019)

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 (Jan 29, 2019)

The simplest thing might be to move the house a few feet away from the riding arena and provide a covered walkway between them.


----------



## Sifu (Jan 29, 2019)

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.


Did I forget to mention that it is our PZ department that says they must attach them?


----------



## cda (Jan 29, 2019)

Sifu said:


> Did I forget to mention that it is our PZ department that says they must attach them?




And the plot thickens

Is this written item or is this like a special use permit, where the city can ask for things


----------



## JCraver (Jan 29, 2019)

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.



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.


----------



## JCraver (Jan 29, 2019)

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?


----------



## Sifu (Jan 29, 2019)

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


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.


----------



## Sifu (Jan 29, 2019)

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.


----------



## JCraver (Jan 29, 2019)

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.




Seriously?  I don't mean this personally, but this is ridiculous. This poor guy is getting screwed......


----------



## cda (Jan 29, 2019)

2 acres and they need ranc hands


----------



## mtlogcabin (Jan 29, 2019)

cda said:


> 2 acres and they need ranch hands


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


----------



## steveray (Jan 30, 2019)

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?



Technically, if there is not a house there, we would have to use the IBC....


----------



## JCraver (Jan 30, 2019)

steveray said:


> Technically, if there is not a house there, we would have to use the IBC....



Even on adjoining parcels that are owned by the same guy?  I wouldn't..


----------



## Rick18071 (Jan 30, 2019)

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.


----------



## Sifu (Jan 30, 2019)

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.


----------



## my250r11 (Jan 30, 2019)

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.


----------



## tmurray (Feb 4, 2019)

After reading this thread, I've never been more happy to have a farm building code.


----------



## cda (Feb 4, 2019)

Or the places with

Cabin exception


----------

