Residential development built to IRC or IBC?

Voting section related to Minnesota building codes.

Should this project be regulated by the 2006 IRC or the 2006 IBC?

Poll ended at Tue Jun 30, 2009 7:45 am

IRC
20
83%
IBC
4
17%
 
Total votes : 24

Residential development built to IRC or IBC?

Postby forumadmin » Tue Jun 02, 2009 6:29 am

A proposed residential development contains multiple residential structures. Each building is designed as four single-story dwelling units with open space on two sides of each dwelling. The four common walls are designed for one-hour fire-resistance. Units are for ownership, not rental.
“Should this project be regulated by the 2006 IRC or the 2006 IBC?”
User avatar
forumadmin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 244
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 9:02 am

Re: Residential development built to IRC or IBC?

Postby Patrick Parsley » Tue Jun 02, 2009 9:21 am

If you call it a townhouse it can be built under the IRC. If you call it an apartment you can build it under the IBC. If you call it an apartment house-go to Maple Grove and use their zoning code. Pick one and stay with it.
Since you are describing the one hour separation it would fit best in the IBC. Ownership has no bearing on which code to use. IE-it could be a condominium sold as townhomes and built as apartments!
See 1341 for possible implications as an IBC building.
Patrick Parsley
 
Posts: 107
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2007 3:06 pm
Location: City of Fairmont

Re: Residential development built to IRC or IBC?

Postby Jeff » Tue Jun 02, 2009 11:12 am

Under the energy code this falls under residential construction. So as far as the energy code you would be utilizing the new 1322 energy code.
Jeff
 
Posts: 11
Joined: Thu Jun 22, 2006 11:26 am
Location: MN

Re: Residential development built to IRC or IBC?

Postby Ernie » Tue Jun 02, 2009 12:58 pm

We may need a drawing to see where that 4th common wall is!
Ernie
Ernie
 
Posts: 18
Joined: Tue Apr 25, 2006 1:31 pm

Re: Residential development built to IRC or IBC?

Postby Roger Axel » Tue Jun 02, 2009 4:15 pm

The 'residential' use must first be more clearly identified by the designer. I am assuming that the building is basically a square box with one dwelling unit on each corner of the building, providing two sides open for each unit. I agree with Pat's comment on whether the building is classified as IRC-3 Townhouses or an R-2 Apartment building. Once the occupancy classification is determined, everything else falls into line for examination for complinace with applicable code provisions.
Roger Axel, C.B.O.
Building Official
City of New Hope, MN
763-531-5122
Roger Axel
 
Posts: 42
Joined: Mon Mar 06, 2006 4:18 pm
Location: City of New Hope

Re: Residential development built to IRC or IBC?

Postby Joe Ehrlich » Fri Jun 12, 2009 3:49 pm

If the building meets the definition of a townhouse in Ch.1309 it is classified as an IRC-3 occupancy. According to the scope of the code (1300.0040) an IRC-3 occupancy "not more than three stories above grade plane in height with separate means of egress shall comply with chapter 1309 ..." The building in the example fits this description and the term "shall" doesn't provide much wiggle-room. I would classify the described building as an IRC-3 occupancy and require a two-hour wall (or 2 one-hour walls) between units. So, in answer to the question, the IRC provisions would apply.
Joe Ehrlich
Sr. Bldg. Insp.
City of St. Paul
Joe Ehrlich
 
Posts: 18
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2007 11:05 am
Location: City of St. Paul

Re: Residential development built to IRC or IBC?

Postby Patrick Parsley » Fri Jun 12, 2009 4:10 pm

If the building meets the IRC criteria it may be classified as an IRC structure. If a building meets the criteria of R occupancy in 1305 it may be classified as an R. You choose the classification and then use the correct code. Since this building fits both-the classification is a choice. After the classification is made-the wiggle room is gone. (By the way-what does one do in a wiggle room?)
Patrick Parsley
 
Posts: 107
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2007 3:06 pm
Location: City of Fairmont

Re: Residential development built to IRC or IBC?

Postby ctatro » Mon Jun 15, 2009 12:36 pm

This project could be built using either code provided the designer/contractor used the code chosen throughout and did not try and mix and match requirements. Is there a stronger argument using one ocde verses the other? In my opinion there is but the designer and contractor need to make that call.
ctatro
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 8:45 am

Re: Residential development built to IRC or IBC?

Postby Patrick Parsley » Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:18 pm

I would add; you can not build this building to the IRC with only one-hour separation walls as noted in the question.
Patrick Parsley
 
Posts: 107
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2007 3:06 pm
Location: City of Fairmont

Re: Residential development built to IRC or IBC?

Postby JimW » Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:29 pm

Folks

There is no right or wrong answer on this one. I personal would allow the contractor/Designer make the choice. Either way they would have to follow all the provisions in either code they choose. The Energy code is a good point I have not looked at on this and may have to research a little more.
Jim W
JimW
 
Posts: 38
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 3:03 pm
Location: St Paul

Re: Residential development built to IRC or IBC?

Postby C.Block » Mon Jun 22, 2009 12:18 pm

I believe if you read the question and take the question and only apply what is asked, there would be a right ond wrong answer.

If the question was - Is there a way to build this to the IRC or IBC, then yes would COULD do either.

The question asked - given this design, should it be built to IRC or IBC standards, since it stated 1 hr walls, then the only answer should be IBC. NO, it can't be built to the IRC (unless it was a 2 hr wall, but that was not the question).
C.Block
 
Posts: 25
Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2007 12:02 am

Re: Residential development built to IRC or IBC?

Postby mikeselon » Tue Jun 23, 2009 10:35 am

I completely agree with Joe Ehrlich's response. I believe it is just poor wording in the code that would lead someone to think this building could be built to anything but the IRC. 8)
mikeselon
 
Posts: 18
Joined: Mon Mar 06, 2006 2:30 pm
Location: City of Bloomington


Return to June 2009 Questions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron