A question without a simple answer. From the building code a building is merely defined as " Any structure used or intended for supporting or sheltering any use or occupancy". That in itself defines the difference between a building and a structure. A home is a building, a radio transmission tower a structure.
With that said a covered mall is an example of a large multiuse single building. Don't let the zoning issues steer you astray, theres no telling what some land use law could allow. It is entirely possible that a building could project over or require access through another lot, a deeded easement is just one method to do this. The building code actually makes reference that land use, i.e. zoning issues are outside the scope of the building code. If one desires to use the term building in the context of the building code they must do so in complete compliance with the building code. Its simply not acceptable to pick and choose the sections "that work". With that said in order for this complex of buildings to be considered a single building the full width and breadth of the building code need be applied. First determine the occupancy (and more specifically the most stringent occupancy) construction type, height and area. Add the building areas (also referred to as the footprint) together. This represents the total building area just as we would do with a single large building. Now take all of this information and review it utilzing Table 503 of the IBC. Can we build this building in accordance with the table ?. Either yes or no we must consider the two modifiers that modify the tabular (the numbers found in the table) height and area limitations. Fire Sprinklers and Open Frontage are two such modifiers, verify if using either or both of these modifiers allows the building to fall within the permissable (tabular + modifiers) building area. This is essentially what 2006 IBC 503.1.2 (Buildings on same lot) says. If the "building" in question has passed muster so far, then means of egress(IBC Chapt 10) (number of exits, travel distance, etc) must be considered. Next consider the fire protection requirements (IBC Chapt 9) (Sprinklers, Standpipes, Fire Alarms) ....... I think everyone gets the idea and its not a simple process. As a code official when this question arises it is the design professional who must prove compliance not the other way around. A single large building will actually gravatate to a more stringent construction type, means of egress and fire protection. (just to name a few). There is one example I'd like to share and that has to do with occupant load. The IBC (2006 IBC 1004.2 for those who want to check) stipulates a provision wherein the occupant load of a building may be increased beyond that listed in the "Maximum Floor Area Allowances Per Occupant" Table (1004.1.1). But to do this the designer is directed by the code section that "all other requirements of the code are also met". In other words theres a synergy implied in the code. If you want a glass of milk (versus say a glass of water) you need to buy the whole cow. So no picking and choosing. Hope that sheds some light on the whole thing. PS- Don't leave out the requirements of NFPA-13,14, 20............ John Drucker Fire Protection Subcode Official Building Inspector New Jersey Safe Buildings Save Lives ! _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
