• Welcome to The Building Code Forum

    Your premier resource for building code knowledge.

    This forum remains free to the public thanks to the generous support of our Sawhorse Members and Corporate Sponsors. Their contributions help keep this community thriving and accessible.

    Want enhanced access to expert discussions and exclusive features? Learn more about the benefits here.

    Ready to upgrade? Log in and upgrade now.

2006 IBC senior apartments

TJacobs

TJacobs

REGISTERED
Joined
Oct 19, 2009
Messages
1,362
Location
60430
See this plan:

SeniorApt_proposed.jpg


Have a project in another jurisdiction...I was asked for my input...I'm interested in what the group has to say.

2006 IBC, R-2, VA, 2 story senior apartments

Table 503 - 12,000 sq. ft. per story 3 stories allowable

They are not providing a NFPA 13 system so they do not qualify for the area increase for sprinklers. They are using fire walls of U336 to create 3 buildings and claiming a full 75% open frontage increase with no supporting calculation on how they came to the 75%. Assume they have the 30' on all 4 sides.

I told my colleague that since these are separate buildings the designer needed to show imaginary lot lines to determine fire separation distance, which I have duplicated on the plan. Sorry I do not have a plan with dimensions of the building.

The questions are:

1. Would you treat each building separately for purposes of the frontage increase?

2. Would you include the exterior walls that face each other in the calculation of #1 above?

3. Would you require openings in the exterior walls of #2 above to meet the allowable area of openings in Table 704.8?

4. Can they put a gazebo in the open space?

5. Can they put a pergola in the space between Bldg 1 and Bldg 3?

Any and all comments welcome!
 
1. Yes

2. At 38'-8" they are too close to be of benefit, but must be included in the perimter calc for area increase

3. Yes - -why would it be otherwise, for any building?

4. If the gazebo is in the 30' ara, then it will affect the area increase calc because the open space will be < 30' for the width of the gazebo.

5. Similar answer to #4.

Just brainstorming: it looks like the first floor rooms of bldg 2 are all B and A occupancy. The fire walls could double as an occupancy separation wall. This might mean that you could have some of the walls off the lobby be nonrated, as you are no longer using the lobby as a corridor for R occupancies.
 
1. Yes

2. The full width of the open space (38'-8") can be used for both buildings. For frontage increase, you don't base it on location of the assumed lot lines, just actual lots lines (open space must be on same property--506.2.2). However, the exterior walls that are the fire walls have zero open space, so they can't get the full 75% increase, anyway.

3. Would I require openings? No, except for egress. Would I allow openings? Yes, in accordance with Section 704.8.

4. Yes, but then open space requirements are reduced and it may affect opening protection.

5. Same as #4.

I agree that an assumed/imaginary lot line needs to be shown for determination of exterior wall and opening protection.
 
Agree with RLGA.....fire walls make separate buildings and therefore the connected "non-open" perimeters need to be considered...

Are they planning on egressing through that firewall? Just asking?
 
The fire wall between buildings 2 and 3 does not exactly line up so it can not be classified as a fire wall (or party wall).
 
Keep it coming...excellent responses so far. I was concentrating on the allowable area stuff due to the lack of a 13 system. Going to his office this afternoon to look at the plans to get some dimensions and some detail.
 
I didn't notice it, but Coug Dad is correct...both fire walls do not seem to line up with each other from first floor to second floor.
 
Took me a bit to see that misalignment.......that won't work!...Also watch for openings in the roof, roof venting, and those firewall terminations....
 
How are they getting the 75% if they have firewalls? The firewall is a zero lot line so to speak. You do not get that length of wall in perimeter increases I was told by Code Congress recently on a project I had that required a firewall. On my project the existing building’s allowable area was also decreased due to the firewall that was proposed.

Was Code Congress wrong?

Software at office will not let me see the plan.
 
Examiner......think legged building with common connector, firewalled off...fairly small part of the perimeter..not saying it is correct...but possible...
 
Just got back from his office. Works out to only 57% frontage, not 75%. Back to drawing board.
 
1-hour construction is required for at least 4 feet, but since the building is of Type VA construction, exterior bearing walls per Table 601 already require 1-hour construction.

And I'm pretty sure that they are bearing since all indicators point to wood frame construction: senior living, privatized project, Type V construction, no NFPA 13 system (i.e. low cost as possible).
 
A mix of open-web floor trusses and lumber joists in different areas. Fire walls were not shown extending to or through the roof. Multiple issues, and we were just getting started...
 
TJacobs said:
Table 503 - 12,000 sq. ft. per story 3 stories allowable

They are not providing a NFPA 13 system so they do not qualify for the area increase for sprinklers.
Click to expand...
With 13R they get an additional story (and 20 feet) - so four stories are allowed.
 
brudgers said:
With 13R they get an additional story (and 20 feet) - so four stories are allowed.
Click to expand...
Thanks but it's only 2 stories so they need an area increase not the height increase.
 
TJacobs said:
Thanks but it's only 2 stories so they need an area increase not the height increase.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I just wanted to make the point that 13R is a pretty significant life-safety system. The reason that there is not an allowed area increase is that the increases are built into the table with the 2003 code cycle when sprinklers were mandated.

The height increase in the IBC is in part to facilitate residential over retail type construction when using 13R - which goes to many of my other comments regarding sprinklering mixed use buildings.

As a bit of background my brief time behind the counter was in St. Petersburg which was one of the jurisdictions which was active in developing 13R - I worked with several of the fire department personnel who were behind it, as well as a couple of the plans examiners and inspectors.
 
brudgers - I appreciate your comment regarding 13R, which leads to a comment for TJacobs: I do a lot of senior apartments, and most of my clients want at least a 13R system anyway, for insurance purposes. Many of hte fire departments are requiring them in anticipation of stuaffing cuts, etc.; I've been told that a greater response time is allowed in jurisdicitions with sprinklers. Lastly, they sprinkler and provide smoke compartments for future flexibility in renovating the senior apartments into assisted living, should zoning ever allow it.
 
brudgers a follow-up, sidetrack question regarding the development of 13R: while I can appreciate the cost savings of omitting sprinklers in closets, I've been told by some people that closets are the place where a kid is most likely to go to play with matches without getting caught by mom and dad. Any validity to this comment? (I have no experience with this.)
 
Yikes said:
brudgers a follow-up, sidetrack question regarding the development of 13R: while I can appreciate the cost savings of omitting sprinklers in closets, I've been told by some people that closets are the place where a kid is most likely to go to play with matches without getting caught by mom and dad. Any validity to this comment? (I have no experience with this.)
Click to expand...
Sounds like an appeal to emotion rather than evidence:

https://www.usfa.dhs.gov/downloads/pdf/statistics/v10i6.pdf

https://www.usfa.dhs.gov/downloads/pdf/statistics/v11i2.pdf

More here:

https://www.usfa.dhs.gov/statistics/reports/residential_structures.shtm
 
Yikes said:
I do a lot of senior apartments, and most of my clients want at least a 13R system anyway, for insurance purposes.
Click to expand...
The IBC has required either a NFPA 13, 13R, or 13D (if applicable) spinkler system in R occupancies since its inception (although there were limitations in the 2000 edition). So whether they want it for insurance purposes or not, the building code has required it for some.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top