705.8 Openings in Exterior Walls

[JZegowitz]

I'm working on dwgs for renovation to an existing small B use group, single story, concrete block, steel bar joist, slab on grade building that is directly ON the lot line at the front right corner of the building, and 5'+ at the rear right. The building has an old alum storefront extending 8' from front corner toward the back along this line as well as four small punched windows into the block as you head to the rear. The building is not sprinkler protected and will not be upon renovations. It appears clear that NO openings are allowed along that side until they are 3' or more from the lot line, where I intend to add 90 min. fire shutters to these opening. Windows less than 3', as well as the storefront, to be blocked in during renovations. Would that seem correct?
I was sitting thru a zoning board meeting last night in a small city with many large residential buildings on small lots, very close to lot lines. Several R-2 buildings were pitched to be as close as 1' to the lot line on sides where there will be windows- how is that even possible for any building given 705.8?

 

[RLGA]

Does the building owner own the lot immediately adjacent to the side of the building at issue? Or, Is there a recorded covenant that the owner of the adjacent property cannot build within a certain distance of the lot line? There could be several reasons why the condition was allowed, and there could be just as many solutions to address it.

If the IEBC is at play here, then existing conditions can remain as long as the building is not made more noncompliant than it already is. Adding fire-rated shutters will help, but why do it if no building currently exists or is planned for the adjacent property? You can also replace the existing glazing system with a 2-hour glazed assembly tested per ASTM E119. You can infill the opening with a rated wall assembly and add skylights to replace the loss of natural lighting. Etc. etc.

Regarding the R-2 apartment situation, both the IBC and IRC (depending on the project application) require a minimum of 3 feet of fire separation distance before openings are permitted. Either the local jurisdiction has amended the code, or the more likely situation is that the zoning board does not know any better and the designers will find out when they go to plan review for a permit.

 

[JZegowitz]

Does the building owner own the lot immediately adjacent to the side of the building at issue? Or, Is there a recorded covenant that the owner of the adjacent property cannot build within a certain distance of the lot line? There could be several reasons why the condition was allowed, and there could be just as many solutions to address it.

If the IEBC is at play here, then existing conditions can remain as long as the building is not made more noncompliant than it already is. Adding fire-rated shutters will help, but why do it if no building currently exists or is planned for the adjacent property? You can also replace the existing glazing system with a 2-hour glazed assembly tested per ASTM E119. You can infill the opening with a rated wall assembly and add skylights to replace the loss of natural lighting. Etc. etc.

Regarding the R-2 apartment situation, both the IBC and IRC (depending on the project application) require a minimum of 3 feet of fire separation distance before openings are permitted. Either the local jurisdiction has amended the code, or the more likely situation is that the zoning board does not know any better and the designers will find out when they go to plan review for a permit.

Thank you very much for the prompt response! The building is 60-70 years old I'd guess, owner doesn't own adjacent property and no agreements/covenants between the two. I'm thinking the building was built well before anyone was worried about codes in this area. Will need to comply w/ IEBC. Looks like I was reading 403.1 as to imply we needed to comply with provisions for new code when replacing windows, and since they were to be removed for replacement we would not be allowed to re-install as you wouldn't be allowed to under the current code (2015 ibc)? Interior of building is gutted to exterior walls, will have all new services, new non-comb interior partitions and finishes and hp compliant lav and egress doors. Windows on the lot line only question... I think! Thanks again.

 

[steveray]

And 702.6 if you are using 2015...

702.6 Materials and methods. All new work shall comply
with the materials and methods requirements in the International
Building Code, International Energy Conservation
Code, International Mechanical Code, and International
Plumbing Code, as applicable, that specify material standards,
detail of installation and connection, joints, penetrations,
and continuity of any element, component, or system in
the building.

 

[ICE]

since they were to be removed for replacement we would not be allowed to re-install

It seems to me that if the construction was previously approved the windows should be allowed to be renewed.

 

[JZegowitz]

...sounds like I should ask the local building official - should've had this discussion with him when the question came up! Was hoping to spit these dwgs out super fast, but alas.... Thanks all for the input, I'll let you know how it shakes out.

 

[Yikes]

FWIW, I worked remodeling on existing commercial building that was constructed with a 2 hour (CMU) wall right against the property line. The view from this PL was of the ocean, just a few blocks away. We cut openings, then closed them up again with "transparent wall" using FireLite glazing in steel frames, which has been hose stream tested as a wall instead of a window. Very pricey stuff, but the cost was more than rewarded by the increase in rents from tenants who really wanted that ocean view.

 

[JZegowitz]

OK! Had a good conversation with the local bldg official, great discussion - very relaxed and reasoned discussion, good back and forth. (sadly, i'm finding these conversations more difficult to have these days- for some reason) Anyway, it was his interpretation of 403.1 that replacement of the existing windows with modern materials and systems would satisfy the base requirement of not making the building any less safe that currently is, and that the intent of this section was not to promote a material change to the building so that a certain area would then conform with current code. Hope that helps others. Thanks everyone for your input.

 

[Sifu]

Take multiple buildings on a lot. All residential, one is a SFD, the others accessory buildings, one a metal frame building, used as a garage, accessory to the SF. About 5' apart. Now they want to turn the metal frame building into a commercial business, B & M. This is a C of O, but the IEBC doesn't directly address SFD (IRC regulated) for the hazard classification tables I would use to compel compliance with fire resistant rated walls regarding FSD. My approach is use group R (relative hazard 3) for the previous classification. Changing this to an M would be a change to a higher classification and require the fire rating from the IBC.

But, what if the group B portion of the new commercial establishment (equal relative hazard) is the classification located next the the offending walls? Meaning the group M would be > 10' from the FSD. Could compliance be accomplished by separating the B from the M instead of the B from the FSD?