• Welcome to the new and improved Building Code Forum. We appreciate you being here and hope that you are getting the information that you need concerning all codes of the building trades. This is a free forum to the public due to the generosity of the Sawhorses, Corporate Supporters and Supporters who have upgraded their accounts. If you would like to have improved access to the forum please upgrade to Sawhorse by first logging in then clicking here: Upgrades

Can this church structure be rebuilt in its previous location?

W

Wild Bill

Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2013
Messages
8
Location
Costa Mesa
I would like some opinions as to a rebuild of a new fire damaged church building located near an existing structure (rectory). CAN THIS CHURCH STRUCTURE BE REBUILT IN ITS PREVIOUS LOCATION? (see attachments) It is my understanding as it has been proposedby architects that the rebuild cannot take place at the existing location as the distance and allowable openings requirements will require the structure to be moved to comply with CBC section 705.8. The architects have provided the following scenario as thier reasoning that the building is required to be moved thereby causing a delay and additional expenses by requiring a new Conditional Use Permit application process to be initiated.

[

1. Taking the assumption that the new Church would be sprinklered: The existing openings give us an elevation that is 55% open. According to CBC Table 705.8 the Church could have an imaginary lot line place 15 feet away from the exterior wall. (Unprotected openings, Sprinklered allow 75% open.)2. Taking the assumption that the existing Rectory would be sprinklered: The existing openings at the center/closest exterior wall to the church give us an elevation that is 23% open. According to CBC Table 705.8 the Church could have an imaginary lot line place 5 feet away from the exterior wall. (Unprotected openings, Sprinklered allow 25% open.)3. CBC 705.2 Projections, item 2. The projecting eave can extend ½ the distance from the exterior face of wall to the lot line. The existing eave projection is 4’-9”. This would modify the minimum distance to the lot line from 5 feet to 9’-6”.4. Based on Table 602, the fire-resistive rating for exterior walls based on fire separation distance, the exterior wall of the Rectory would be required to be modified to a 1 hour rated assembly. (with a fire separation between 5 and 10 feet.) Openings would have a ¾ hour assembly.5. CBC 705.8.2 Protected Openings: Exception: Opening protection would not be required where the building is sprinklered and the exterior openings are protected with by a water curtain using automatic sprinklers approve for that use.The original dimension between the two buildings is 20 feet. The required new dimension would be 15 feet plus 9’-6” for a total of 24’-6”. This would require the building to shift 4’-6” to the north. The County has indicated that a change to the location of the footprint of the building would trigger a CUP. In order to avoid the cost of modification to the existing Rectory, the distance to its lot line would have to be greater than 10 feet. Table 602 indicates no fire rating required for type VB construction when the distance to the lot line is between 10 and 30 feet. A minimum dimension of 25 feet between buildings would avoid these modifications to the existing Rectory, but would still require a CUP.

[/i]Are the architects’ are wrong. It is my understanding the calculations of the distance is measured perpendicular from the individual offsets on exterior walls and per elevation (not necessarily eave overhangs) and not the overall face of the closest point as determined by the architects’ calculations. Additionally, as the closest distance to the rectory is only at the single floor elevation. Should the second level of the rectory be considered in the calculation? Also as there is a 6’ high concrete block wall separation the two structures; would this have any bearing as to the consideration of distances and openings allowed. So I ask, CAN THIS CHURCH STRUCTURE BE REBUILT IN ITS PREVIOUS LOCATION?

View attachment 1919

View attachment 1920

View attachment 1921

View attachment 1922

RECTORY OPENINGS.pdf

SACTUARY OPENINGS.pdf

Plan.pdf

20130823144250727.pdf

RECTORY OPENINGS.pdf

SACTUARY OPENINGS.pdf

Plan.pdf

20130823144250727.pdf
 
Welcome

Sorry cannot answer your question

Can I ask how you are involved in this?
 
Might get to use the same building owner of both buildings on same property
 
Wild Bill, welcome. What I think cda is saying is, CBC 503.1.2 allows buildings on the same lot to be treated as one single building, with no imaginary property line between them. In order for this to work, the total area of the floors of both buildings together cannot exceed what is allowable for an individual building.

It appears as if you have yards and/or steets on 3 sides. Use this to your advantage per CBC 506 to gain additional allowable area.
 
= = = =

Wild Bill,

1st, ...Welcome to The Building Codes Forum ! :cool:

2nd, ...are you the same **Wild Bill** that was registered at the other Forum ?

= = = =
 
Is this covered by Chapter 34 as a repair? This would bypass all siting requirements because it is considered and existing structure. If this is a residential occupancy I believe there is a provision in California statutes that would apply and supersede the building code.
 
Also, if you're trying the "treat it as one building" thing, don't forget that the total allowable area of the buildings is figured BOTH (1) on a per-floor basis (add up the first floors in both buildings, and make sure the sum does not exceed allowable area per floor), and then after that (2) the total building area can be doubled for the aggregate of all stories when your buildings are multistory.
 
Yikes said:
Also, if you're trying the "treat it as one building" thing, don't forget that the total allowable area of the buildings is figured BOTH (1) on a per-floor basis (add up the first floors in both buildings, and make sure the sum does not exceed allowable area per floor), and then after that (2) the total building area can be doubled for the aggregate of all stories when your buildings are multistory.
Click to expand...
Will this work with two different classifications of structures an A3 and an R2?
 
Mark K said:
Is this covered by Chapter 34 as a repair? This would bypass all siting requirements because it is considered and existing structure. If this is a residential occupancy I believe there is a provision in California statutes that would apply and supersede the building code.
Click to expand...
It could possibly be considered a repair as a small portion of the structure is still standing, although it was envisioned as a total replacement. This is a church structure (non-residential) classified as A3.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top