• 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.

Connecting Buildings on Separate Lots

Q

QuestionThat

REGISTERED
Joined
Mar 26, 2019
Messages
61
Location
Greenville
Have 2 Medical Office Buildings (One existing and one new construction) that owners want to connect with an enclosed & conditioned covered walkway. Existing building is B type 5B and New building will either be B type 2 or 5B. Both buildings are sprinklered.

I have been able to establish that if we keep new building more than 10 feet off of the property line (which meets projection requirements as well) that the exterior wall will NOT have to be rated.

What I don't understand is how the connection comes into play and affects fire rating requirements (not to mention other code requirements).

Complicating matters is that the 2 buildings may have different owners.

Anyone willing to share some insight?
 
"May?" do they are don't they? If they are different are they both agreeable and who will maintain the walkway and pay for the utilities?
What happens if one owners chooses to sell his building and the buyer no longer wants the walkway?
 
Welcome

Come on give us a hard question first!!



So I am thinking that you will run into problems with the city, so suggest a set down with the city, to see if any form of this would fly.

Seems like the entire walk way would have to have sprinklers, or rated door at each end???

Maybe a rated door or two one each side of the property line, in the tunnel, might make the city a little happier, more than likely not much.

Not my area, but I think you have one building, once you connect, so seems you would have to look at area and height stuff, along with construction type.
 
Thanks for the responses.
To simplify things (sort of) assume same owner. This area is a little grey right now. Need to get my head wrapped around the rest first.

ADA guy- Good questions. Owner's want to share xray equipment etc. They are of the opinion that they can work this out. If the buyer doesn't want the walkway and nobody is willing to tear out the walkway then I guess the buyer doesn't buy.... right? I get your point though.

CDA- Sitting down with building officials is on the agenda. Trying to get my thoughts/direction/arguments together prior to that meeting as much as possible.
*Providing sprinklers for the walkway is a non issue.
*You mention the rated doors off of the connection as a way of possibly pacifying the city. So what you're alluding to is that you think that the walls that connect the two buildings together and the doors will need to be rated? Period? Can you explain? I'm really hoping to come up with a solution that doesn't require rating those walls. Right now slab to soffit storefront. It's only a 10' wide x 35' long +/- walkway.
*Looked into the area of the building when combined. The way I'm interpreting the code currently is we are over the allowed square footage for combining the buildings into one. A question revolving around this, however is the following. Could the allowed/ combined square footage be increased if we make sure that the new building is 2B rather than a possible 5B? Meaning is allowed SF more for that scenario than having two buildings that are 5B? I'm thinking that if 2 different buildings of 2 different types you must assume both 5B for code purposes. Height is not an issue.
 
At lot of "or's" in Section 3104.5....
I'm interested in the following:
* OR in 3104.5 Connections of pedestrian walkways to buildings. Says building shall comply with Section 3104.5.1, 3104.5.2, 3104.5.3, OR 3104.5.4. Does this mean that connections must comply with one of ANY of these 4 "Options"? So, if it's an OR option I choose 3104.5.2 Alternative Separation. If I'm interpreting things correctly then this choice would eliminate any requirement for fire barriers (Option 3104.5.1)... because I'm more than 10 feet away from the other building (see 3104.5.2 Item 1), open sides on walkways (Option 3104.5.3). Not required because choosing alternative separation, & Exterior walls greater than 2 hours (Option 3104.5.4).... because project exterior walls are not required to be rated by tables 601 & 602 because buildings are B occupancy types 2 & 5 B & sprinklered.
*OR in 3104.5.2 Alternative Separation. Says pedestrian walkway and the building shall comply with Section 3104.5.2.1 OR 3104.5.2.2. We meet the more than 10 feet requirement & everything is sprinklered. So, if it's an OR option I choose 3104.5.2.1 Passage of Smoke.

If I'm interpreting this correctly, all we need to do is connect the buildings, make sure everything is sprinklered and that the walls that the pedestrian walkway connect to don't pass smoke?

Am I dreaming?
 
Ponte_dei_sospiri_bridge_of_sighs_venice.jpg


Been done for years All over the world
https://www.google.com/search?q=wal...5#imgdii=PNwmkCeXFNcoDM:&imgrc=7ATvpWPrDd9slM:


Automatic Fire doors magnetic release
 
That's not my dream image btw. Now if the boat had a bunch of good looking women on it I might rethink that.
That being said. Where are the holes in what I've outlined above. Either it's OR or it isn't.
 
QuestionThat said:
At lot of "or's" in Section 3104.5....
I'm interested in the following:
* OR in 3104.5 Connections of pedestrian walkways to buildings. Says building shall comply with Section 3104.5.1, 3104.5.2, 3104.5.3, OR 3104.5.4. Does this mean that connections must comply with one of ANY of these 4 "Options"? So, if it's an OR option I choose 3104.5.2 Alternative Separation. If I'm interpreting things correctly then this choice would eliminate any requirement for fire barriers (Option 3104.5.1)... because I'm more than 10 feet away from the other building (see 3104.5.2 Item 1), open sides on walkways (Option 3104.5.3). Not required because choosing alternative separation, & Exterior walls greater than 2 hours (Option 3104.5.4).... because project exterior walls are not required to be rated by tables 601 & 602 because buildings are B occupancy types 2 & 5 B & sprinklered.
*OR in 3104.5.2 Alternative Separation. Says pedestrian walkway and the building shall comply with Section 3104.5.2.1 OR 3104.5.2.2. We meet the more than 10 feet requirement & everything is sprinklered. So, if it's an OR option I choose 3104.5.2.1 Passage of Smoke.

If I'm interpreting this correctly, all we need to do is connect the buildings, make sure everything is sprinklered and that the walls that the pedestrian walkway connect to don't pass smoke?

Am I dreaming?
Click to expand...


Best advice, start at the beginning of 3104, and go through each section

And ask does it apply to your set up or not, and if given more than one option to do, pick the one that works for you.
 
Here's what I'm thinking....
I'm looking at 3104.5.1 "Fire Barriers" as the "no sprinkler and too close" option1.
And 3104.5.2 as the "safe distance away and have sprinklers" option 2.
And 3104.5.3 as the "I don't want to have to rate my building walls or put a smoke wall in or do anything fancy with any of the glass in the walls that are already there" option 3.
And 3104.5.4 as the "I'm happy that because my exterior walls are already required to be 2 hour rated I only have to sprinkler my walkway and I that I don't have to rate the walkway walls or keep it 50% open" option 4.
 
QuestionThat said:
Here's what I'm thinking....
I'm looking at 3104.5.1 "Fire Barriers" as the "no sprinkler and too close" option1.
And 3104.5.2 as the "safe distance away and have sprinklers" option 2.
And 3104.5.3 as the "I don't want to have to rate my building walls or put a smoke wall in or do anything fancy with any of the glass in the walls that are already there" option 3.
And 3104.5.4 as the "I'm happy that because my exterior walls are already required to be 2 hour rated I only have to sprinkler my walkway and I that I don't have to rate the walkway walls or keep it 50% open" option 4.
Click to expand...


I am not an expert:


Here's what I'm thinking....
I'm looking at 3104.5.1 "Fire Barriers" as the "no sprinkler and too close" option1.

Appears "And 3104.5.2 as the "safe distance away and have sprinklers" option 2" takes care of this.



And 3104.5.2 as the "safe distance away and have sprinklers" option 2.



And 3104.5.3 as the "I don't want to have to rate my building walls or put a smoke wall in or do anything fancy with any of the glass in the walls that are already there" option 3.

Not sure what you mean by option 3. "3104.5.3"

And 3104.5.4 as the "I'm happy that because my exterior walls are already required to be 2 hour rated I only have to sprinkler my walkway and I that I don't have to rate the walkway walls or keep it 50% open" option 4.

3104.5.4 do not see option 4 ?


Are you using a base IBC, or has you state modified it?
 
Using standard IBC 2015.
What I'm trying to get at here is because the code is using the term "OR" in the areas of 3104.5 that I described earlier, I am saying that means that all of the various line items are choices/ options. My choices (if in fact they are choices) get me to where I want to be with minimal implications and costs to the project.
Just curious if anyone else can follow my interpretation. If some here can follow then maybe I can get lucky with the building official as well.....
 
Just read the code commentary. It seems to reflect that these are indeed options. This is taking me down a good path thus far. So thanks RGLA.

Simply wondering now if there is going to need to be any special type of separation between the two buildings at the property line or somewhere else and if so, why?
 
QuestionThat said:
Just read the code commentary. It seems to reflect that these are indeed options. This is taking me down a good path thus far. So thanks RGLA.

Simply wondering now if there is going to need to be any special type of separation between the two buildings at the property line or somewhere else and if so, why?
Click to expand...

No seperation should be required.

It has been awhile since I walked through one of theses.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top