Current use vs. future use thoughts?

[Joe.B]

I have a "hypothetical" situation and I've settled on the code answers I'm comfortable with, but I am curious about how others might look at this.

Situation: Neighbor buys a property next door with a dilapidated house. Gets permit to demo. Submits plans ( 2019 CBC/IBC) for his own personal 1499 sq. ft. garage/shop. Included in these plans is a 400 sq. ft. R-3 unit that is required due to land use and zoning regulations. This "garage/shop" is clearly not intended to be accessory to the R-3 "apartment" as there is no door between, and no designed pathway from the R-3 to the U/S-1/F-1.

So I'm thinking this is a mixed use (508) and it requires a 2-hour fire separation (table 508.4) because the R-3 is shown with sprinklers (required) but the "shop" is not. Opinions?

I'm of the mind-set that we review what proposed and leave the "what-if's" out, but it is it's own lot and could be sold in the future. Should I be looking at this as a tiny house with an over-sized garage?

Thanks!

 

[Devohle']

Does foot note C apply here? [406.3.2]

 

[Joe.B]

Yes, that's what led me to section 508, Mixed Use and Occupancy.

 

[bill1952]

So if the owner using the garage building for personal use, not a business, lives in the "apartment", is it a simple IRC building with a detached accessory structure? (ignoring zoning for a minute)

Tough decision. I do appreciate your concerns.

 

[Joe.B]

So if the owner using the garage building for personal use, not a business, lives in the "apartment"

No, that's the tricky part, he lives in the house next door and bought this property to prevent a developer cramming in a dense apartment building. This lot is very near the university and several developers were chomping at the bit to get it. He intends to live in his current house and is building the shop for himself. The R-3 unit is only there to satisfy land use requirements and he will probably air b-n-b it, or rent it to a student. That's what makes this a little more complicated, owner uses the shop for personal gains (not a business) and rents out the "apartment."

Thanks!

 

[bill1952]

No, that's the tricky part, he lives in the house next door and bought this property to prevent a developer cramming in a dense apartment building. This lot is very near the university and several developers were chomping at the bit to get it. He intends to live in his current house and is building the shop for himself. The R-3 unit is only there to satisfy land use requirements and he will probably air b-n-b it, or rent it to a student. That's what makes this a little more complicated, owner uses the shop for personal gains (not a business) and rents out the "apartment."

Thanks!

The plot thickens. And if he were to combine the properties? Maybe ADUs are not allowed there...

 

[mtlogcabin]

You are over 1,000 sq ft for the shop so 406 is not applicable.
I think 2 hours would be required

406.3.1 Classification.
Private garages and carports shall be classified as Group U occupancies. Each private garage shall be not greater than 1,000 square feet (93 m2) in area

 

[Joe.B]

The plot thickens. And if he were to combine the properties? Maybe ADUs are not allowed there...

Apparently he tried to combine the lots and that was denied, not sure why.

You are over 1,000 sq ft for the shop so 406 is not applicable.
I think 2 hours would be required

406.3.1 Classification.
Private garages and carports shall be classified as Group U occupancies. Each private garage shall be not greater than 1,000 square feet (93 m2) in area

That was my interpretation as well, hence mixed use and occupancy. Table 508.4 shows F-2/S-2/U having a 2-hour separation if not sprinklered, 1-hour if they add sprinklers.

 

[Devohle']

I'm assuming the apartment is on the back.
If I were to be building it, I would sprinkler the garage too and then do a 1 hour separation.
Putting in a 2 hour fire wall may cost more.

According to 508.3.3 Exception 2, section 420 would apply. Which then leads you to section 708.
If I were the AHJ for the jurisdiction, I would be requesting it to be a 2 hour fire wall compliant with section 708.
If U is sprinklered, 1 hour separation compliant with section 708.

These are the things that make this work interesting and frustrating at the same time!

 

[Joe.B]

I'm assuming the apartment is on the back.
If I were to be building it, I would sprinkler the garage too and then do a 1 hour separation.
Putting in a 2 hour fire wall may cost more.

Apartment faces the street, "shop" faces an alley. I'm definitely recommending adding sprinklers and suggesting that it may be more cost effective, but it is their choice, as far as I can tell.

If I were the AHJ for the jurisdiction, I would be requesting it to be a 2 hour fire wall compliant with section 708.
If U is sprinklered, 1 hour separation compliant with section 708.

These are the things that make this work interesting and frustrating at the same time!

Agreed, on all counts. Thanks!

 

[Mark K]

Since this is in California you should check out SB 9 which addresses putting a second unit on a parcel.

 

[bill1952]

Are sprinklers being more cost effective just initial cost or initial and lifetime? Also seems likely the 2 hr wall will provide better acoustical separation at little to no cost. Shop vs. bedroom.

 

[Joe.B]

Since this is in California you should check out SB 9 which addresses putting a second unit on a parcel.

I let the planning department handle all that. I stay in my lane. This project had to go through design review before it ever came to me. And just to be clear, the owner now has two parcels, and he actually would prefer not to have the second unit on this parcel, but was required to do so based on land use code. A parcel merger was also denied.

 

[Joe.B]

Are sprinklers being more cost effective just initial cost or initial and lifetime? Also seems likely the 2 hr wall will provide better acoustical separation at little to no cost. Shop vs. bedroom.

Sprinklers being cheaper? I guess that depends on if there's ever a fire.... I imagine the tenant would much prefer the 2-hour separation for sound. But these are all design choices, I just need to make sure that whatever he choses is code compliant.

 

[Paul Sweet]

A 2-hour separation (concrete block wall or gypsum board area separation wall) isn't that expensive. The garage would require a NFPA-13 sprinkler, which may pull in requirements for alarms, annual tests & inspections, etc.

 

[Devohle']

A 2-hour separation (concrete block wall or gypsum board area separation wall) isn't that expensive. The garage would require a NFPA-13 sprinkler, which may pull in requirements for alarms, annual tests & inspections, etc.

Since the R-3 requires it, it would not be much more to add on to it. The maintenance will be needed on the R-3 in the future so the U would be rolled in with it. But as Joe said, up to the owner what he wants to do with the design as long as there is code to referenced for the options mentioned.

 

[Joe.B]

Part of my thought process here is somewhat philosophical in nature. I want to treat this as just what it is as presented because I think opening the door to "what-ifs" tends to create more problems than it solves. In this case though I think I have a responsibility to look at the fact that he could sell this at some point and the next owner might decide "hey I want a door from my house directly into my shop," am I doing the potential future owner a disservice by allowing this to be built as a mixed occupancy? In other words, should I be looking for a way to ensure that this could be considered a private garage associated with the R-3 occupancy?

 

[mtlogcabin]

Where in the code does it say you have to be able to access the garage/shop from the dwelling it is attached to

 

[Joe.B]

It doesn't and I am not implying that it should. The "what if" is if they sell it and the new owner wants to connect the two then it changes to use classification and would trigger different requirements. That's a huge "what-if" and generally I think it is not the right way to review a project. This is just the first time I've had to review something that made me consider the future implications of my approval in this way.

 

[Builder Bob]

I don't think the IRC has a garage size limitation within the code itself. IF it is a stand alone residence - show me in the IRC where property ownership is listed, garage size is limited?

It sounds like people are mixing zoning with building codes. Let Zoning do zoning - and Building do Building.

Why are we trying to hinder or make this man's stand against development difficult? I personally applaud him for trying to keep residential density down - Nobody wants to live in a SFD next door to a large apartment complex with traffic, noise, parties, etc.

 

[Genduct]

I have a "hypothetical" situation and I've settled on the code answers I'm comfortable with, but I am curious about how others might look at this.

Situation: Neighbor buys a property next door with a dilapidated house. Gets permit to demo. Submits plans ( 2019 CBC/IBC) for his own personal 1499 sq. ft. garage/shop. Included in these plans is a 400 sq. ft. R-3 unit that is required due to land use and zoning regulations. This "garage/shop" is clearly not intended to be accessory to the R-3 "apartment" as there is no door between, and no designed pathway from the R-3 to the U/S-1/F-1.

So I'm thinking this is a mixed use (508) and it requires a 2-hour fire separation (table 508.4) because the R-3 is shown with sprinklers (required) but the "shop" is not. Opinions?

I'm of the mind-set that we review what proposed and leave the "what-if's" out, but it is it's own lot and could be sold in the future. Should I be looking at this as a tiny house with an over-sized garage?

Thanks!

As a seperate Property, (his living next door can change at any time, so that doesn't matter) your concerns are valid.
If the neignbor consolodates the 2 properties then it still doesn't change your concerns about his giant "Man Cave" but it does make the rules for building an addition more straightforward

 

[Joe.B]

I don't think the IRC has a garage size limitation within the code itself. IF it is a stand alone residence - show me in the IRC where property ownership is listed, garage size is limited?

It sounds like people are mixing zoning with building codes. Let Zoning do zoning - and Building do Building.

Why are we trying to hinder or make this man's stand against development difficult? I personally applaud him for trying to keep residential density down - Nobody wants to live in a SFD next door to a large apartment complex with traffic, noise, parties, etc.

The designer chose to use the CBC (IBC) not the CRC, can't pick and choose. If this were CRC it may be a whole lot easier. But I'm reviewing as submitted.

I definitely stay in my lane, zoning is not my business.

I'm not trying to hinder anything. I am trying to review based on the applicable codes. Typically I stay clear of what-if's, but this one has me thinking a little deeper. Like I said, this discussion is somewhat philosophical in nature.

 

[Genduct]

As a seperate Property, (his living next door can change at any time, so that doesn't matter) your concerns are valid.
If the neignbor consolodates the 2 properties then it still doesn't change your concerns about his giant "Man Cave" but it does make the rules for building an addition more straightforward

Joe B In Philadelphia, our 1st step was to review the Zoning/ Use status so we can make sure that the Code was consitant with the USE.
With what you just said, the persons status as owner of abutting Property is irrelavant and project should be evaluated as Stand alone project,

So is a mini house with a maxi garage consistant with your building Code?

 

[Joe.B]

The avenue I found for approval is a mixed occupancy building with a 2-hour separation, per 508. Based on what was submitted that's how I can approve it. I think it does a disservice to any future owners, but I can't really justify asking them to change their design based on a "what-if." It is what it is.