Lineal vs Linear foot of wall

[Iggy]

Hello All,

I am trying to do an addition to my home and the codes have different classification for the project based on the amount of the structure that is preserved.

I want to understand what this actually means and the distinction between "Lineal" footage and "Linear" footage.

Example: starting with a square footprint with 25ft long walls for total of 100ft perimeter

If i remove 50% of each of the 4 walls leaving each wall to be 12.5ft. Total footage of walls left is 50ft (12.5+12.5+12.5+12.5) did i remove 50% of the total outside walls?

vs

If i remove 2 of the walls completely leaving two original walls at 25ft each for total footage remaining also 50ft (25ft+25ft). did i remove 50% of outside walls?

Are both of these same thing as far as satisfying the below?


From the building code:
Seventy-five percent or more of exterior walls (Lineal Footage of Wall) are removed or replaced with new walls;


Thanks in advance

 

[cda]

Welcome

There are some calif's here so should be able to give you local help

Are you working with a architect or contractor??

 

[cda]

What section are you referencing

 

[Iggy]

I'm working with a drafter at the moment trying to figure out if this is something i can manage on my own.

I've talked to the city multiple times and every time i've gotten a slightly different response as to what this actually means.

 

[Iggy]

What section are you referencing

Definition of "Scope of Work."

A project submitted as a "Remodel" or "Remodel and Addition" shall be considered and defined as a "New Dwelling using portions of the original structure" when at least three of the following criteria are satisfied:

1.The valuation of the proposed work exceeds one hundred eighty-five thousand dollars (valuation calculated using established Valuation Tables published by the International Code Council (ICC) and modified by the Building Division);

2.Seventy-five percent or more of the roof framing (Area) is proposed to be removed;

3.Seventy-five percent or more of exterior walls (Lineal Footage of Wall) are removed or replaced with new walls;

4.Seventy-five percent or more of interior walls (Lineal Footage of Wall) are removed, replaced or relocated.

 

[cda]

I'm working with a drafter at the moment trying to figure out if this is something i can manage on my own.

I've talked to the city multiple times and every time i've gotten a slightly different response as to what this actually means.

Noo that cannot happen

 

[cda]

I guess another way to ask the question:::

What is your concern, if over any of these

 

[Iggy]

What cannot happen??

My concern is how they interpret those? I'm trying to make a plan and i'd like it to be considered an addition so i need to understand how those footages will be calculated so that i can design my plan properly. This is the question that i asked and have not gotten a straight answer to.

Given the example i gave above does that fit the definition or not? This is the main question.

I'm not trying to be too philosophical here but i want to understand how they define a "wall" and how they count it's length given the language above. Considering i've heard the city is challenging to deal with and given the feedback i've received already i'm expecting some resistance from them with respect to this issue and i expect they will either reject my plan or give me a lot of changes to make... Seems this should not be open to interpretation (law is the law) so i would have thought id get a straight answer...

 

[conarb]

Iggy:

The problem is that you are asking a question about a local ordinance and not a building code question, I ran into a similar problem a few years ago and the requirement was to leave 50% of the wall, neither my architect nor I realized what the word "continuous" meant, he designed the home utilizing 50% of the old walls, the plan checker rejected it on the basis that there was a 10' gap in the walls so to be continuous that 10' or wall had to remain even though my owner didn't want it, he wanted that area opened up with an atrium inside it, so we left it in and after final obtained another permit to remove it, dumb but that's what we had to do to get the design the owner wanted and remain a remodel and not be classified as a 'rebuild' which would have had all the costs and requirements of new construction (like $200,000 worth of fire sprinklers). Here is the ordinance I was fighting:

"Remodel" means an alteration to an existing building in which a majority of the existing exterior walls are substantially maintained. In order to be considered a remodel, all of the following criteria shall be met:

(a) A continuous length of the existing exterior walls comprising at least fifty (50) percent of the total existing exterior walls must maintain their structural constitution, location, and their situation as exterior walls;

(b) The framing members (including studs, top plate, and bottom plate) of such remaining walls may not be removed or altered, except for the installation of windows or doors, or the installation or modification or removal of abutting interior walls. Other minor repair or alteration of individual framing members shall be subject to prior approval by the building official or his/her authorized designee; and,

(e) The story height of the remaining walls may not be changed.

She took the position that continuous meant contiguous.

 

[Iggy]

Iggy:

The problem is that you are asking a question about a local ordinance and not a building code question, I ran into a similar problem a few years ago and the requirement was to leave 50% of the wall, neither my architect nor I realized what the word "continuous" meant, he designed the home utilizing 50% of the old walls, the plan checker rejected it on the basis that there was a 10' gap in the walls so to be continuous that 10' or wall had to remain even though my owner didn't want it, he wanted that area opened up with an atrium inside it, so we left it in and after final obtained another permit to remove it, dumb but that's what we had to do to get the design the owner wanted and remain a remodel and not be classified as a 'rebuild' which would have had all the costs and requirements of new construction (like $200,000 worth of fire sprinklers). Here is the ordinance I was fighting:


She took the position that continuous meant contiguous.

Yes this is exactly what i'm concerned about, problem is there should be no interpretation to this otherwise it allows people like Stalin do whatever they want. The plan checkers army reaches farther than mine...

 

[conarb]

Yes this is exactly what i'm concerned about, problem is there should be no interpretation to this otherwise it allows people like Stalin do whatever they want. The plan checkers army reaches farther than mine...

Iggy:

Like any other occupation you get good people and bad people, I had a building inspector get rotated out of the district and he told me: "Sorry I have to leave and I have no idea who you will be getting from here on out, but most of our guys are pretty good, we have two nit-pickers named XXX XXXX and YYY YYYY, watch out if you get one of them, they love to nit-pick builders then come back to the office and brag about it. We had a case here the other day when the height of a sign is supposed to be 60", it was installed at 59", someone asked if it could stay since the bottom of the letters/symbol was an inch up from the bottom of the sign, most here would not have accepted that. I retired at 80 not because I really wanted to but after fighting city hall for over half a century it's just not worth it anymore. All I can say is give it a try and see what happens, you just might get one of the good ones, and people wonder why we elected a President who promised to reduce regulation by 75%.

 

[ADAguy]

It all comes down to "who" you know, or hire an expediter to get what you want entitled in advance.
I've done many of these in SoCal and 50% was very loose, often coming down to 50% of cost to replace, allowing for one wall and the subfloor to remain, after that we basically rebuilt it.
The concern is having to pay supplemental fees or not which can be considerable.