Metal carport interpretation

[mariano rodriguez]

Hello, new to this have an interpretation question. Have a client who built a metal carport 1' from his property. Local zoning is OK with it however local jurisdiction wants client to erect a 1hr wall on the side adjacent to the property line. Carport is all metal including roof and TS columns are even filled with concrete. Thoughts?

 

[JCraver]

Can't really help unless we know what code they're citing. Do you know why they want the 1-hr wall? Did they give you a code section to back it up? What code edition are you under? Your location will help too, in case there's any locals on here who see the question.

 

[mariano rodriguez]

this is in the Tucson using 2012 irc and IBC. They want the 1 hr wall because of the less than 3' from the property line. Relating to table 602

 

[cda]

Welcome

 

[mariano rodriguez]

Welcome

Thank you for the welcome

 

[cda]

So option of Building a wall instead of using a sawsall on the structure.

Sounds like no choice unless you want to appeal

 

[mariano rodriguez]

That is the way they are making it sound.

 

[mtlogcabin]

704.10 Exterior structural members.
Load-bearing structural members located within the exterior walls or on the outside of a building or structure shall be provided with the highest fire-resistance rating as determined in accordance with the following:

1. As required by Table 601 for the type of building element based on the type of construction of the building; Type IIB ok

2. As required by Table 601 for exterior bearing walls based on the type of construction; and No exterior wall

3. As required by Table 602 for exterior walls based on the fire separation distance. No exterior wall

I believe you may be in violation of Table 705.2 IBC 2012 because you are less than 2 feet FSD for your roof

 

[mariano rodriguez]

Small overhang could be cut back to be flush with structural posts however they are looking at the overall structure.

 

[cda]

Cut just the roof line back to the required set back

And hopefully they consider the supports one hour??

 

[Francis Vineyard]

Self supporting roof structures could extend over lot lines (given the owners permission) without fire-resistant construction. The provision that limits projections is measured from its exterior walls and if there are no walls then it's not applicable.

Can email you an ICC written interpretation that supports the above upon request.

vineyardw@charlottesville.org

 

[Francis Vineyard]

FS 16-15
705.8
Proponent: Ali Fattah, City of San Diego Development Services Department, representing City of San Diego
(afattah@sandiego.gov)
2015 International Building Code
Revise as follows:
705.8 Openings. Openings in exterior walls shall comply with Sections 705.8.1 through 705.8.6. For structures or portions of
structures not provided with surrounding exterior walls and with usable area under the horizontal projection of the roof or floor above, exterior wall shall mean the primary structural frame supporting the roof or floor above.
Reason: The proposed code change addresses exterior opening protection for structures and buildings, and portions thereof that do not include surrounding exterior walls.

The IBC does not address the protection of covered exterior portions of a building that cannot be classified as projections and that provide shelter for useable space. The useable space is included in building area and fire area where applicable however the code does not seem to regulate the proximity of the useable space relative to the lot line.

Projections appear to be elements attached to exterior walls that do not include useable space below.

Exterior balconies are not defined and appear to be the exception and seem to be regulated similar to eaves and cornices and it is implied that they cantilever from the wall of the building.

Table 601 footnote (f) referenced under primary structural frame requires that the fire resistance of the structural frame to comply with Section 704.10 in addition to Table 601. As a consequence the structural frame on the outside of a building or structure without a surrounding exterior wall is required to comply with Table 602 as if it were a wall. However since the primary structural frame does not comply with the definition for wall it is necessary to modify Section 705.8 to make clear that openings within the primary structural frame are regulated.

Some structures addressed by this code change may include canopies over gasoline pump islands; canopies over play grounds or picnic areas; useable areas under portions of buildings where the upper stories are larger than portions below and closer to a lot line, etc.

Most Building Officials will consider that the face of the building to be the structural frame and would regulate the percentage of exterior openings within, however the IBC as written does not support this interpretation.

Currently as written the IBC implies that if an exterior wall is not provided then the openings on the exterior perimeter are not regulated since they are not openings in an exterior wall. A written interpretation from ICC confirms this.

Cost Impact: Will increase the cost of construction The proposed code change is necessary for public safety and to provide more consistent application of the exterior wall opening protection requirements. The increased of construction will result is safer communities that are more resilient when faced with natural disasters that interrupt water supplies and power for extended periods of time since it ensures a protected building perimeter that can limit conflagration hazards.

https://www.iccsafe.org/wp-content/uploads/IBC-FireSafety.pdf

 

[Francis Vineyard]

Excerpt from written interpretation:

Q2: The upper story does not meet the definition of projection in Section 705.2 since it does not
resemble an eave, balcony, etc. Does Table 602 envision that occupancy be assigned to the space
below the larger upper story and that an exterior wall be provided to separate that occupancy from
the lot line?

A2: No, Table 602 does not envision nor have anything to do with assigning an occupancy
classification. If the space below the second story has a use, then based on Chapter 3, an
occupancy classification shall be determined. Once there is a use and occupancy classification
determined for the space below the second floor overhang, then that area of building without an
exterior wall would be required to comply with any code requirement that applies. Take for example
of an open-air parking garage/carport located under the overhang of the story above. There is a use
and occupancy classification for that parking garage/carport and all applicable code requirements
shall apply, including exterior wall and opening requirements of Section 705. By definition of a
carport has minimum two sides open, but if carport is too close to the property line, then that exterior
opening must be closed with an exterior wall and/or have the appropriate amount (percentage) of
opening.

As you know, the code does not address when an extended or enlarged eave overhang is no longer a
“projection” and should be considered part of the building area. A projection shall extend beyond an
exterior wall and shall comply with Section 705.2 and would not be count as part of the building area.

Q3: It can be inferred from Section 705.8.1 that if an exterior wall is absent at a location that the fire
separation distance apply to exterior wall if it is provided even if it is inset and that useable space can
be located beneath the larger upper story and that exterior openings are potentially not restricted in
the lower story if the exterior wall is sufficiently inset from the lot line based on the fire separation
distance on the lower story. I have attached a simple figure to illustrate the question. It seems illogical
that that the IBC would allow the upper story of a restaurant for example to be at a zero fire
separation distance and to have a dining patio immediately beneath the upper story that is more than
20 feet deep relative to a lot line to have a use and unprotected exterior wall openings on the lower
story. By using the term openings in exterior walls if an exterior wall does not exist at zero fire
separation and a rated exterior wall is not required then opening restriction is not required. To further
illustrate the question, if a Type II B sprinkler protected steel framed building includes perimeter
exterior walls that are set back from the exterior plane of the outer most part of the building, then is it
the intent of Table 602 that an exterior wall be provided to separate the space between the exterior
most frames and the inset exterior wall? Section 705.8.1 seems to imply that where the exterior wall
occurs and not the frame the openings are regulated and that fire separation distance is determined
from the face of the building which could be an inset wall.

A: See A2 above and note that the intent of Table 602 is NOT to require exterior wall anywhere
within the building, but if there is an exterior wall, then Table 602 addresses Fire-resistance rating of
that exterior wall based on the Fire Separation Distance. Further, the intent of Section 705.8.1 is to
address the requirements of protected and unprotected openings and whether the openings are
permitted based on the Fire Separation Distance. The intent of both Table 602 and Section 705.8.1
was not to require an exterior be placed in a building.

Code opinions issued by International Code Council (ICC) staff are based on ICC published codes
and do not include local, state or federal codes, policies or amendments.

 

[my250r11]

but if carport is too close to the property line, then that exterior
opening must be closed with an exterior wall and/or have the appropriate amount (percentage) of
opening.

This is what we usually do with pre-fab metal carports, or steel column, and purlin carports when in that area of the property line. We allow the same metal sheeting to go to the ground with no openings.

IMO these type of structures are made from none combustible materials and should be, depending on the gauge of steel at least 1 hour.

 

[cda]

This is what we usually do with pre-fab metal carports, or steel column, and purlin carports when in that area of the property line. We allow the same metal sheeting to go to the ground with no openings.

IMO these type of structures are made from none combustible materials and should be, depending on the gauge of steel at least 1 hour.

Is the problem the burning car parked within a foot of the neighbor ?

 

[my250r11]

Note I said usually, not always, as with all in the code world, it depends on the situation, site restrictions, set backs, etc. Carport here shouldn't be allow that close to the neighbors house, but may be next to the driveway.

 

[SCBO1]

Local zoning is OK with it however local jurisdiction wants client to erect a 1hr wall on the side adjacent to the property line.

So no zoning code setback requirement by the zoning classification?

Here the Zoning code would require it to be 8-ft from property line, which pretty much eliminates the 1-hr wall requirement.

 

[Francis Vineyard]

Francis said "but if carport is too close to the property line, then that exterior opening must be closed with an exterior wall and/or have the appropriate amount (percentage) of opening."

This is what we usually do with pre-fab metal carports, or steel column, and purlin carports when in that area of the property line. We allow the same metal sheeting to go to the ground with no openings.

IMO these type of structures are made from none combustible materials and should be, depending on the gauge of steel at least 1 hour.

Not necessarily, that provision is applicable to carports when using the IBC in reference to footnotes of Table 705.8; walls not required at a distance of five (5) or greater but projections are still applicable from walls. Notice too the other occupancies would not be required to provide exterior walls no matter how close to the line.. Furthermore, the 2018 now allows other structures besides malls to cross lot lines without exterior walls or firewalls on the line (ref. 706.1.1, party walls).

Depending on the edition of the IRC adopted, exempts permits for accessory structures that do not exceed 200 sf. and then the provision of the fire-separation distance would not apply as permitted in the exception.

 

[Francis Vineyard]

So no zoning code setback requirement by the zoning classification?

Here the Zoning code would require it to be 8-ft from property line, which pretty much eliminates the 1-hr wall requirement.

Here there's an exception that will permit zoning setbacks instead of lot lines to determine the fire-separation distances.

R302.1 Exterior walls. Construction, projections, openings and penetrations of exterior walls of dwellings and accessory buildings shall comply with Table R302.1(1); or dwellings equipped throughout with an automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with Section P2904 shall comply with Table R302.1(2).

7. Walls of dwellings and accessory structures located on lots in subdivisions or zoning districts where building setbacks established by local ordinance prohibit the walls of the structures on adjacent lots from being closer than 10 feet (3048 mm) to each other at any point along the exterior walls.

 

[mtlogcabin]

They want the 1 hr wall because of the less than 3' from the property line.

Even though you have no wall I worked for a BO who considered the structural post as the "wall line" and therefore it was an opening that was not permitted and a one-hour wall is required. I do not agree with his application of the code with regards to opening requirements and protection required