Phasing issue re 705.3

[DJ4827]

Good evening all.

I’m wondering what you might think about the following, pertaining to the phasing of a project for a new market. The applicable code is the 2010 CBC (based on the 2009 IBC) and the 2010 CFC (based on the 2009 IFC).

The new building will be built next to an existing market, which will be demolished to make a parking lot, once the new building is complete. After the demo, the FSD to the side lot line would be >30’. The owner wants to have the market shut for the shortest possible time, and, therefore would like to request a temporary CofO as soon as the new building is finished. If granted, he could move the stock out of the old building into the new and open the store, while the demo and parking lot were being completed, maybe 6 weeks max.

The question is whether you would want to apply 705.3 during this period, when the existing building would have been vacated and would be under the control of a contractor with a demo permit. If so, the FSD would be temporary reduced. If the frontage allowance per 506.2 were calculated with this reduced FSD, then the building would be a bit over the max permitted area. If Table 705.8 were applied using the reduced FSD, then the opening area in the wall of the new building would exceed the max permitted. Phasing would require changing the construction type and protecting the openings, or the store would have to stay shut longer.

The wall of the existing building that would face the new building has no openings, and is double skin clay brick, and has a parapet. All required fire exits would be fully code compliant before the new store opened, ADA would be OK, parking etc would be OK, the only issues would be with the permitted floor area, and the area of the openings.

Would you go with a temporary CofO to allow the store to open before the demo was complete, or not?

Thanks

 

[cda]

How much do you trust the demo to happen???

And if the demo does not happen or a delay , than what???

Have no problem with the concept

 

[permitguy]

At face value, I'd have no problem with it. If the demo doesn't happen, the new store won't stay open. Seems like motiviation enough. A written explanation that the owner understands the need to follow through with the demolition seems reasonable.

Planning might want to know where customers will park before the old store is turned into a parking lot. The FD may want to ensure that all combustible storage is removed and all utilities are discontinued for the old building prior to occupying the new one. What about FD access to the site during demo? If all city departments are able to express their concnerns and have them addressed, I can't imagine why it would be a problem.

 

[DJ4827]

Thanks cda and permitguy. The temp CofO would make the demo happen, because it can be revoked. Parking can be handled on adj. lot. I will discuss with the FD.

 

[peach]

as long as all parties are aware of the sequencing, there generally isn't a problem. It's an internal process.

 

[zigmark]

705.3

Another option we have used, though not on a project of this scale, is to have the owner bond the cost to demo and dispose of the orig. building with your department. Base the value of the required bond upon the average of several bids the owner gets to meet the requirements of the temp c'of o and then add 10%-15%. For us the issue of agreeing to the type of scenario you describe becomes political. The typical scenario was, owner decides not to or is unable to perofrm and it then becomes a financial burden upon the ajh as a whole to actually take action, which eliminates any and all political will that may have existed as support. Ensuring that there will be money to offset costs and also the owner having some incentive to follow through has helped us. We have typically used this to ensure the removal of a manufactured home the owner wants to occupy while constructing a new home where they are limitted to one dwelling per lot out of the zoning density allowances.

ZIG

 

[ICE]

I'm with zig on this. Without a bond to ensure that the structure will be removed, there is no easy way to make it happen. The premise that the new store can be forced to close if the old store isn't removed sounds solid but I wouldn't bet the farm on it. Depriving the owner and his employees of their livelihood would most likely require court action. Owners change their minds and life events play a role. Their are no absolutes in such situations.

We don't have such a thing as a temporary C of O. The facility is either ready for occupancy or it's not. I have gone out on a limb and allowed a business to be up and running for the obvious reasons and then encountered a recalcitrant owner. I haven't dealt with a case that involved the removal of a commercial building and along with a bond, I would require a legal, enforceable, recorded document that is bulletproof. Even with all of that, I wouldn't be surprised if there were a problem because like I said, there are no absolutes.

 

[gbhammer]

ICE out where you are, with the pics you've showed us, I would have to be hard pressed to believe the sky was blue if one of your contractors told me it was.:wink:

 

[ICE]

ICE out where you are, with the pics you've showed us, I would have to be hard pressed to believe the sky was blue if one of your contractors told me it was.:wink:

Oh Hell, I would never take a contractor's word in a deal like this. On this one, the owner is the player and I'm not in the business of trusting anyone. Minor items are one thing but removing a functional commercial building is a bit extreme to operate on trust alone. I trust but verify and it's easy to take someone's word if I have a trump card. Unfortunately, experience has taught me to trust but a few and they are family and close friends.

The store owner's request is not unreasonable and makes sense, so the owner shouldn't have a problem providing the building dept with a trump card. In fact, if he balked at all, I would say no with or without a trump card.

 

[permitguy]

The premise that the new store can be forced to close if the old store isn't removed sounds solid but I wouldn't bet the farm on it. Depriving the owner and his employees of their livelihood would most likely require court action.

Court action to close a building after a TCO expires? I'm glad I don't work where you do!

So if it's the middle of winter and the landscaping can't be planted, they don't get to move in until spring?

 

[ICE]

Court action to close a building after a TCO expires? I'm glad I don't work where you do! So if it's the middle of winter and the landscaping can't be planted, they don't get to move in until spring?

Winter and a TCO. Well that's two things we don't have.

 

[gbhammer]

Winter and a TCO. Well that's two things we don't have.

The lawyers make up for it.