We have an Existing R-2 apartment building 15' from a proposed B occupancy.
Plan checker caught that we have our renovated B occupancy building (was R2) too close to the R2 adjacent.
Goal is to justify assumed property line 5' from existing R-2, leaving 10'-6" to the B adjacent building thus allowing non-rated construction for B adjacent on same site, We don't want to upgrade the R2 at all.
Table 601
Bearing Walls for Type V-B = 0 hours
Non-bearing notes to see Table 602
Table 602
From 0’ to 10’ notes 1 hour
Footnote “h” for R occupancy notes: Where Table 705.8 permits nonbearing exterior walls with unlimited openings, the req. fire-resistance rating for exterior walls is 0 hours.
Table 705.8
5’ to 10’ allows 10% of Unprotected, Nonsprinklered.
Section 705.8.1 Exception 2: Buildings whose exterior bearing walls (noted in Table 601 for 0 hours), exterior nonbearing walls and exterior structural frame are not required to be fire-resistive rated shall be permitted to have ***unlimited unprotected openings***. This last portion is where we feel it may qualify footnote “h” from Table 602.
This area in the code seems to contain a circular reference with the non-bearing referred to 602 but then to 705, then back to 602 again to get the rating.
Thank you @gruen for the comment. I think it's correct also, but need to meet with the City to be certain. Also going to talk about Storage Rooms and their ADA requirement here in CA. My boss wants to simply rename to "Closet", but I really don't want to go for a 3rd Plan Check by doing that without consulting the City first. I may end up using the existing Storage Rooms as Data, Mech, etc.
Closets are little rooms that no one goes inside-therefore no ADA requirement-narrow doors OK. Storage rooms are larger. But just put an ADA door on them then OK.
Nov 17, 14 6:35 pm ·
·
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.
R-2 - Fire Rated Walls Code Question
Hello,
A complicated (to me) code question. 2013 CBC:
We have an Existing R-2 apartment building 15' from a proposed B occupancy.
Plan checker caught that we have our renovated B occupancy building (was R2) too close to the R2 adjacent.
Goal is to justify assumed property line 5' from existing R-2, leaving 10'-6" to the B adjacent building thus allowing non-rated construction for B adjacent on same site, We don't want to upgrade the R2 at all.
Table 601
Bearing Walls for Type V-B = 0 hours
Non-bearing notes to see Table 602
Table 602
From 0’ to 10’ notes 1 hour
Footnote “h” for R occupancy notes: Where Table 705.8 permits nonbearing exterior walls with unlimited openings, the req. fire-resistance rating for exterior walls is 0 hours.
Table 705.8
5’ to 10’ allows 10% of Unprotected, Nonsprinklered.
Section 705.8.1 Exception 2: Buildings whose exterior bearing walls (noted in Table 601 for 0 hours), exterior nonbearing walls and exterior structural frame are not required to be fire-resistive rated shall be permitted to have ***unlimited unprotected openings***. This last portion is where we feel it may qualify footnote “h” from Table 602.
This area in the code seems to contain a circular reference with the non-bearing referred to 602 but then to 705, then back to 602 again to get the rating.
Thoughts? Or am I too vague?
Thank you @gruen for the comment. I think it's correct also, but need to meet with the City to be certain. Also going to talk about Storage Rooms and their ADA requirement here in CA. My boss wants to simply rename to "Closet", but I really don't want to go for a 3rd Plan Check by doing that without consulting the City first. I may end up using the existing Storage Rooms as Data, Mech, etc.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.