# How to count buildings on same lot



## righter101 (Aug 9, 2011)

IBC 503.1.2

503.1.2 Buildings on same lot. Two or more buildings on

the same lot shall be regulated as separate buildings or shall

be considered as portions of one building if the building

height of each building and the aggregate building area of

the buildings are within the limitations of Table 503 as modified

by Sections 504 and 506. The provisions of this code

applicable to the aggregate building shall be applicable to

each building.

This allows separate buildings to be considered as a single building.

Question: if I have say, a dozen "B" occupancies on the same property and am putting a new building, also a "B" in close proximity to two of the existing structures (these are all 800-1500 sq ft), can I group 2 or 3 of them together and consider it a "single" structure under the 503.1.2 provisions, then consider all the others separate, or do I need to consider all the buildings on the property if I am going to use this???

I have my idea but wanted to get feedback and opinions.


----------



## fatboy (Aug 9, 2011)

What separation do you have from the others that you don't want to consider?


----------



## texasbo (Aug 9, 2011)

The code says "separate buildings", it doesn't say "how many" separate buildings.

While I'm sure it will be debated to high holy hell, I would have no problem whatsoever allowing various groups of buildings to be considered as single buildings, while counting others individually. Provided of course all separation/opening protection/allowable heights and areas work for the combinations.

In other words, if you have a group of church buildings that are all Type IIA and right at the limit for allowable height and area when considered together , there should be no problem adding a separate VB storage building provided there is adequate separation from the IIA complex.


----------



## righter101 (Aug 9, 2011)

It is a type VB construction.

There are 3 adjacent buildings to the new one.

They are 800-1500 sq ft.

with the proposed configuration, 2 of the buildings would be 35-38 feet away (Fire separation distance of 15-20, allowing 25% unprotected openings).  The other building would be 18 feet away and would require the openings on the existing building to be protected.  There are no openings on the closest side of the new building.

I feel if I consider 2 of them as a single building and verify that the remaining adjacent buildings are OK for separation and protected openings, there wouldn't be an issue.


----------



## fatboy (Aug 9, 2011)

I would agree.


----------



## texasbo (Aug 9, 2011)

righter101 said:
			
		

> It is a type VB construction.There are 3 adjacent buildings to the new one.
> 
> They are 800-1500 sq ft.
> 
> ...


I agree as well, but would the aggregate area of ALL of the buildings bust the allowable area?


----------



## brudgers (Aug 9, 2011)

righter101 said:
			
		

> It is a type VB construction. There are 3 adjacent buildings to the new one. They are 800-1500 sq ft. with the proposed configuration, 2 of the buildings would be 35-38 feet away (Fire separation distance of 15-20, allowing 25% unprotected openings).  The other building would be 18 feet away and would require the openings on the existing building to be protected.  There are no openings on the closest side of the new building.  I feel if I consider 2 of them as a single building and verify that the remaining adjacent buildings are OK for separation and protected openings, there wouldn't be an issue.


  So long as the existing building(s) are upgraded as required by the addition - i.e. the provisions of IEBC would have to be applied to the original building(s) based on the extent of the addition.   In the case of two existing buildings + one new building, one existing building would receive both additions (one new building and one existing building).

 The existing building classified as an addition would have to meet current code for new construction.

  The new building would have to meet current code for new construction.

  A case could also be made that the building receiving the addition would need to meet current code for new construction in order to take advantage of chapter 5.


----------



## texasbo (Aug 10, 2011)

There is absolutely nothing in the code that states that when considering two existing buildings as one, per 503, that one of the existing buildings is considered an "addition" to the other existing building.


----------



## TJacobs (Aug 10, 2011)

I would count every building on the lot.  I would also allow them to evaluate a group of buildings with imaginary lot lines showing proper separation separately from the others.


----------



## brudgers (Aug 10, 2011)

texasbo said:
			
		

> There is absolutely nothing in the code that states that when considering two existing buildings as one, per 503, that one of the existing buildings is considered an "addition" to the other existing building.


   Other than 3403.1 you are correct.


----------



## texasbo (Aug 10, 2011)

brudgers said:
			
		

> Other than 3403.1 you are correct.


Except nowhere in the original post did it say that there were any alterations or additions to an existing building.

To say that 34 applies to existing buildings that are not being altered because we are pretending they are one building, is like requiring a contractor to plat an imaginary property line.

3401 Scope The provisions of this chapter shall control the alteration, repair, addition, and change of occupancy of existing structures.

It doesn't say "this chapter shall apply to existing buildings that are just sitting there, because we're pretending they are one building".


----------



## brudgers (Aug 10, 2011)

texasbo said:
			
		

> Except nowhere in the original post did it say that there were any alterations or additions to an existing building.  To say that 34 applies to existing buildings that are not being altered because we are pretending they are one building, is like requiring a contractor to plat an imaginary property line.  3401 Scope The provisions of this chapter shall control the alteration, repair, addition, and change of occupancy of existing structures.  It doesn't say "this chapter shall apply to existing buildings that are just sitting there, because we're pretending they are one building".


  Yes, you found it, now the next step is for you to apply it.  Under 503.1.2 the new building would be an addition to each of the existing structures. Hence 3403.1 applies.


----------



## texasbo (Aug 10, 2011)

brudgers said:
			
		

> .  Under 503.1.2 the new building would be an addition to each of the existing structures.


You are either reading from a different code, or making up your own. 503.1.2 says nothing of the sort.

Your exact words: "In the case of two existing buildings + one new building, one existing building would receive both additions (one new building and one existing building)."

Since when is an existing building an addition to an existing building?


----------



## brudgers (Aug 10, 2011)

texasbo said:
			
		

> You are either reading from a different code, or making up your own. 503.1.2 says nothing of the sort.  Your exact words: "In the case of two existing buildings + one new building, one existing building would receive both additions (one new building and one existing building)."  Since when is an existing building an addition to an existing building?


  When they are combined with a new building to become one building under the current code.   And of course, the new building is what opens up the can of worms.

  Because there is no question that it is an addition under the scenario described.


----------



## texasbo (Aug 10, 2011)

brudgers said:
			
		

> When they are combined with a new building to become one building under the current code.   And of course, the new building is what opens up the can of worms.
> 
> Because there is no question that it is an addition under the scenario described.


Again, you are making up code. Nowhere does the code say that an existing building, under any circumstances, is to be considered an addition pursuant to 503. It's just not there.

Under that logic, two existing buildings that comply in every way except for having rafter spans that met a previous code, now have to be modified because they are being considered a single building, because you say one must now be called an addition (due to the new building ). Read the code, use the code, don't make up code.


----------



## righter101 (Aug 10, 2011)

I think I understand Brugers point.  If I want to use the provisions of CH5 to consider several of these as a single building, then in effect, that "single building" is now receiving an "addition".

I would buy in to that.  They can comply with 3403.1 by having the propsed new construction meet all current codes.

This is a small University extension campus.  There are a bunch of individual buildings.  The area in question there are 9 or 10 "B" occupancies (Lab buildings), varying distances apart.  They are proposing to add another, about 1500 sq ft.  The dorm rooms, eating hall, and other structures, while on the same lot, are far enough away to not affect this cluster.

What drove my original question is the architect situated this building perfectly so there was no fire separation issue, specific to opening protection.  The University, however, wants to rotate the building about 15 degrees so it lines up better with the rest of the structures.  In doing this, however, one side of the building has the fire separation distance reduced to a condition that would require opening protection.

The total area of all the "B"'s in this cluster could very well be under the CH5 allowable ht/area, using a frontage modification.

I was just wondering if I have to consider every single building on the lot, or if I can consider, say, 4 out of 10 of these as a single building, or 3 or some other variation of that.

Basically, does it matter where I draw the line to consider these as a single structure.

As always, I appreciate the discussion because it brings up things I had not considered.


----------



## texasbo (Aug 10, 2011)

righter101 said:
			
		

> They can comply with 3403.1 by having the propsed new construction meet all current codes.


Actually, according to brudgers, it's not JUST the new building that has to comply with all requirements for new construction. In his mind, if you have 2 existing buildings and one new building, one of the existing buildings has to comply with all requirements of a new building.

"The existing building classified as an addition would have to meet current code for new construction."

Which is just wrong.

And he doesn't even take for granted that the OTHER existing building can just get by with Ch 34:

"A case could also be made that the building receiving the addition would need to meet current code for new construction in order to take advantage of chapter 5."

He got some of the rest of it right, more or less.

And in terms of where you assume property lines, and how you divide up existing buildings and/or groups of existing buildings and new buildings is up to you and/or the designer.


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (Aug 10, 2011)

texasbo and brudgers conversation reminds me of the conversation int MP's Holy Grail between the two castle guards charged with making sure no one escapes.


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (Aug 10, 2011)

brudgers said:
			
		

> So long as the existing building(s) are upgraded as required by the addition - i.e. the provisions of IEBC would have to be applied to the original building(s) based on the extent of the addition.   In the case of two existing buildings + one new building, one existing building would receive both additions (one new building and one existing building).
> 
> The existing building classified as an addition would have to meet current code for new construction.
> 
> ...


I always enjoy reading Chapter 34 & the IEBC.  I have read 3410.2.3 several times and never fully realized the applicability.  The multiple buildings as one building is a concept that I have only experienced theoretically in plan review, and have yet to see it applied here.  Nevertheless, it is good to know.  Thanks.

Have you ever used 3410.6.2 thru 3410.6.2.2 for calculating Allowable Building Area?


----------



## alora (Aug 10, 2011)

> 503.1.2 Buildings on same lot. Two or more buildings on the same lot shall be regulated as separate buildings or shall be considered as portions of one building if the height of each building and the aggregate area of buildings are within the limitations of Table 503 as modified by Sections 504 and 506. *The provisions of this code applicable to the aggregate building shall be applicable to each building*.


Testing my reading comprehension, I wonder if brudgers is focusing on the highlighted sentence above.

"This code" is defined in 101.1.


----------



## texasbo (Aug 10, 2011)

alora said:
			
		

> Testing my reading comprehension, I wonder if brudgers is focusing on the highlighted sentence above."This code" is defined in 101.1.


It would make more sense if he were. If he had just said the whole building had to comply with code requirements for a new building, he would have been closer to what the code says. "The provisions of this code applicable to the AGGREGATE building shall be applicable to EACH building".

Instead, he's saying that the new building has to meet all code provisions for a new buiilding, one of the existing buildings has to meet all provisions of a new building, and one of the existing buildings may have to comply with 34 or may have to meet all requirements of a new building, and that the new building and one existing building are an addition.

None of which are anywhere in the section you quoted, and shows a fundamental lack of ability to apply 503.1.2

34 has nothing to do whatsoever with this; again, "The provisions of this code applicable to the AGGREGATE building, shall be applicable to EACH building".


----------



## alora (Aug 10, 2011)

texasbo said:
			
		

> It would make more sense if he were.Instead, he's saying that the new building has to meet all code provisions for a new buiilding, one of the existing buildings has to meet all provisions of a new building, and one of the existing buildings may have to comply with 34 or may have to meet all requirements of a new building, and that the new building and one existing building are an addition.
> 
> None of which area anywhere in the section you quoted, and shows a fundamental lack of ability to apply 503.1.2





> 3403.1 Existing buildings or structures. *Additions or alterations to any building or structure shall comply with the requirements of the code for new construction*. Additions or alterations shall not be made to an existing building or structure that will cause the existing building or structure to be in violation of any provisions of this code. An existing building plus additions shall comply with the height and area provisions of Chapter 5. Portions of the structure not altered and not affected by the alteration are not required to comply with the code requirements for a new structure.


You're right.

He referenced 3403.1 first.

It seems that the above excerpted section considers an existing building an "addition" to an existing building.

"An existing building" is singular, meaning literally one building.

"plus additions" is plural and defined in the first sentence of 3403.1 and would, therefore, include all remaining existing building and new buildings.

And, those "additions or alterations" would have to meet the requirements for new construction.


----------



## texasbo (Aug 10, 2011)

alora said:
			
		

> You're right.He referenced 3403.1 first.
> 
> It seems that the above excerpted section considers an existing building an "addition" to an existing building.
> 
> ...


The problem is that 503 doesn't consider this an "addition" or "alteration". It considers it one building. Nowhere in 503 does it mention addition or alteration. 503 doesn't care when the buildings were built. It just cares that there are multiple buildings being considered as a single building, and that all code provisions for that single building apply.

34 has nothing to do with this whatsoever.


----------



## alora (Aug 10, 2011)

texasbo said:
			
		

> The problem is that 503 doesn't consider this an "addition" or "alteration". It considers it one building.





> 501.1 Scope. The provisions of this chapter control the height and area of structures hereafter erected and *additions* to existing structures.


Couple that with



> 503.1.2 ... The provisions of this code applicable to the aggregate building shall be applicable to each building.


and I think I see that Chapters 5 & 34 are mutually applicable.


----------



## brudgers (Aug 10, 2011)

It considers it several buildings as well.


----------



## texasbo (Aug 10, 2011)

brudgers said:
			
		

> It considers it several buildings as well.


Negative. It gives you the option to consider it several buildings. It also gives you the option of considering it a single building. You don't get to pick and choose.

Think about it: if each building were allowed to meet different requirements, and still be considered one building, then why have opening protection and wall protection in the first place. You only get the benefits of 503.1.2 if the provisions applicable to the AGGREGATE are applicable to EACH building.


----------



## texasbo (Aug 10, 2011)

alora said:
			
		

> 501.1 Scope. The provisions of this chapter control the height and area of structures hereafter erected and additions to existing structures.


Whoa.... just because the chapter regulates additions, doesn't mean that everything is an addition.... It also regulates existing buildings. That doesn't mean everything is an existing building.

Again, 503 says nothing about new, existing, additions, or alterations. It says that two or more BUILDINGS can be considered a SINGLE building. And, it says the requirements for the aggregate apply to the parts.


----------



## alora (Aug 10, 2011)

texasbo said:
			
		

> Whoa.... just because the chapter regulates additions, doesn't mean that everything is an addition.... It also regulates existing buildings. That doesn't mean everything is an existing building.


Understood.



> Again, 503 says nothing about new, existing, additions, or alterations.


Correct.  One makes it apply as they need to based on the scope defined in 501.1 -- whether for additions or new construction.



> It simply says the requirements for the aggregate apply to the parts.


It actually says:



> ...The provisions of *this code* applicable to the *aggregate building* shall be applicable to each building.


"This code" meaning the entire codebook, including Chapter 34.

"Aggregate building" meaning the existing building 'plus additions' as described in Chapter 34.


----------



## texasbo (Aug 10, 2011)

alora said:
			
		

> The provisions of "THIS CODE" applicable to the aggregate building shall be applicable to each building."This code" meaning the entire codebook, including Chapter 34.


Fair enough.

So you're saying then, that each part of this aggregate building only has to comply with the code provisions for that portion of the building?

And you're also saying that Ch 34 is applicable to the aggregate building?

And lastly, am I understanding you correctly that your opinion is that if each of these 3 buildings complies with "this code" on its own, then they get the benefits of 503.2.1, and separation, wall ratings, opening protection, etc are not required?


----------



## alora (Aug 10, 2011)

texasbo said:
			
		

> Fair enough. So you're saying then, that each part of this aggregate building only has to comply with the code provisions for that portion of the building?
> 
> And you're also saying that Ch 34 is applicable to the aggregate building?
> 
> And lastly, am I understanding you correctly that your opinion is that if each of these 3 buildings complies with "this code" on its own, then they get the benefits of 503.2.1, and separation, wall ratings, opening protection, etc are not required?


Depends.

I think the key word for what you're asking is "applicable".

I also think the order of the applicability is key:  what applies to aggregate building >>> applies to each building; not vice versa.

If the aggregate building is being modified to include a new building addition, then the new building has to meet the provisions required for new construction.

Likewise, if the existing aggregate building is being added to, then the provisions of 3403.1 will affect each building.

Did I understand the question correctly?


----------



## texasbo (Aug 10, 2011)

alora said:
			
		

> It seems that the above excerpted section considers an existing building an "addition" to an existing building."An existing building" is singular, meaning literally one building.
> 
> "plus additions" is plural and defined in the first sentence of 3403.1 and would, therefore, include all remaining existing building and new buildings.
> 
> And, those "additions or alterations" would have to meet the requirements for new construction.


OK, so let me get this straight: 503.1.2 says that two or more buildings on the same lot may be regulated as separate buildings or may be considered as portions of a single building...

But what you're saying it really means is that when there are two or more buildings on a lot, that one is considered existing, and the rest of the buildings are considered additions?


----------



## texasbo (Aug 10, 2011)

alora said:
			
		

> If the aggregate building is being modified to include a new building addition, then the new building has to meet the provisions required for new construction.


OK, this is what I was looking for, and sorry the posts are starting to wind together.

 Where in the world are we getting "addition" from?

503 addresses multiple buildings on a lot.

What we have here are multiple buildings on a lot.

This isn't an "addition" this is a third building. 503 says we can consider them separately, or consider them together. Why are we polluting the discussion with "additions, alterations, Ch 34," etc? The example we've been discussing is EXACTLY what the code intends to address, and it does so very simply.

Edit: if the code language specifically said to treat new buildings as additions, I'd be fine with that. My point is that the code doesn't say to do it that way.


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (Aug 10, 2011)

alora said:
			
		

> Depends.I think the key word for what you're asking is "applicable".
> 
> I also think the order of the applicability is key:  what applies to aggregate building >>> applies to each building; not vice versa.
> 
> ...


Thanks alora and tex for putting your thought processes out there.  I find them very helpful in understanding the code.  I believe there is also an exception for change of occupancy, if the occupancy is less hazardous, but again, this is new to me, and I am not sure if it is "applicable."


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (Aug 10, 2011)

texasbo said:
			
		

> OK, this is what I was looking for, and sorry the posts are starting to wind together. Where in the world are we getting "addition" from?
> 
> 503 addresses multiple buildings on a lot.
> 
> ...


Section 202: Definitions: Addition.  An extension or increase in the floor area or height of a building or structure.

In this case/example, multiple buildings are being reviewed as one building with a floor area increase.  I believe that is a rational interpretation of the code.  Please clarify if you think otherwise.  It is an interesting debate nevertheless.


----------



## alora (Aug 10, 2011)

texasbo said:
			
		

> OK, this is what I was looking for, and sorry the posts are starting to wind together. Where in the world are we getting "addition" from?
> 
> 503 addresses multiple buildings on a lot.
> 
> ...


Some definitions:



> ADDITION. An extension or increase in floor area or height of a building or structure.ALTERATION. Any construction or renovation to an existing structure other than repair or addition.
> 
> BUILDING. Any structure used or intended for supporting or sheltering any use or occupancy.


Using scope description of 501.1, a new building is "an extension or increase in floor area or height" of an existing aggregate building.

In other words, an "addition".


----------



## Big Mac (Aug 10, 2011)

Back to the original question, Yes multiple buildings (structures) on the same lot may be considered as one, IF all combined buildings (structures) are within the allowable floor area and height limitations for a single building as established by code.  That might be two, three, four, five, etc. separate structures.  After you have reached the maximum allowable area for the 'Use Group B' occupancies, you need to start over.  That doesn't mean that a second set of buildings on this site may not also be considered as one building.  At that point however, all clusters of buildings (structures) considered as one building would be required to have a physical or fire-resistive separation as required by the building code from the other clusters of buildings.  It is conceivable that you may have 12 physically separated buildings (structures) on a site but only have two clusters of buildings (structures) that comprise two code compliant buildings with regard to allowable floor area.

If that happens each individual structure within each cluster of buildings would need to meet the requirements of Section 503.1.2 including the last sentence which reads "The provisions of this code applicable to the aggregate building shall be applicable to each building (structure).


----------



## texasbo (Aug 10, 2011)

alora said:
			
		

> Some definitions:Using scope description of 501.1, a new building is "an extension or increase in floor area or height" of an existing aggregate building.
> 
> In other words, an "addition".


So the construction of a storage building 10' away from my house is an "addition"? And nowhere in the code is the term "existing aggregate building". It's kinda like being pregnant; it's either an aggregate building or it's not. More specifically, it's either one aggregate building, or three separate buildings. There is no "existing", or "new," or "addition", or "alteration".

This is in response to Papio too:

If this was an expansion of a building, it would be an addition.

But it's not; it's a new building; a third building. And the code gives us the choice to decide whether we consider it 3 separate buildings, or one big building.

In other words, we get the choice of pretending it's a single building.

But pretending it's one big building is where the code stops. It doesn't give us the authority (or the permission) to pretend anything else.


----------



## alora (Aug 10, 2011)

texasbo said:
			
		

> So the construction of a storage building 10' away from my house is an "addition"?


I would say yes, if you want to use the provision of 503.1.2 in that way; it's your choice.



> If this was an expansion of a building, it would be an addition.But it's not; it's a new building. We get to decide whether we consider it 3 separate buildings, or one big building.
> 
> In other words, we get the choice of pretending it's a single building.
> 
> But pretending it's one big building is where the code stops. It doesn't give us the authority (or the permission) to pretend anything else.


Construction a new detached building is "an extension or increase in floor area or height" of an existing building, IF you're using 503.1.2 in that manner.

So then, a serious question, at what point do the provisions of "this code" stop with regard to an "aggregate building"?

Which chapters/sections specifically apply to - or don't apply to -- 'aggregate buildings'?


----------



## texasbo (Aug 10, 2011)

alora said:
			
		

> I would say yes, if you want to use the provision of 503.1.2 in that way; it's your choice.Construction a new detached building is "an extension or increase in floor area or height" of an existing building, IF you're using 503.1.2 in that manner.


Well congratulations; you just won. Because if you believe that every building built is an addition to another building, then I have no argument. Can I believe that every building built has a refrigerator full of Guiness waiting for me?


----------



## texasbo (Aug 10, 2011)

alora said:
			
		

> So then, a serious question, at what point do the provisions of "this code" stop with regard to an "aggregate building"?Which chapters/sections specifically apply to - or don't apply to -- 'aggregate buildings'?


That's what I was saying earlier; don't all provisions that would apply if it was a single building apply to the individual buildings, if they are considered as an aggregate building?

And I think that's where most people fall short when applying 503; they neglect to notice that last sentence.


----------



## alora (Aug 10, 2011)

texasbo said:
			
		

> Can I believe that every building built has a refrigerator full of Guiness waiting for me?






Unless the fridge has left the building.


----------



## texasbo (Aug 10, 2011)

^ Great..

Here's something else to consider:

Let's say we have our three buildings and we're considering them an aggregate building. Let's say they are separated 5' from each other, but that's ok, because it is considered one building, so no rated exterior wall or separation required.

Now, let's say that one of the buildings has an occupancy that requires an occupancy separation from the occupancy in another building. What do you do? Occupancy separation? One building or both? Is 5' equal to an occupancy separation?

Straying a little OT only because OP said they liked to see the discussion.


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (Aug 10, 2011)

texasbo said:
			
		

> So the construction of a storage building 10' away from my house is an "addition"? And nowhere in the code is the term "existing aggregate building". It's kinda like being pregnant; it's either an aggregate building or it's not. More specifically, it's either one aggregate building, or three separate buildings. There is no "existing", or "new," or "addition", or "alteration".This is in response to Papio too:
> 
> If this was an expansion of a building, it would be an addition.
> 
> ...


I am sticking by it being an extension of the floor area, and thereby an addition to that building, (insert pregnant pause here) IF on chooses to view it as a single building.  This type of design gives an option to consider multiple buildings as one building.  In doing so, the existing building(s) would be one part of the aggregate and the new building(s) would be the other, in this case the addition).  Brudgers I believe sees it differently, in that only one of the existing buildings would be permitted to be considered existing, and all others are new additions.  Not sure I am in complete agreement, but I do understand the logic here (and it is not farmers, of which I am familiar, being one myself).  (sigh)  Furthermore, if it exceeds the allowable area with frontage increases and sprinklers are required to comply with allowable area, the existing portion would then (Chapter 34) need to be designed in accordance with "this code," which includes Chapter 34.  As much as we would like to dismiss 34, it is required by this code for all work applicable to existing buildings.  In this case, it was noted that multiple buildings are existing, and area would added to these as one building, even though they are so many feet apart.  (breath)

Okay, so does that help shed some light on the addition argument?


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (Aug 10, 2011)

texasbo said:
			
		

> ^ Great..Here's something else to consider:
> 
> Let's say we have our three buildings and we're considering them an aggregate building. Let's say they are separated 5' from each other, but that's ok, because it is considered one building, so no rated exterior wall or separation required.
> 
> ...


or, (not sure we want to go here yet, but what the heck) what if you decided to sprinkle instead of a fire rated separation for occupancy?  Sprinkle all buildings?  Sprinkle the exterior areas between the buildings?  Or like you said, would you allow fire separation distances to serve as occupancy separations?  interesting direction for the discussion, but I think we should solve addition question first.


----------



## texasbo (Aug 10, 2011)

Papio Bldg Dept said:
			
		

> As much as we would like to dismiss 34, it is required by this code for all work applicable to existing buildings.  In this case, it was noted that multiple buildings are existing, and area would added to these as one building, even though they are so many feet apart.  (breath)Okay, so does that help shed some light on the addition argument?


If in fact you consider two of the three buildings to be additions, then you are bound to look at how they affect the third building that you randomly choose to be the "existing" one.

I will choose to go by the letter of 503, and consider multiple buildings on a lot to be a single aggregate building, and apply the code that applies to the aggregate to each portion.


----------



## texasbo (Aug 10, 2011)

Papio Bldg Dept said:
			
		

> Sprinkle all buildings?


If sprinklers are the direction you choose, then I firmly believe that 503.1.2 requires all buildings. The provisions of this code that apply to the aggreg... well, you know the rest.


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (Aug 10, 2011)

alora said:
			
		

> So then, a serious question, at what point do the provisions of "this code" stop with regard to an "aggregate building"?Which chapters/sections specifically apply to - or don't apply to -- 'aggregate buildings'?


I would say if I am considering this an addition to an existing structure, then the provisions of "this code" stop when Chapter 34 tells me so, and I believe that is the intent of the IBC Chapter 34\portion of "this code."  Otherwise it would only be in "that code," affectionately known as IEBC.  There is a choice to be made by the designer in Chapter 5.  Once the designer makes that choice, you live with the choice.  In this case, the choice is to take an existing building(s) and add area to it, by adding another building(s), and considering 1 building in order to avoid fire-rating exterior assemblies.  I don't believe you can ignore the fact that a portion of this example is existing, the new part is an extension of the building area as defined by this codes definition for "addition," and thus should be treated as such in Chapter 34.


----------



## gbhammer (Aug 10, 2011)

I am new to the forum and love reading all the responses, even Brudgers.

I 'get' that the DP can take this in so many directions that it can make a head spin, but the original question was simple. Where do you stop when treating the buildings on the same lot as one building?

When they no longer have an effect upon one another.

For this example: 2 of the buildings would be 35-38 feet away, the other building would be 18 feet away.

It is a type VB construction, B use group.

Table 602: 10' or less separation required. greater than 10' no rating required

Create a lot line between them and only the building that is within 18' would require a 1 hour rating, unless they are treated as one building.

Even then the two buildings are not required to be separated because they are the same use group Table 508.4 they do not exceed the area limitations and even if they were of mixed use they may not need to be separated if they meet the strictest requirements of chapter 4 or 9.

There is no reason whatsoever to even look at chapter 34 or the IEBC.

Even though it is great to read your thoughts on the subject.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Aug 10, 2011)

This has been quite interesting to follow and has usual brudgers comments can make us think and dive deep into our thought process. Sometimes we tend to go to deep.

Here is my take

Chapter 5 controls height and area of buildings period

_501.1 Scope._

_The provisions of this chapter control the height and area of structures hereafter erected and additions to existing structures._

503.1.2 Buildings on same lot_. S_imply states you have to meet the requirements of Table 503 Sections 504 and 506

_The provisions of this code applicable to the aggregate building shall be applicable to each building_. Does not mean the existing building needs to meet today’s code. The existing building and the new building need to be compatible as one. A type II existing building and a Type V new building would have to be considered as a Type V building. If the existing building got a frontage increase for all 4 sides then it would have to be re-evaluated as one building. Same if the existing got an increase for sprinklers the new building would have to have sprinklers.

Same with occupancy types. The most restrictive applies to the height and area limits. 

Even if you believe a new building under 503.1.2 is an addition under Chapter 34 you are only required to comply with Chapter 5

3403.1 General.

Additions to any building or structure shall comply with the requirements of this code for new construction. Alterations to the existing building or structure shall be made to ensure that the existing building or structure together with the addition are no less conforming with the provisions of this code than the existing building or structure was prior to the addition . An existing building together with its additions shall comply with the height and area provisions of Chapter 5.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Aug 10, 2011)

> There is no reason whatsoever to even look at chapter 34 or the IEBC.


Agree and WELCOME TO THE BOARD


----------



## texasbo (Aug 10, 2011)

And I'm beginning to think that it doesn't matter a whole lot whether you call it an addition or not, anyway. The IEBC says that a fire area that is increased by an addition shall comply with CH9 IBC, so call it an addition all day long, but you're going to have to sprinkler it now if you bust fire area.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Aug 10, 2011)

A new building next to an existing building would be 2 different fire areas

[F] FIRE AREA. The aggregate floor area enclosed and bounded by fire walls, fire barriers , exterior walls or horizontal assemblies of a building. Areas of the building not provided with surrounding walls shall be included in the fire area if such areas are included within the horizontal projection of the roof or floor next above.

Could happen depending on occupany type and fire area size. Don't DP's use fire areas to avoid sprinklers?


----------



## Big Mac (Aug 10, 2011)

mtlogcabin - I would agree that normally a fire area would be defined by the exterior walls of a building.  However, in this case we are combining several structures into one building.  Therefore in this case the exterior walls of all the combined structures establish the fire area.  One of the reasons I used both "structure" and "building" in my previous posting was that I was trying to differetiate between individual structure that were being combined to create the new building area.  Hopefully this makes some sense and will help to explain my previous post if it caused confusion instead of providing clarity as I had hoped.


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (Aug 10, 2011)

righter101 said:
			
		

> IBC 503.1.2...This allows separate buildings to be considered as a single building.
> 
> Question: if I have say, a dozen "B" occupancies on the same property and am putting a *new building*, also a "B" in close proximity to two of the existing structures (these are all 800-1500 sq ft), can I group 2 or 3 of them together and consider it a "single" structure under the 503.1.2 provisions, then consider all the others separate, or do I need to consider all the buildings on the property if I am going to use this???
> 
> I have my idea but wanted to get feedback and opinions.


*My opinion and last post:*  I find Chapter 34 useful and applicable when working with existing buildings, but understand that compliance with the new construction provisions is always an option for the DP.  In the event you would need to consolidate the number of buildings on a lot (i.e., per zoning) without fire-rating exterior walls, addding occupancy separations, and/or sprinkler systems for area increases in order to add another building to a lot, and not wanting to do a lot split, one could use the following code provisions as a means to answer the OP question:

*501.1 Scope.* The provisions of this chapter control the height and area of structures hereafter erected and *additions* to *existing structures*.

*Addition.*  An extension or increase in floor area or height of a building or structure.

*503.1.2 Buildings on the same lot.*  Two or more buildings on the same lot shall be regulated as separate buildings or shall be considered as portions of one building if the height of each building and the aggregate area of buildings are within the limitations of Table 503 as modified by Sections 504 and 506.  The provisions *(Chapter 34 is an applicable provision of this code for the existing buildings and the area(s) beings added to it.)* of this code applicable to the aggregate building shall be applicable to each building.

Table 503

B Occupancy, V-B construction.  Allowable area without increases shall not exceed 9,000 square feet and 2 stories.

_Three existing 1,500sf buildings, four existing 800sf, and one new 1,500sf building lumped together to form one single building would exceed the 9,000sf. 504.2 automatic sprinkler system increase would be required in existing building alteration.  The new building being added to this single building grouping would then qualify as an addition to existing buildings, thereby giving the designer the option to use Chapter 34.  This is not a wrong way to design multiple buildings on a single lot as a single building, merely an option available to the DP._

*3409.5 Additions.*  Provisions for new construction shall apply to additions.  An addition that affects the accessibility to, or contains an area of, a primary function shall comply with the requirements in Section 3409.7.

*3410.2 Applicability.*  Structures existing prior to (DATE), in which there is work involving additions, alterations, or changes of occupancy shall be made to conform to the requirements of this section or the provision of Section 3403 through 3407.  The provisions in Sections 3410.1 through 3410.2.5 shall apply to existing occupancies that will continue to be, or are proposed to be, in Groups A, B, E, F, M, R, S and U.  These provisions shall not apply to buildings with occupancies in Group H or I.

*3410.2.1-3410.2.5* cover change of occupancy, partial change of occupancy, additions, alterations and repairs, and accessibility requirements.

*3410.6 Evaluation process* _has alternate methods for evaluating existing buildings that would not normally comply with Chapters 2 through 12 and 14 through 33, and prescribe compliance alternatives. This could be an applicable and useful section when combining multiple existing buildings with new construction to form a single building on the same lot._


----------



## mtlogcabin (Aug 10, 2011)

Big Mac

I understand your logic but by Chapter 14 definitions of exterior wall, wall covering and wall envelope you would still have an exterior walls on each structure which meet the definition of fire area.

This has been a good post and if others have an opinion please chime in


----------



## mtlogcabin (Aug 10, 2011)

> _Three existing 1,500sf buildings, four existing 800sf, and one new 1,500sf building lumped together to form one single building would exceed the 9,000sf. __504.2__ automatic sprinkler system increase would be required in existing building alteration. The new building being added to this single building grouping would then qualify as an addition to existing buildings, thereby giving the designer the option to use Chapter 34. This is not a wrong way to design multiple buildings on a single lot as a single building, merely an option available to the DP._


504.2 is for height increase 506 allows frontage increase if needed and/or sprinkler increase to make the aggregate area work for the 2 structures.


----------



## brudgers (Aug 10, 2011)

To come back to my devilish advocacy.

  In the situation described in the original post, the premise is the treatment of the existing buildings on the same lot as a single building is only an existing condition if such an option was code compliant at the time they were constructed.

  I.E. the reason that multiple buildings are allowed to be treated as a single building in the current code is based on the assumption that the buildings meet the current code.

  If the code underwhich the buildings were built did not allow multiple buildings to be treated as a single building, then the single building is not grandfathered in even if each building considered individually would be.

  That is why the devil possessed me to suggest that you get one original building which is grandfathered, and then any buildings which are joined with it in the process of creating a single "virtual" building are additions, irrespective of their being existing or not.

  To take an obvious example of why this is problematic, consider the case of R2 occupancy where the existing buildings are unsprinklered. Now a new building is placed among them without meeting current fire separation standards...

  ...even though the aggregate area for R2 buildings increased when sprinkler systems for R2 occupancies became required in the 2003 code cycle.

  In other words, the current area limitations are based on the condition that the construction meets current code - while the fire separation requirements are based on the idea that nearby buildings do not.


----------



## texasbo (Aug 10, 2011)

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> A new building next to an existing building would be 2 different fire areas[F] FIRE AREA. The aggregate floor area enclosed and bounded by fire walls, fire barriers , exterior walls or horizontal assemblies of a building. Areas of the building not provided with surrounding walls shall be included in the fire area if such areas are included within the horizontal projection of the roof or floor next above.
> 
> Could happen depending on occupany type and fire area size. Don't DP's use fire areas to avoid sprinklers?


And I agree completely. Because it IS a building next to a building. I was just using the illustration to show that it is in fact a building next to a building, and not an addition.

Another thing a lot of people overlook regarding 503.1.2, is that you can break the groups of buildings up any way you please; examples:

As the architect, I might decide to assume a property line between two 1500 sq ft buildings that are two feet apart, and consider two buildings that are separated by a mile an aggregate building. I may choose to do this because of planned future construction, exterior walls that make it convenient, or just because I'm in the mood. And 503 doesn't tell me HOW to do it, it just says I can consider them separate BUILDINGS, or an aggregate BUILDING.

And new construction may or may not have a thing to do with it. I could go into the building department with a site plan, with no construction planned whatsoever,  and tell them that I am submitting a request to make 3 existing, separate 500 sq ft buildings an aggregate building, or I may submit a permit to build 3 new 500 sq ft buildings and consider them an aggregate building. The code doesn't care, as long as I meet the criteria in 503 for multiple buildings on the same lot. in both of the above cases, the code simply recognizes the arrangement as an aggregate building, not 3 buildings, nor a building with additions.


----------



## texasbo (Aug 10, 2011)

brudgers said:
			
		

> In other words, the current area limitations are based on the condition that the construction meets current code - while the fire separation requirements are based on the idea that nearby buildings do not.


And I would argue that it doesn't matter. As the designer, the choice is yours. If the new building complies with current code and the old one does not, assume a property line between them, rate exterior walls appropriately if necessary, and do nothing else with the old building. Conversely, if you want to consider them an aggregate building on the same lot in terms of allowable height and area, you are free to do so. Simply apply the code requirements for an aggregate building to each of the separate buildings.

I would also disagree that fire separation requirements are based on the premise that the existing building doesn't meet current code. The code is happy to allow deletion of fire separation if both buildings meet current code. That's what 503.1.2 is all about.

Even if you maintain a position that 34 or IEBC applies, even they do not allow willy-nilly construction of adjacent buildings that do not meet current code. Increase of fire areas would require mitigation just as compliance with 503 would.


----------



## peach (Aug 10, 2011)

If you can put an "imaginary roof" (much like the imaginary property lines) over all the buildings and aggregately the "one" building meets all the code requirements (which could be the case, since these are apparently small buildings), I don't believe you need to consider the buildings separately.


----------



## brudgers (Aug 10, 2011)

texasbo said:
			
		

> if both buildings meet current code. That's what 503.1.2 is all about.


  Gee, that's what I said yesterday.


----------



## imhotep (Aug 11, 2011)

What if the existing building on the same lot as the proposed new construction is a foot below base flood elevation, or not accessible enough, or not painted pretty?  The existing building may not meet 'current code', but does it have to be reviewed for anything other than area and height, type and use under Chapters 5, 6 and 7?


----------



## brudgers (Aug 11, 2011)

imhotep said:
			
		

> What if the existing building on the same lot as the proposed new construction is a foot below base flood elevation, or not accessible enough, or not painted pretty?  The existing building may not meet 'current code', but does it have to be reviewed for anything other than area and height, type and use under Chapters 5, 6 and 7?


   Chapter 34 and IEBC as applicable.


----------



## texasbo (Aug 11, 2011)

brudgers said:
			
		

> Chapter 34 and IEBC as applicable.


Which they are not.


----------



## brudgers (Aug 11, 2011)

texasbo said:
			
		

> Which they are not.


   Yes, it is one or the other.


----------



## texasbo (Aug 11, 2011)

imhotep said:
			
		

> What if the existing building on the same lot as the proposed new construction is a foot below base flood elevation, or not accessible enough, or not painted pretty?  The existing building may not meet 'current code', but does it have to be reviewed for anything other than area and height, type and use under Chapters 5, 6 and 7?


You are not REQUIRED to consider them as an aggregate building. That is only one option that's there if it suits your situation. If, when considered as an aggregate, the modifications would be too expensive or troublesome, the code allows you to simply assume a property line and consider them as two buildings, as is most often the case.


----------



## texasbo (Aug 11, 2011)

brudgers said:
			
		

> Yes, it is one or the other.


No, the scoping provisions of neither apply in this case.

That is, unless you make up code and call it an addition, which it is clearly not.

You have to play by the rules, and follow the code. You're not allowed to make up your own rules.

Of course, you could always try to change the code or request a local amendment.


----------



## texasbo (Aug 11, 2011)

Here, Brudgers, I'll even do your work for you. Just trot down to the next code change hearings and hand this to them.

I'll let you pen the rationale...

503.1.2 Buildings on same lot.

Two or more buildings on the same lot shall be regulated as separate buildings or shall be considered as portions of one building if the height of each building and the aggregate area of buildings are within the limitations of Table 503 as modified by Sections 504 and 506. The provisions of this code applicable to the aggregate building shall be applicable to each building.

When a new building is to be constructed on the same lot as an existing building and is to be considered an aggregate building, the provisions of this code for the aggregate need not be applied to each building, but may only be applied to the new building. The existing building, shall be subject to the International Existing Building Code.


----------



## brudgers (Aug 11, 2011)

texasbo said:
			
		

> *The provisions of this code applicable to the aggregate building shall be applicable to each building.*


*The provisions of this code applicable to the aggregate building shall be applicable to each building.*


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (Aug 11, 2011)

Texasbo, please help me understand this.  503.1.2 was added to the code to address an inconsistancy in the code where two buildings within 10' of each other would need to fire-protect their adjacent exterior openings/walls based upon the imaginary property line and fire separation distances, however if they were connected by a roof or wall, and their aggregate area was still under the allowable areas, they would then be considered an addition and would not require fire-protection of those interior walls.  My understanding is, for consistency sake, you either consider it one building under 503.1.2, or you consider it two buildings.  You don't get to consider it as one building for allowable areas and then default back to it being two separate buildings.  You make the choice of how you want to handle because there are benefits to each way, and then you treat as such per the code regarding your choice.  If you take an existing building, and want to ADD a building to it, whether it is 2' or 20' away, and consider them as one building, then you treat the new part as an addition (Chapter 34/IEBC can then be applied if necessary, for example if the existing building were to experience a change in occupancy, or did not meet the type of construction or structural requirements for new construction of the current code when the new building is added).  If you want to build an new building next to an existing building and maintain them as separate, then you treat them as such and fire protect the exterior walls/openings per the code.

In other words, adding a building to a lot with an existing building, and wanting to consider it as one building, requires that it be treated as a single building when applying the code.  This is not pulling a rabbit out of a hat.  It is fundamental difference of interpretation, and I do not believe yours is entirely consistent with the code, by definition.  You have not convinced me otherwise, and I do not see the rational for applying 503.1.2, calling it a single building to avoid fire protection of exterior walls, and then reverting back to separate building application of the code.  In the words of the great and almighty Spock, 'That is illogical sir."


----------



## mtlogcabin (Aug 11, 2011)

*Applying Chapter 34 or the IEBC does not automatically require the existing building to comply with todays code. An evaluation would need to be done.  *

*INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE*
​*CHAPTER 34*
​*EXISTING STRUCTURES*
​*SECTION [EB] 3410.2.3*
​Reference IEBC Section 1301.2.3
​*IEBC Interpretation No. 43-062006 EditionIssued: 11-07-2006*
​BU_06_56_06
​*[EB] 3410.2.3 Additions. *Additions to existing buildings shall comply with the requirements of this code for new construction. Thecombined height and area of the existing building and the new addition shall not exceed the height and area allowed by Chapter 5. Wherea fire wall that complies with Section 705 is provided between the addition and the existing building, the addition shall be considereda separate building.
​! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
​*Q: *Is an addition to an existing building subject to the requirements of the _International Building Code _for newconstruction if the existing building including the new addition complies with the mandatory safety scores required inSection 3410 of the _International Building Code_?
​*A: *Yes. New construction, including additions to existing buildings and/or alterations to existing buildings, must complywith the provisions of the _International Building Code_. In addition to the _International Building Code_, new construction isalso subject the provisions of all International Codes to the extent mandated by the authority having jurisdiction, suchas the _International Fire Code, International Plumbing Code, International Mechanical Code, International Fuel Gas Code,International Energy Conservation Code, etc._
​_______________________________________________________________________________________________


----------



## TJacobs (Aug 11, 2011)

I agree with texasbo.  I have no idea why Chapter 34 or the IEBC would be in play.  You are evaluating all buildings on a single lot OR providing proper fire separation distance by lot lines, imaginary or real, individual or clustered, between buildings.  To prevent conflagration, maybe?

From the sound of some of the responses, I suppose you're only limited by how much the client is willing to see destroyed.


----------



## texasbo (Aug 11, 2011)

Papio Bldg Dept said:
			
		

> Texasbo, please help me understand this.  503.1.2 was added to the code to address an inconsistancy in the code where two buildings within 10' of each other would need to fire-protect their adjacent exterior openings/walls based upon the imaginary property line and fire separation distances, however if they were connected by a roof or wall, and their aggregate area was still under the allowable areas, they would then be considered an addition and would not require fire-protection of those interior walls.  My understanding is, for consistency sake, you either consider it one building under 503.1.2, or you consider it two buildings.  You don't get to consider it as one building for allowable areas and then default back to it being two separate buildings.  You make the choice of how you want to handle because there are benefits to each way, and then you treat as such per the code regarding your choice.  If you take an existing building, and want to ADD a building to it, whether it is 2' or 20' away, and consider them as one building, then you treat the new part as an addition (Chapter 34/IEBC can then be applied if necessary, for example if the existing building were to experience a change in occupancy, or did not meet the type of construction or structural requirements for new construction of the current code when the new building is added).  If you want to build an new building next to an existing building and maintain them as separate, then you treat them as such and fire protect the exterior walls/openings per the code. In other words, adding a building to a lot with an existing building, and wanting to consider it as one building, requires that it be treated as a single building when applying the code.  This is not pulling a rabbit out of a hat.  It is fundamental difference of interpretation, and I do not believe yours is entirely consistent with the code, by definition.  You have not convinced me otherwise, and I do not see the rational for applying 503.1.2, calling it a single building to avoid fire protection of exterior walls, and then reverting back to separate building application of the code.  In the words of the great and almighty Spock, 'That is illogical sir."


Everything you say is correct, except you're still using the word "addition", which is not the subject of 503.1.2.

I absolutely agree that you can consider multiple buildings as a single building, to get the benefits of 503.1.2. However, it is just that, a single building, not multiple buildings, and not a building with additions.

The intent of 503.1.2 is to not penalize multiple buildings that are close together if they could have been a single building under one roof. You are right, it would be ridiculous to require rated exterior walls, etc, between three 500 sq ft buildings, when one 1500 square foot building would be just fine. However, it is not the intent of the code to allow you to only make part of this "single building" comply with the code.

If that were the case, a wiley architect could design one building, then come in the next day with plans to put another one right beside it, and claim that he would have to do nothing to upgrade the original building that just got co'd the previous day.

You have a choice: consider them separately, or pretend they are all a single building. In the first case, you assume property lines between the buildings, and you need not modify the existing buildings (unless of course the property line is too close to an exterior wall). In the second case, you review all three buildings as if they were a single building. You don't get to mix and match. In other words you don't get to consider it a single building, but make only part of it comply.

To beat the dead horse: read 503.1.2 again - it says that you can consider them as separate buildings or as one building. The key word is building. There is no "addition" anywhere in this very specific section of the code. One member planted that seed, and a couple of you have picked up on it, but it's just not there.


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (Aug 11, 2011)

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> *Applying Chapter 34 or the IEBC does not automatically require the existing building to comply with todays code. An evaluation would need to be done.  *​
> 
> *Thank you MT.  Apparently you have a managed to say what I can not.  The only thing I would change about 3410.2.3, is to add the following sentence to the end:*
> 
> ...


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (Aug 11, 2011)

texasbo said:
			
		

> To beat the dead horse: read 503.1.2 again - it says that you can consider them as separate buildings or as one building. The key word is building. There is no "addition" anywhere in this very specific section of the code. One member planted that seed, and a couple of you have picked up on it, but it's just not there.


Thank you for your continued effort.

Well at least we are now down to the root of our disagreement.  I am holding to my interpretation that, if you treat it as one building, then the EXISTING portion of that one building, is now referred to Chapter 34.  The new portion is now an addition shall be reviewed for compliance with technical provisions for new construction, however, the existing portion(s) may be allowed alternative compliance options based upon EVALUATION of the existing buildings per Section 3410, in order to determine which aspects of the EXISTING building need to be upgraded.


----------



## brudgers (Aug 11, 2011)

TJacobs said:
			
		

> I agree with texasbo.  I have no idea why Chapter 34 or the IEBC would be in play.  You are evaluating all buildings on a single lot OR providing proper fire separation distance by lot lines, imaginary or real, individual or clustered, between buildings.  To prevent conflagration, maybe?  From the sound of some of the responses, I suppose you're only limited by how much the client is willing to see destroyed.


  The reason existing building requirements come into play is because they are being added onto by the new construction under the scenario proposed in the original post.


----------



## texasbo (Aug 11, 2011)

brudgers said:
			
		

> The reason existing building requirements come into play is because they are being added onto by the new construction under the scenario proposed in the original post.


Except that it is not being added onto. It is now being considered as a single building per 503.1.2.


----------



## texasbo (Aug 11, 2011)

Papio Bldg Dept said:
			
		

> Thank you for your continued effort.Well at least we are now down to the root of our disagreement.  I am holding to my interpretation that, if you treat it as one building, then the EXISTING portion of that one building, is now referred to Chapter 34.  The new portion is now an addition shall be reviewed for compliance with technical provisions for new construction, however, the existing portion(s) may be allowed alternative compliance options based upon EVALUATION of the existing buildings per Section 3410, in order to determine which aspects of the EXISTING building need to be upgraded.


Right; that seems to be the extent of our disagreement, and I don't think either of us is going to convince the other. You are reviewing it as an addition to an existing building, and I am reviewing it as multiple buildings on a single lot being considered as a single building. I don't interpret 503.1.2 to differentiate whether the buildings are existing or new; if you want the benefits of that section, you must consider it as a single building.

Again, refer to my example of the applicant, for whatever reason, wants to do no work, but just wants us to consider three existing separate buildings as one. No problem, I'm going to review it as a single building, and tell him what he needs to do to comply with the code.  I'm not going to arbitrarily pick one as the existing building and call two an addition as brudgers would. All bets are off, and per 503.1.2, I'm reviewing it as a single building.

Now, If I were making this case for brudgers, I could come up with a really strong specific argument, that would be tough to defend. He hasn't done it yet, but we'll see if it comes to him.


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (Aug 11, 2011)

texasbo said:
			
		

> Except that it is not being added onto. It is now being considered as a single building per 503.1.2.


T-bo...regardless of where we stand on the addition/new building definition (semantics of a neglible value), the existing building still needs to be evaluated when you put new construction within its fire separation distance, or treat it as a single building and verify its allowable areas.  If it doesn't comply, it needs to be upgraded and Chapter 34 is the Section of code you use for existing structures specifically for this reason.


----------



## brudgers (Aug 11, 2011)

texasbo said:
			
		

> Except that it is not being added onto. It is now being considered as a single building per 503.1.2.


   When the permit is pulled for the new construction the code analysis is based upon an existing aggregate building.   When construction commences, the existing aggregate building receives an addition.

  You don't start with the end state.


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (Aug 11, 2011)

texasbo said:
			
		

> Again, refer to my example of the applicant, for whatever reason, wants to do no work, but just wants us to consider three existing separate buildings as one. No problem, I'm going to review it as a single building, and tell him what he needs to do to comply with the code.  I'm not going to arbitrarily pick one as the existing building and call two an addition as brudgers would. All bets are off, and per 503.1.2, I'm reviewing it as a single building.


My position on your example, all three are still existing buildings, and should be EVALUATED in Chapter 34 as ONE EXISTING BUILDING.

In the OP, the applicant is adding multiple existing buildings together and building new construction to be evaluated as a single building.  If the new construction is to be combined with existing buildings to form one building, then the new construction can be evaluated as an addition, which would be required to meet the tech. provisions for new construction, if that that portion is of a lesser hazard than the existing.

I will leave it at that, and rest my case unless anyone has questions regarding Chapter 34.


----------



## texasbo (Aug 11, 2011)

Papio Bldg Dept said:
			
		

> T-bo...regardless of where we stand on the addition/new building definition (semantics of a neglible value), the existing building still needs to be evaluated when you put new construction within its fire separation distance, or treat it as a single building and verify its allowable areas.  If it doesn't comply, it needs to be upgraded and Chapter 34 is the Section of code you use for existing structures specifically for this reason.


We're going in circles. This is the part we agreed that we disagree on. Since we're talking about considering it a single building, fire separation distance is irrelevant. And I understand you review it as  an addition to an existing building. I wouldn't. I do not recognize any part of it as an existing building, nor would I apply 34 or IEBC. I would review it as a single building, just as if it was all fresh off the drafting board, and require all portions of that single building to comply with all portions of the code.

You can bring me three 100 year old buildings, one 100 year old building and two new buildings, or three new buildings, but if you want the "single building" benefits afforded by 503.1.2, I'm going to review each of them exactly the same, as a single building under all sections of the current code (does the new "single building" meet allowable heights, areas, fire protection, exits, etc, with no consideration for 34 or IEBC at all). 503.1.2 doesn't care how old they are if you want the leniency it provides. If you don't want its benefits, then sure, I'll review the existing stuff under 34.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Aug 11, 2011)

> the existing building still needs to be evaluated when you put new construction within its fire separation distance,


The only evaluation would be allowable openings and is the wall rated or not. Remember you can get within 5 ft and only have to rate the wall from the inside.



> or treat it as a single building and verify its allowable areas. If it doesn't comply,


 then it doesn't comply with the allowable areas. The fact the existing building does not comply with egress or accesibility are not part of the requirements of 503.You have a 1500 sq ft V-B office building built in 1969 under a Legacy Code and they are going to place a 200 sq ft V-B storage shed next to it to store old files in. Just exactly will the IEBC or Chapter 34 require the existing building to comply with.


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (Aug 11, 2011)

texasbo said:
			
		

> We're going in circles. This is the part we agreed that we disagree on. Since we're talking about considering it a single building, fire separation distance is irrelevant. And I understand you review it as  an addition to an existing building. I wouldn't. I do not recognize any part of it as an existing building, nor would I apply 34 or IEBC. I would review it as a single building, just as if it was all fresh off the drafting board, and require all portions of that single building to comply with all portions of the code. You can bring me three 100 year old buildings, one 100 year old building and two new buildings, or three new buildings, but if you want the "single building" benefits afforded by 503.1.2, I'm going to review each of them exactly the same, as a single building under all sections of the current code (does the new "single building" meet allowable heights, areas, fire protection, exits, etc, with no consideration for 34 or IEBC at all). 503.1.2 doesn't care how old they are if you want the leniency it provides. If you don't want its benefits, then sure, I'll review the existing stuff under 34.


Thanks Tex.  For the first time I think I wholly understand where you are coming from.  I will let that sink in overnight.  Thanks again.


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (Aug 11, 2011)

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> The only evaluation would be allowable openings and is the wall rated or not. Remember you can get within 5 ft and only have to rate the wall from the inside.then it doesn't comply with the allowable areas. The fact the existing building does not comply with egress or accesibility are not part of the requirements of 503.


I am saying that if it doesn't comply with allowable areas, but qualifies under a sprinkler increase, then the existing building would also need to be sprinklered.



			
				mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> You have a 1500 sq ft V-B office building built in 1969 under a Legacy Code and they are going to place a 200 sq ft V-B storage shed next to it to store old files in. Just exactly (what) will the IEBC or Chapter 34 require the existing building to comply with.


That depends on whether you want to consider the shed and the existing office as ONE BUILDING.

Texasbo would then say you have to bring all buildings lumped together as one up to current codes.

I am saying that you would not necessarily have to hold the existing portions to all of the new construction provisions, because you could use the existing building code to evaluate the existing portions of the ONE BUILDING aggregate.  The shed would, as I consider it, or Texasbo considers it need to comply with new construction provisions.

If you want to keep them as two buildings, then it is just a fire wall/openings issue for FSD, and all the other MOE, Accessibility, etc provisions would not apply to the existing unless they are affected by the new construction (i.e., access to public right of way if MOE exits through fire wall, etc.).


----------



## TJacobs (Aug 11, 2011)

texasbo said:
			
		

> We're going in circles. This is the part we agreed that we disagree on. Since we're talking about considering it a single building, fire separation distance is irrelevant. And I understand you review it as an addition to an existing building. I wouldn't. I do not recognize any part of it as an existing building, nor would I apply 34 or IEBC. I would review it as a single building, just as if it was all fresh off the drafting board, and require all portions of that single building to comply with all portions of the code. You can bring me three 100 year old buildings, one 100 year old building and two new buildings, or three new buildings, but if you want the "single building" benefits afforded by 503.1.2, I'm going to review each of them exactly the same, as a single building under all sections of the current code (does the new "single building" meet allowable heights, areas, fire protection, exits, etc, with no consideration for 34 or IEBC at all). 503.1.2 doesn't care how old they are if you want the leniency it provides. If you don't want its benefits, then sure, I'll review the existing stuff under 34.


:agree     Exactly.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Aug 11, 2011)

> I am saying that if it doesn't comply with allowable areas, but qualifies under a sprinkler increase, then the existing building would also need to be sprinklered


Agree under Chapter 5 you could take the aggregate area and use that and apply the frontage increases and if that is not enough then you would have to sprinkle the new AND existing building to get the sprinkle increase.


----------



## fatboy (Aug 12, 2011)

":agree Exactly. "

Yup...........


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (Aug 15, 2011)

fatboy said:
			
		

> ":agree Exactly. "Yup...........


well all be darned if I ain't a pig in the mud on this one.  good thing I enjoyed it.    Thanks for everyone's feedback.


----------

