# Connecting Buildings on Separate Lots



## QuestionThat (Mar 26, 2019)

Have 2 Medical Office Buildings (One existing and one new construction) that owners want to connect with an enclosed & conditioned covered walkway. Existing building is B type 5B and New building will either be B type 2 or 5B. Both buildings are sprinklered.

I have been able to establish that if we keep new building more than 10 feet off of the property line (which meets projection requirements as well) that the exterior wall will NOT have to be rated.

What I don't understand is how the connection comes into play and affects fire rating requirements (not to mention other code requirements).

Complicating matters is that the 2 buildings may have different owners.

Anyone willing to share some insight?


----------



## ADAguy (Mar 26, 2019)

"May?" do they are don't they? If they are different are they both agreeable and who will maintain the walkway and pay for the utilities?
What happens if one owners chooses to sell his building and the buyer no longer wants the walkway?


----------



## cda (Mar 26, 2019)

Welcome

Come on give us a hard question first!!



So I am thinking that you will run into problems with the city, so suggest a set down with the city, to see if any form of this would fly.

Seems like the entire walk way would have to have sprinklers, or rated door at each end???

Maybe a rated door or two one each side of the property line, in the tunnel, might make the city a little happier, more than likely not much.

Not my area, but I think you have one building, once you connect, so seems you would have to look at area and height stuff, along with construction type.


----------



## QuestionThat (Mar 26, 2019)

Thanks for the responses.
To simplify things (sort of) assume same owner. This area is a little grey right now. Need to get my head wrapped around the rest first.

ADA guy- Good questions. Owner's want to share xray equipment etc. They are of the opinion that they can work this out. If the buyer doesn't want the walkway and nobody is willing to tear out the walkway then I guess the buyer doesn't buy.... right? I get your point though.

CDA- Sitting down with building officials is on the agenda. Trying to get my thoughts/direction/arguments together prior to that meeting as much as possible.
*Providing sprinklers for the walkway is a non issue.
*You mention the rated doors off of the connection as a way of possibly pacifying the city. So what you're alluding to is that you think that the walls that connect the two buildings together and the doors will need to be rated? Period? Can you explain? I'm really hoping to come up with a solution that doesn't require rating those walls. Right now slab to soffit storefront. It's only a 10' wide x 35' long +/- walkway.
*Looked into the area of the building when combined. The way I'm interpreting the code currently is we are over the allowed square footage for combining the buildings into one. A question revolving around this, however is the following. Could the allowed/ combined square footage be increased if we make sure that the new building is 2B rather than a possible 5B? Meaning is allowed SF more for that scenario than having two buildings that are 5B? I'm thinking that if 2 different buildings of 2 different types you must assume both 5B for code purposes. Height is not an issue.


----------



## RLGA (Mar 26, 2019)

See Section 3104 in the IBC for pedestrian walkways.


----------



## QuestionThat (Mar 26, 2019)

Thanks Ron. Skimmed it but will jump on it tomorrow morning!


----------



## cda (Mar 26, 2019)

What rgla said

Still suggest set down with the city before you submit


----------



## steveray (Mar 27, 2019)

RLGA said:


> See Section 3104 in the IBC for pedestrian walkways.



Might it not be easier to build a small fire/party wall on the property line than all of the 2hr fire barriers that Ch. 31 requires? And/or make the property line go away?


----------



## QuestionThat (Mar 27, 2019)

At lot of "or's" in Section 3104.5....
I'm interested in the following:
* *OR *in 3104.5 Connections of pedestrian walkways to buildings. Says building shall comply with Section 3104.5.1, 3104.5.2, 3104.5.3, *OR *3104.5.4. Does this mean that connections must comply with one of ANY of these 4 "Options"? So, if it's an *OR *option I choose 3104.5.2 Alternative Separation. If I'm interpreting things correctly then this choice would eliminate any requirement for fire barriers (Option 3104.5.1)... because I'm more than 10 feet away from the other building (see 3104.5.2 Item 1), open sides on walkways (Option 3104.5.3). Not required because choosing alternative separation, & Exterior walls greater than 2 hours (Option 3104.5.4).... because project exterior walls are not required to be rated by tables 601 & 602 because buildings are B occupancy types 2 & 5 B & sprinklered.
**OR* in 3104.5.2 Alternative Separation. Says pedestrian walkway and the building shall comply with Section 3104.5.2.1 *OR *3104.5.2.2. We meet the more than 10 feet requirement & everything is sprinklered. So, if it's an *OR* option I choose 3104.5.2.1 Passage of Smoke. 

If I'm interpreting this correctly, all we need to do is connect the buildings, make sure everything is sprinklered and that the walls that the pedestrian walkway connect to don't pass smoke?

Am I dreaming?


----------



## QuestionThat (Mar 27, 2019)

Steveray- Let me get some guidance on what I just wrote and I'll get back with you if still applicable. Thanks for the reply


----------



## QuestionThat (Mar 27, 2019)

RGLA- Will do.


----------



## mark handler (Mar 27, 2019)

*Been done for years All over the world*
https://www.google.com/search?q=wal...5#imgdii=PNwmkCeXFNcoDM:&imgrc=7ATvpWPrDd9slM:




*Automatic Fire doors magnetic release*


----------



## cda (Mar 27, 2019)

Which edition of IBC are you using?


----------



## QuestionThat (Mar 27, 2019)

That's not my dream image btw. Now if the boat had a bunch of good looking women on it I might rethink that.
That being said. Where are the holes in what I've outlined above. Either it's OR or it isn't.


----------



## QuestionThat (Mar 27, 2019)

CDA 2015


----------



## cda (Mar 27, 2019)

QuestionThat said:


> At lot of "or's" in Section 3104.5....
> I'm interested in the following:
> * *OR *in 3104.5 Connections of pedestrian walkways to buildings. Says building shall comply with Section 3104.5.1, 3104.5.2, 3104.5.3, *OR *3104.5.4. Does this mean that connections must comply with one of ANY of these 4 "Options"? So, if it's an *OR *option I choose 3104.5.2 Alternative Separation. If I'm interpreting things correctly then this choice would eliminate any requirement for fire barriers (Option 3104.5.1)... because I'm more than 10 feet away from the other building (see 3104.5.2 Item 1), open sides on walkways (Option 3104.5.3). Not required because choosing alternative separation, & Exterior walls greater than 2 hours (Option 3104.5.4).... because project exterior walls are not required to be rated by tables 601 & 602 because buildings are B occupancy types 2 & 5 B & sprinklered.
> **OR* in 3104.5.2 Alternative Separation. Says pedestrian walkway and the building shall comply with Section 3104.5.2.1 *OR *3104.5.2.2. We meet the more than 10 feet requirement & everything is sprinklered. So, if it's an *OR* option I choose 3104.5.2.1 Passage of Smoke.
> ...




Best advice, start at the beginning of 3104, and go through each section

And ask does it apply to your set up or not, and if given more than one option to do, pick the one that works for you.


----------



## QuestionThat (Mar 27, 2019)

Here's what I'm thinking....
I'm looking at 3104.5.1 "Fire Barriers" as the "no sprinkler and too close" option1.
And 3104.5.2 as the "safe distance away and have sprinklers" option 2.
And 3104.5.3 as the "I don't want to have to rate my building walls or put a smoke wall in or do anything fancy with any of the glass in the walls that are already there" option 3.
And 3104.5.4 as the "I'm happy that because my exterior walls are already required to be 2 hour rated I only have to sprinkler my walkway and I that I don't have to rate the walkway walls or keep it 50% open" option 4.


----------



## QuestionThat (Mar 27, 2019)

CDA- That's what I did.... I thought.


----------



## cda (Mar 27, 2019)

If you get the IBC handbook or know someone that has one, it has PICTURES, yea

Also,

RLGA has a great book for this and future projects::

https://www.amazon.com/Applying-Building-Code-Step-Step/dp/1118920759

Talks about walkways and tunnels


----------



## QuestionThat (Mar 27, 2019)

I have RGLA's book. Have spent some time here in the past. Need to look into the IBC handbook.....


----------



## cda (Mar 27, 2019)

QuestionThat said:


> Here's what I'm thinking....
> I'm looking at 3104.5.1 "Fire Barriers" as the "no sprinkler and too close" option1.
> And 3104.5.2 as the "safe distance away and have sprinklers" option 2.
> And 3104.5.3 as the "I don't want to have to rate my building walls or put a smoke wall in or do anything fancy with any of the glass in the walls that are already there" option 3.
> And 3104.5.4 as the "I'm happy that because my exterior walls are already required to be 2 hour rated I only have to sprinkler my walkway and I that I don't have to rate the walkway walls or keep it 50% open" option 4.




I am not an expert:


Here's what I'm thinking....
I'm looking at 3104.5.1 "Fire Barriers" as the "no sprinkler and too close" option1.

Appears "And 3104.5.2 as the "safe distance away and have sprinklers" option 2" takes care of this.



And 3104.5.2 as the "safe distance away and have sprinklers" option 2.



And 3104.5.3 as the "I don't want to have to rate my building walls or put a smoke wall in or do anything fancy with any of the glass in the walls that are already there" option 3.

Not sure what you mean by option 3. "3104.5.3"

And 3104.5.4 as the "I'm happy that because my exterior walls are already required to be 2 hour rated I only have to sprinkler my walkway and I that I don't have to rate the walkway walls or keep it 50% open" option 4.

3104.5.4 do not see option 4 ?


Are you using a base IBC, or has you state modified it?


----------



## QuestionThat (Mar 27, 2019)

Using standard IBC 2015.
What I'm trying to get at here is because the code is using the term "OR" in the areas of 3104.5 that I described earlier, I am saying that means that all of the various line items are choices/ options. My choices (if in fact they are choices) get me to where I want to be with minimal implications and costs to the project.
Just curious if anyone else can follow my interpretation. If some here can follow then maybe I can get lucky with the building official as well.....


----------



## QuestionThat (Mar 27, 2019)

Just read the code commentary. It seems to reflect that these are indeed options. This is taking me down a good path thus far. So thanks RGLA.

Simply wondering now if there is going to need to be any special type of separation between the two buildings at the property line or somewhere else and if so, why?


----------



## cda (Mar 27, 2019)

QuestionThat said:


> Just read the code commentary. It seems to reflect that these are indeed options. This is taking me down a good path thus far. So thanks RGLA.
> 
> Simply wondering now if there is going to need to be any special type of separation between the two buildings at the property line or somewhere else and if so, why?



No seperation should be required. 

It has been awhile since I walked through one of theses.


----------



## ADAguy (Mar 27, 2019)

You will need to draw up a binding legal agreement between parties and possibly a lot tie.


----------



## QuestionThat (Mar 28, 2019)

Thanks guys.
Anybody else? Would really like to get some additional insight and/ or opinions as to how I can best approach this with the building officials.


----------



## cda (Mar 28, 2019)

Sounds like you got it.

Maybe do an exhibit, to show to the building department, and show on it dimensions, and code sections showing compliance with IBC.

Like the commentary does it, and set down with the building department and see if it flies.


----------



## QuestionThat (Mar 28, 2019)

Will do. Thanks.
Just for further discussion....
Everyone in the office is of the opinion that there is going to need to be some sort of separation (fire wall/ party wall/ fire barrier etc) on or near the property line that the pedestrian walkway crosses over.
I don't have a good argument against that other than that, possibly, if the code was going to require it, they would say so in this particular section. Because they do acknowledge that there are different situations where 2 buildings could be on the same lot with a pedestrian walkway vs 2 buildings on different lots with pedestrian walkways.
Bottom line is I'm not seeing anything or anywhere that leads me to believe it's necessary, just looking for a good way to argue this point because I'm thinking everyone just can't get their head wrapped around that the solution is this simple. Everyone expecting to see some fire rated requirement SOMEWHERE because of this. Help me to put their minds (and my mind) at ease!


----------



## ADAguy (Mar 28, 2019)

You have two (2) bridges to be crossed here; acceptance by the AHJ that this can be done in the first place (linking 2 building's with separate ownership) and then dealing with the technical provisions relative to fire separation and structural.


----------



## steveray (Mar 28, 2019)

It does get a little weird, but if the walkway does not count as building area, I cannot see where a firewall should be required....But maybe it is still considered the "Building"....?

3104.1 General. This section shall apply to connections
between buildings such as pedestrian walkways or tunnels,
located at, above or below grade level, that are used as a
means of travel by persons. The pedestrian walkway shall not
contribute to the building area or the number of stories or
height of connected buildings.


----------



## cda (Mar 28, 2019)

steveray said:


> It does get a little weird, but if the walkway does not count as building area, I cannot see where a firewall should be required....But maybe it is still considered the "Building"....?
> 
> 3104.1 General. This section shall apply to connections
> between buildings such as pedestrian walkways or tunnels,
> ...




Keep the fire out of the walkway and adjoining building, for one??


----------



## ADAguy (Mar 29, 2019)

You need to consult with a real estate attorney on this.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Mar 29, 2019)

ADAguy said:


> You need to consult with a real estate attorney on this.


I agree and a good way to handle all the agreements that need to be worked out is probably by "condominimu" laws in your state applicable specifically to the "pedestrian walkway". New owners would have to abide by the "condo" agreement or follow the agreement for removing it. As the designer I assume you could make it structurally independent from the other buildings if it needed to be removed in the future.


----------

