dshall

Perry, do think this is unique to the IBC and not the UBC? For years and years we were using the UBC, do you think the UBC does not have this requirement. I am trying to figure out why there are so many houses out here (built in the 80's and later) with eaves closer than 5' to property line with no protection.

Okay, so Greg has complicated things....... Greg, are you saying I can have an eave WITHOUT THE ONE HOUR CONSTRUCTION within 5' of property line (no closer that 2'-6") IF I block the soffit vents and gable end vents. I do not use soffit vents anymore, I do not use gable vents anymore, I only use roof top attic vents. Are you telling me I do not need the fire protection?

Thanks guys for all of the responses. I learn something new everyday. It seems like the concensus is the one hour protection is required. I am now going to assume those thousands of tract homes that were built with non protected eaves within 5'of property were built per the UBC and not the IRC. Now the question is, if I add to an existing house that does not have the protected eaves, do my new eaves need to have the protection, I assume so..... which means the IRC will be more restrictive than the new WILDLAND-URBAN INTERFACE standards. The WILDLAND-URBAN INTERFACE requirements allow me to match existing eaves under certain guidelines, i.e. not adding more that 25% of existing roof area.

Okay, I see your attachment and you got me there.... but I still don't believe it...... wow...... i don't know what to say, I am waiting to hear from the owner of an independent plan checking service, if he says I am wrong, then all I can say is I have done thousands of room additions that did not comply with the code...... please reread the attached pic and see if you would agree that a projection (roof eave) can encroach 2 foot into the required 5' separation from building wall to property line.

Isn't this funny, we really do not have a definitive answer.... I don't think we have a definitive answer.... and Andy, what you are saying does not specifially talk about the property line ...... anyway, all I know is that for the last 133 years I have never had to do it out here in the land of fruits and nuts..... but I will get to the bottom of this until I have the answer that I want to hear.... attached is some more code stuff, again it does not talk specifically about distance to property line......

Yes, thanks Ben, again if we look closely at what you posted I will assume the minimum distance is between buildings and not from building to property line.

This is my take on it..... the distance they are talking about is BETWEEN BUILDINGS.... not from BUILDING TO PROPERTY LINE...... at least that is where I think the confusion lies. Imagine an apartment project with multiple buildings on the same lot.... anyway, I will let you guys know if I am correct or if I have been wrong for the past 35 plus years.

Okay, I am still not convinced, someone might have to hit me over the head with a anvil, check out the attached pic and see if this changes your mind. Bill, if you are correct, for the last 35 years in San Diego we have been doing it wrong. See pic..... it takes about walls less than 3 feet etc......

This question is for Perry or any other experienced designer. I received a plan check comment that says if my roof eave on my house if less than 5' from property line it needs to be one hour protected. My house is 5' from property line, I have a 2' eave, my eave is min 30" from property line and the plan checker cites section R302.1 and says I need to have 5/8" type x gyp bd at underside of eave for 1 hour protection. In 40 plus years I have never had to do this. Has anybody else had to deal with this? I spoke with JC about this, and he has been doing this stuff for about 237 years, and he has never seen it...... anybody else has some insight to this?

Not the correct answer because Joey is talking eaves and gable ends, the OP is talking about the two gable ends, she is not referring to any eave conditions.

Yeah, you need two roof planes, one roof plane over front gable with no frieze, the second roof plane, the big one, with a frieze..... two roof planes is the answer. Note the orange roof over front roof with no frieze.

Also play with your fascia and sub fascia sizes.

Open the roof plane, check the size of your shadow board, in the pic I deleted the shadow board.... if you want a shadow board, make it smaller than what you specify and it should look better. 2 pics, one with no shadow board, one pic with smaller shadow board.

That is what I call the "virtual slab". They are there because of the defined room.

Did you have to pay extra for the full on version or is it the free version?

That is a great tip, thanks Larry. Any downside?

Great solution by Wendy to get a cap on the wall. Looks real good in 3D. However, in this particular example, the brick did not wrap around the end of the wall. If the wall was on the interior of the house, the brick wraps, if the wall is on the outside, the brick does not wrap. Hey CA, why doesn't the brick wrap around the end of the exterior wall. I sent this to Brian, maybe he will address this issue.

A reason for putting the schedules in a CAD detail. You can copy and post the cad detail/schedule on every sheet of the plans with no problems.

I think this is the most versatile solution, however Wendy did not go far enough in her explanation. After the roof (the temporary roof) is on, take a back clip cross section, and then in elevation view, alter the top of the wall. Make it 2' taller, release, make it 2' shorter (back to original height) , now the wall height is NOT A DEFAULT HEIGHT, you can now remove the roof and the top of wall will stay static.

You my friend are quite good. Is this a hobby of yours or do you make money with CA?

Isn't that interesting. All upper cabinets are relative to the floor from the BOTTOM OF UPPER CABINET, not the TOP OF UPPER CABINET. I think more times than not, all top heights line up and the bottoms do not, i.e. upper cabinet above a cooktop with a microwave under upper cabinet. The top of that upper cabinet will align with the other upper cabinets but the bottom of cabinet does not. Hey, CA, fix this please, thank you. Yeah Barry, you might want to put this in the suggestion box, they don't always listen to these threads.

Yusef does it again, okay Yusef, how did you do it. However, I am with Joe on this one, instead of the riser heights varying, it would be better if the tread depth varied. Come on Yusef, please tell us how you did it.

Nope, can't do it..... however, if you wait long enough, Glenn might prove me wrong.

Very hard to find, my third from bottom is a "t" line style.

I have heard that rumor but never took the time to find it. Please help me out, where is it? The pic shows that last line styles but I do not see the blank line style.