dshall Posted November 3, 2015 Author Share Posted November 3, 2015 I will see your attachment and raise you one.Capture 2.PNG Chapter 2, definitions. Andy. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DRAWZILLA Posted November 3, 2015 Share Posted November 3, 2015 I THINK MR. GUMP WINS THE PRIZE, A FREE DINNER FROM MR. TROLL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BenPalmer Posted November 3, 2015 Share Posted November 3, 2015 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. There are lots of things in the code that are not enforced that could be. I find that as new plan reviewers come in, or reviewers take a training, or start reading things more, that is when you start seeing them enforce things they didn't before. I'd say that definition seals it pretty good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DRAWZILLA Posted November 3, 2015 Share Posted November 3, 2015 WOOPS maybe not. What code was that from. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaskan_Son Posted November 3, 2015 Share Posted November 3, 2015 Not sure if you guys are really reading all the posts or not, but as Robert pointed out above, by very definition (section R202), Fire Separation Distance is measured to the LOT LINE and not to the neighboring structure (as I was also presuming). I assume the intent is to allow neigboring lots full and complete use of their respective lots to account for any and all future structures and usage without any regard for existing structures and usage. Makes sense to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HumbleChief Posted November 3, 2015 Share Posted November 3, 2015 Been called on this code a few times, but not consistently, and not for a long time, but have definitely been called on it and have had to comply. Done a hundred remodels with a 5 foot setback with no issue nor a call to comply then one day bam someone will ask for it. Remember Scott, LOTS of new plan checkers at the City of San Diego and they're pulling up codes that a lot of the old timers have either learned to, or decided to, ignore, for better or worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg_NY61 Posted November 3, 2015 Share Posted November 3, 2015 Same in my neck of the woods, this is nothing new, it's been enforced for as long as I can remember.Here is something you can use in the future as a guide. Foot Notes: a. Roof eave fire-resistance rating shall be permitted to be reduced to 0 hours on the underside of the eave if fire blocking is provided from the wall top plate to the underside of the roof sheathing. b. Roof eave fire-resistance rating shall be permitted to be reduced to 0 hours on the underside of the eave provided no gable vent openings are installed. Note: When you use option “a” or “b” above, you will need to provide additional roof venting. Refer to IRC Section R806 for roof venting requirements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dshall Posted November 3, 2015 Author Share Posted November 3, 2015 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rlackore Posted November 3, 2015 Share Posted November 3, 2015 The IRC and the IBC define Fire Separation Distance the same; the definition is very clear. When you're dealing with distance from a lot line, there isn't much you can do except play with the location of the building. When dealing with buildings on the same lot the designer is permitted to determine the placement of the imaginary line that will be used to determine the fire separation distance - I always place and dimension this line on the lot layout plan that shows all the other important fire-related stuff (fire department vehicle access, fire department connections, hydrants, maximum hose distance, etc.). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dshall Posted November 3, 2015 Author Share Posted November 3, 2015 Same in my neck of the woods, this is nothing new, it's been enforced for as long as I can remember.Here is something you can use in the future as a guide. Foot Notes: a. Roof eave fire-resistance rating shall be permitted to be reduced to 0 hours on the underside of the eave if fire blocking is provided from the wall top plate to the underside of the roof sheathing. b. Roof eave fire-resistance rating shall be permitted to be reduced to 0 hours on the underside of the eave provided no gable vent openings are installed. Note: When you use option “a” or “b” above, you will need to provide additional roof venting. Refer to IRC Section R806 for roof venting requirements. 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rlackore Posted November 3, 2015 Share Posted November 3, 2015 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? Greg's fire-blocking provision is not part of the standard IRC - it's got to be a locally adopted amendment. EDIT: I think Greg must live in Washington state - they have adopted this amendment to Table R302.1(1). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joey_martin Posted November 3, 2015 Share Posted November 3, 2015 Here in my area...if I'm working up near Chicago (Chicagoland, as it's called here), or down in Indianapolis, I have to account for the overhangs being too close to the property line. The areas in between the two cities....well, let's just say not so much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg_NY61 Posted November 3, 2015 Share Posted November 3, 2015 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? Scott, it depends on the jurisdiction, some towns will allow to avoid that when it comes to a single family house, some Towns will go above and beyond. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DRAWZILLA Posted November 3, 2015 Share Posted November 3, 2015 I just leave anything having to do with all this off the plan (to the side) of the layout unless plan check catches it, then just slide it all over to the layout. Sometimes I cut the overhang back to comply, it less expensive than providing the soffit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dshall Posted November 3, 2015 Author Share Posted November 3, 2015 I just leave anything having to do with all this off the plan (to the side) of the layout unless plan check catches it, then just slide it all over to the layout. Sometimes I cut the overhang back to comply, it less expensive than providing the soffit. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DRAWZILLA Posted November 3, 2015 Share Posted November 3, 2015 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. Because it wasn't code then. As you know Calif has their own version of the 2013 IBC, so it's there Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dshall Posted November 3, 2015 Author Share Posted November 3, 2015 Because it wasn't code then. As you know Calif has their own version of the 2013 IBC, so it's there Okay, so Perry, you are telling me that this requirement came into effect when we adopted the 2013 IBC.... this requirement was not in the UBC? If that is the case, now I understand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joey_martin Posted November 3, 2015 Share Posted November 3, 2015 This is from the 2000 IRC SECTION R302 LOCATION ON LOT R302.1 Exterior walls.!--$$tag:upar,,chapter>Exterior walls with a fire separation distance less than 3 feet (914 mm) shall have not less than a one–hour fire–resistive rating with exposure from both sides. Projections shall not extend beyond the distance determined by the following two methods, whichever results in the lesser projections: 1. A point one–third the distance to the property line from an assumed vertical plane located where protected openings are required.!--$$tag:upar,,chapter> 2. More than 12 inches (305 mm) into areas where openings are prohibited. Projections extending into the fire separation distance shall have not less than one–hour fire–resistive construction on the underside. The above provisions shall not apply to walls which are perpendicular to the line used to determine the fire separation distance.Exception: Tool and storage sheds, playhouses and similar structures exempted from permits by Section R105.2 are not required to provide wall protection based on location on the lot. Projections beyond the exterior wall shall not extend over the lot line.!--$$tag:upar,,chapter> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joey_martin Posted November 3, 2015 Share Posted November 3, 2015 This section from the '88 UBC covers projections, but I can't find the specific texts. UBC Section 705 regulates the construction of eave overhangs. The requirements in this section are specific to projections beyond the exterior wall. An eave is only required to be rated when required by this section. General building code requirements only regulate things within the boundries of the exterior walls. UBC Section 101.3 states that when the is a conflict between a general and a specific requirement, the specific requirement governs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joey_martin Posted November 3, 2015 Share Posted November 3, 2015 Here is some text from 1997 UBC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joey_martin Posted November 3, 2015 Share Posted November 3, 2015 I'm only jumping in here because, I started my design/construction career in the late 1980's and can remember dealing with this provision on city lots where the homes are generally closer together. Out in the sticks...not so much. I have a 1988 UBC that says similar wordage as the 1997. What's interesting is, could it be that we were ahead of Cali at one point in the last 30 years, when it comes to codes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rlackore Posted November 3, 2015 Share Posted November 3, 2015 Because it wasn't code then. As you know Calif has their own version of the 2013 IBC, so it's there The ICC publishes every three years - there is no "2013 IBC", though California does have a 2013 Building Code based on the 2012 IBC; California also uses an amended version of the 2012 IRC in the State's 2013 Residential Code. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dshall Posted November 3, 2015 Author Share Posted November 3, 2015 ...... What's interesting is, could it be that we were ahead of Cali at one point in the last 30 years, when it comes to codes? Hard to believe but possible....... I have talked to multiple designers in the area and they are as flabbergasted as I. I will say that some of them like myself have been seeing this requirement of late, but still, they are as ignorant as I. Thanks Joey for your input....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DRAWZILLA Posted November 3, 2015 Share Posted November 3, 2015 The ICC publishes every three years - there is no "2013 IBC", though California does have a 2013 Building Code based on the 2012 IBC; California also uses an amended version of the 2012 IRC in the State's 2013 Residential Code. you are correct. 2013 california building code based on the 2012 IBC. Residential code (CRC) is just same thing but just for residential Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DRAWZILLA Posted November 3, 2015 Share Posted November 3, 2015 Hard to believe but possible....... I have talked to multiple designers in the area and they are as flabbergasted as I. I will say that some of them like myself have been seeing this requirement of late, but still, they are as ignorant as I. Thanks Joey for your input....... The only thing is that what he says might mot apply to California ,and we have had fire codes for many years, only we didn't enforce it all the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now