# Garage/living space seperation



## Yankee (Sep 22, 2010)

I have a drive under portico between the house and the garage. There is finished living space above the drive-under pass thru continuous throughout the second level of house and garage.

The pass thru has two open sides (although doors are being considered).

If no doors are added, would you treat this just the same as an enclosed garage and require the gyp board or equivilant between the pass-thru and any living space?


----------



## TJacobs (Sep 22, 2010)

Absolutely.


----------



## fatboy (Sep 22, 2010)

Agreed, absolutely.


----------



## cboboggs (Sep 22, 2010)

Totally agree.


----------



## Yankee (Sep 22, 2010)

Ya, me too, thanks : )


----------



## brudgers (Sep 22, 2010)

Open on two sides is a carport by definition.

Only garages require separation.


----------



## Glennman CBO (Sep 22, 2010)

Assuming that the garage already has its required separation, the carport would only need it when you enclose it (converting it to a garage). Like brudgers said, it is only a carport.


----------



## fatboy (Sep 22, 2010)

Unfortunatelly, I must agree with brudgers and Glennman and recant my first answer. Technically and by definition the code does not support the requirement.

You have to protect under stairs, but you can park your car under your bedroom if the space has two open sides. Fortunatelly, we don't see porticos that are unfinished underneath.


----------



## Yankee (Sep 22, 2010)

interesting . . . too bad I already passed along my interpretation : )

Another factor as well, one wall of the carport is the main entrance to the residence. So any glazing in that door would be required to meet the 20 minute rating if this was treated as a garage wouldn't it? Of course, if it isn't a garage I don't have to worry about that door being rated or being the egress door of the dwelling either. . .

Maybe I'll reconsider.


----------



## TJacobs (Sep 22, 2010)

Not changing my answer...living space above a car is good enough for me.  Since zoning here does not permit carports I will never get sued for overreaching.

I know this gets tiring, but I was on a helluva car fire under a carport (not here) that extended into the house due to lack of fireblocking between ceiling joists from the house extending out over the carport.  I know, I know...no NFPA statistics to back it up.


----------



## pwood (Sep 22, 2010)

california has the open on 2 sides and no enclosed uses above in order to avoid the seperation requirement. the living space above kicks in the seperation requirement.


----------



## High Desert (Sep 22, 2010)

Oregon, like California, has a definition that prohibits a carport from having enclosed uses above because of that scenario.


----------



## peach (Sep 22, 2010)

too bad the IRC hasn't picked up on that.. you see it alot in places like the Florida Keys.


----------



## brudgers (Sep 22, 2010)

peach said:
			
		

> too bad the IRC hasn't picked up on that.. you see it alot in places like the Florida Keys.


Wouldn't matter in the Keys.

They're under the Florida Building Code - Residential, not the IRC.

And everything in it has to be reconciled to the Florida version of NFPA 101.


----------



## peach (Sep 22, 2010)

the language in both codes is the same, brud... time for a code change.. (we have this very issue happening)


----------



## Yankee (Sep 22, 2010)

peach said:
			
		

> the language in both codes is the same, brud... time for a code change.. (we have this very issue happening)


. . . what, we need to make the codes conflict?


----------



## peach (Sep 23, 2010)

no.. the IRC needs to address... Florida will get the idea.   It would be a good code change.  Most of the world thinks of a carport as a free standing structure.


----------



## brudgers (Sep 23, 2010)

Florida's code is better because the need to reconcile the International codes with NFPA mitigates the ICC nonsense.

The idea that fire separation between a dwelling and its garage improves life safety has little statistical basis.

The idea of separating a carport from the dwelling is just the logical extension of a lame idea.


----------



## Rio (Sep 24, 2010)

Maybe it has little statistical basis because with the separation there have been fewer problems.


----------



## brudgers (Sep 24, 2010)

Rio said:
			
		

> Maybe it has little statistical basis because with the separation there have been fewer problems.


That pretty much sums up the way provisions get added to the I-codes.


----------



## GHRoberts (Sep 24, 2010)

While it might be a good idea to have separation, a simple change in plans to indicate "walkway" does away with any code issues.


----------



## fatboy (Sep 24, 2010)

ah yes............label a potential problem away, always a good solution.


----------



## pwood (Sep 24, 2010)

GHRoberts said:
			
		

> While it might be a good idea to have separation, a simple change in plans to indicate "walkway" does away with any code issues.


another BRILLIANT engineering fix. GH is on the stick today:mrgreen:


----------



## brudgers (Sep 24, 2010)

fatboy said:
			
		

> ah yes............label a potential problem away, always a good solution.


Based on statistical evidence regarding fires, there is no significant life safety hazard.

Labeling away a non-issue doesn't seem like a big deal.

Particularly when it's an fn carport.


----------



## north star (Sep 24, 2010)

** * **

Yankee,

The "drive thru" portico has walls and ceilings. Do the finishes on the walls and ceiling meet

the requirements of Section R315 - FLAME SPREAD AND SMOKE DENSITY ( from the `06 IRC )?

*Section R315.1 - "Wall and ceiling. Wall and ceiling finishes shall have a flame-spread*

*classification **of not greater than 200.*

*Exception: Flame-spread requirements for finishes shall not apply to trim defined as*

*picture molds, **chair rails, baseboards and handrails; to doors and windows or their*

*frames; or to materials that are **less than 1/28 inch (0.91 mm) in thickness cemented*

*to the surface of walls or ceilings if these **materials have a flame-spread characteristic*

*no greater than paper of this thickness cemented to **a noncombustible backing. "*

If the finishes do not meet this minimum requirement, other approved materials / finishes will

need to be installed.

Hope this helps!  

FWIW, even "walkways" will need to comply with this section.  

** * **


----------



## peach (Sep 25, 2010)

A flame spread of 200  could be carpet;  when we think of carport (most of us) think of a free standing structure.  A carport, by definition, may not be.. such as is illustrated.  We need to protect just as we would a garage.. and that means a code change.


----------



## brudgers (Sep 25, 2010)

peach said:
			
		

> A flame spread of 200  could be carpet;  when we think of carport (most of us) think of a free standing structure.  A carport, by definition, may not be.. such as is illustrated.  We need to protect just as we would a garage.. and that means a code change.


The rationale for protecting a carport is that the code requires the protection of garages?

Do you see anything about such reasoning which might be questionable?


----------



## GHRoberts (Sep 25, 2010)

brudgers said:
			
		

> The rationale for protecting a carport is that the code requires the protection of garages?Do you see anything about such reasoning which might be questionable?


I think it is great reasoning for the designer/engineer. Really poor reasoning for the AHJ.


----------



## peach (Sep 25, 2010)

A "carport" under a house (with habitable space above).. should be just like a garage with habitable space above... we just aren't trained to think of a "carport" that way.


----------



## fatboy (Sep 25, 2010)

thank you peach............


----------



## Yankee (Sep 25, 2010)

I have always assumed that part of the separation required was due to the "storage" aspect of a typical garage (so you ask, why don't we required separation between basement and living space but lets not go there). This carport is part of a circular driveway and I wouldn't expect the storage aspect to play a part. I have no heartache at all requiring the gyp board or equivalent on the walls and ceiling (and I have approved intumescent application over pine boards in the past), as I don't believe there is any great "hardship" there, , , the door issue rises to another level and that is any glazing that might normally be expected in a feature front door now will have to be rated glazing, and that does create a larger "hardship" both from a design standpoint and a financial standpoint. Brudgers might ask why this "hardship" perception has anything at all to do with applying the requirements of the code and in response I'd say that in these situations where there is a lot of "gray", the AHJ needs to consider all aspects.


----------



## brudgers (Sep 26, 2010)

peach said:
			
		

> A "carport" under a house (with habitable space above).. should be just like a garage with habitable space above... we just aren't trained to think of a "carport" that way.


On what basis?

Show me some numbers.


----------



## fatboy (Sep 26, 2010)

brudgers, really? I know you like to present a different view, but really? Screw the numbers, you don't think that parking cars under a habitable space it more hazardous than not? I had my own car catch fire sitting in my driveway, by the time I got to it, the flames were probably 5' over the top of the car, you don't think that would be a bad thing to have under a BR? Really?


----------



## peach (Sep 26, 2010)

Fire migrates up, not side to side.. should be treated as a garage (even with 3 open sides)


----------



## fatboy (Sep 26, 2010)

bingo......give the pretty lady a prize from the top shelf.............


----------



## GHRoberts (Sep 26, 2010)

peach said:
			
		

> Fire migrates up, not side to side.. should be treated as a garage (even with 3 open sides)


I agree that the code should treat this as a garage, but the code does not. The AHJ cannot.


----------



## fatboy (Sep 26, 2010)

"I agree that the code should treat this as a garage, but the code does not. The AHJ cannot."

Correct........unless by amendment. Which, I happen to have a clean up ordinance going before my council shortly, and this item made my list of things. I think I will propose a code change for the 2015 cycle also.


----------



## Yankee (Sep 26, 2010)

GHRoberts said:
			
		

> I agree that the code should treat this as a garage, but the code does not. The AHJ cannot.


Since the code doesn't treat it any way at all, the interpretation is up to the AHJ


----------



## brudgers (Sep 26, 2010)

fatboy said:
			
		

> brudgers, really? I know you like to present a different view, but really? Screw the numbers, you don't think that parking cars under a habitable space it more hazardous than not? I had my own car catch fire sitting in my driveway, by the time I got to it, the flames were probably 5' over the top of the car, you don't think that would be a bad thing to have under a BR? Really?


Riding motorcycles is more hazardous than driving a car.

In case you're missing the irony.


----------



## brudgers (Sep 26, 2010)

peach said:
			
		

> Fire migrates up, not side to side.. should be treated as a garage (even with 3 open sides)


The quality of your reasoning is on a par with "heavier objects fall faster than light ones."

If there was empirical evidence for a life-safety benefit from the separation of SFR *garages*, you can bet that NFPA 101 would require it.

But there isn't.

To put it another way, the life safety hazard posed by the code compliant stairs to the bedroom above the garage and the code compliant bathrooms in the house is more than an order of magnitude greater than the hazard from all residential fire (mortality from falls is 16 times that from dwelling fires).


----------



## TJacobs (Sep 27, 2010)

Anybody use 101 for SFR?


----------



## Yankee (Sep 27, 2010)

TJacobs said:
			
		

> Anybody use 101 for SFR?


Yes, but unless I am mistaken this issue is not part of the LSC

(?)


----------



## brudgers (Sep 27, 2010)

TJacobs said:
			
		

> Anybody use 101 for SFR?


Everyone in Florida


----------



## Uncle Bob (Sep 27, 2010)

The IRC does not state that all parking spaces that are open on at least two sides are carports. R309.4; states that "carports shall be open on at least two sides."

So, we don't have a carport; we have an " Open Parking Garage" as defined in the *2006 IBC, 406.3.2; 

And, the Open Parking Garage shall meet the requirements of; R309.2 Seperation required. " Garages beneath habitable rooms shall be seperated from all habitable rooms above by not less than 5/8-inches Type X gypsum board or equivalent."

References:

2006 IRC, Chapter 2 Definitions.

R201.3 Terms defined in other codes*.* Where terms are not defined in this code such terms shall have the meanings ascribed to them as in other code publications of the International Code Council.

2006 IBC, 406.3.2 Definitions. The following words and terms shall for the pruposes of this chapter and as used elsewhere in this code, have the meanings shown herein.

*OPEN PARKING GARAGE. A structure or portion of a structure with the openings on two or more sides that is used for the parking or storage of private motor vehicles.

Uncle Bob


----------



## north star (Sep 27, 2010)

** * **



Check and mate!  :-D



** * **


----------



## brudgers (Sep 27, 2010)

Ah the UBC 2010


----------



## TJacobs (Sep 27, 2010)

Thanks UB for the code citations.


----------



## Yankee (Sep 27, 2010)

There is some question as to if this area is meant for parking (and storage) under the definitions posted. It is part of a circular drive. As it turns out, the contractor may submit plans for a dry sprinkler for approval as an equivalent so that the area may be enclosed at some point, and so they can design a glass-full main entrance doorway.


----------



## GHRoberts (Sep 27, 2010)

It seems that the definition of a carport is identical to that of an open garage. I think I will stick with the term carport and build to the applicable code.


----------



## Yankee (Sep 27, 2010)

Once again, great discussion on a topic that one didn't know had so many interpretations . . . what would I do without this board for feedback~

Thanks all


----------



## brudgers (Sep 27, 2010)

Uncle Bob said:
			
		

> The IRC does not state that all parking spaces that are open on at least two sides are carports. R309.4; states that "carports shall be open on at least two sides."So, we don't have a carport; we have an " Open Parking Garage" as defined in the *2006 IBC, 406.3.2;
> 
> And, the Open Parking Garage shall meet the requirements of; R309.2 Seperation required. " Garages beneath habitable rooms shall be seperated from all habitable rooms above by not less than 5/8-inches Type X gypsum board or equivalent."
> 
> ...


Just to extend the logic:

If the 5/8" Type X weighs the same as a duck, it's flammable.


----------



## peach (Sep 27, 2010)

Garages are required to be separated... granted not 1 hour R309.2 .. with a carport directly beneath the house, the same (mimimum) separation should exist.

Granted, most of us may never see this situation, but it needs to be addressed.

Give me a break, BR.. I've had a rough week


----------



## JBI (Sep 27, 2010)

New York State requires a 45 minute rated seperation from garage to any other space in the dwelling (including the door). No statistical basis that I'm aware of. In my first jurisdiction I had occassion to see a house with attached garage suffer a house fire that started in the dwelling proper. The only thing left after the fire was... the garage with all contents intact. Screw statistics! THAT was success! Prior to adopting modified I-Codes NYS compartmentalized damn near everything. I miss that...


----------



## brudgers (Sep 27, 2010)

JBI said:
			
		

> New York State requires a 45 minute rated seperation from garage to any other space in the dwelling (including the door). No statistical basis that I'm aware of. In my first jurisdiction I had occassion to see a house with attached garage suffer a house fire that started in the dwelling proper. The only thing left after the fire was... the garage with all contents intact. Screw statistics! THAT was success! Prior to adopting modified I-Codes NYS compartmentalized damn near everything. I miss that...


Ergo:  House weighed the same as a duck.

Corollary:  Garage and contents weighed not the same as a duck.

Postulate:  Carports weigh the same as a duck.


----------



## brudgers (Sep 27, 2010)

Carport Separation =  Building Code Requirements as a Pokemon collection.


----------



## north star (Sep 27, 2010)

** * **

Just to clarify the logic some.





> *Just to extend the logic:**If the 5/8" Type X weighs the same as a duck, it's flammable*.


Aaaaahhh, but the duck is not an approved material / barrier,    ...the 5/8" gyp.board is!



GHRoberts stated:





> *It seems that the definition of a carport is identical to that of an open**garage. I think I will stick with the term carport and build to the applicable*
> 
> *code.*


In accordance with Section R102.1  [  of the `06 IRC  ], wouldn't this requirethe application of Section R309.2 ?



*R102.1 General.*

"Where, in any specific case, different sections of this code specify different

materials, methods of construction or other requirements, the most restrictive

shall govern. Where there is a conflict between a general requirement and a specific

requirement, the specific requirement shall be applicable."

** * **


----------



## brudgers (Sep 27, 2010)

Carports are residential, IBC chapter 4 is a temperate climate.

The swallow may fly south with the sun or the house martin or the plover may seek warmer climes in winter, yet these are not strangers to our land?

Are you suggesting Carports migrate?

Not at all. They could be carried.

What? A swallow carrying a carport?

It could grip it by the 5/8" Type X gypsum.

It's not a question of where he grips it! It's a simple question of weight ratios! A five ounce bird could not carry something that weighs as much as a duck.

Well, it doesn't matter. Will you go and tell your master that he won't get a permit until he admits that a carport is an open parking structure?

duh-du du-du-du-duh

duh-du-du  du-du-du-du duh


----------



## GHRoberts (Sep 28, 2010)

GHRoberts stated:

[/size][/font]In accordance with Section R102.1  [  of the `06 IRC  ], wouldn't this require

the application of Section R309.2 ?



*R102.1 General.*

"Where, in any specific case, different sections of this code specify different

materials, methods of construction or other requirements, the most restrictive

shall govern. Where there is a conflict between a general requirement and a specific

requirement, the specific requirement shall be applicable."

** * **

I think it is a stretch, but I can accept that.

---

Where I lived as a kid most houses had a driveway adjacent to the house going back to a detached garage. I guess driveways were/are open parking garages.


----------



## TJacobs (Sep 28, 2010)

brudgers, when your arguments decend into fantasy, I can feel much better when I totally ignore them.


----------



## north star (Sep 28, 2010)

* * * 

George,

IMO, a lot of the codes are a stretch!  

** * **


----------



## beach (Sep 28, 2010)

Around here, with buildable areas so small, the only "carport" we see has living space above and next to it...... basically, a garage with two sides open, connected to the house. We treat them just like a garage...


----------



## brudgers (Sep 28, 2010)

GHRoberts said:
			
		

> R102.1 Where, in any specific case, different sections of this code specify different


Which part of "this code" is unclear to you?


----------



## brudgers (Sep 28, 2010)

TJacobs said:
			
		

> brudgers, when your arguments decend into fantasy, I can feel much better when I totally ignore them.


Show me some numbers.


----------



## brudgers (Sep 28, 2010)

TJacobs said:
			
		

> Not changing my answer...living space above a car is good enough for me.  Since zoning here does not permit carports I will never get sued for overreaching.


"Per your building department there is no such thing as a carport."

Brilliant.


----------



## Uncle Bob (Sep 28, 2010)

Brudgers,

I like to joke around as much as the next person on this forum; but, your posts are not helpful or funny.

For the most part; the other members here have tried to shed some light on a code question that one of our members has asked for comments on.

You have contributed absolutely nothing; with your references and examples;

" If the 5/8" Type X weighs the same as a duck, it's flammable. "

" Ergo: House weighed the same as a duck.

Corollary: Garage and contents weighed not the same as a duck.

Postulate: Carports weigh the same as a duck. "

" Carport Separation = Building Code Requirements as a Pokemon collection. "

"Carports are residential, IBC chapter 4 is a temperate climate.

The swallow may fly south with the sun or the house martin or the plover may seek warmer climes in winter, yet these are not strangers to our land?

Are you suggesting Carports migrate?

Not at all. They could be carried.

What? A swallow carrying a carport?

It could grip it by the 5/8" Type X gypsum.

It's not a question of where he grips it! It's a simple question of weight ratios! A five ounce bird could not carry something that weighs as much as a duck.

Well, it doesn't matter. Will you go and tell your master that he won't get a permit until he admits that a carport is an open parking structure?

duh-du du-du-du-duh "

These posts have nothing to do with the subject; and contribute nothing to the discussion.  They are not entertaining, or enlightening.

From your post here; it apears that your only reason for being here is to disrupt and antagonize.

If this is your goal; then you are doing a great job.  Keep it up and you will drive many potential new members from this forum.

Uncle Bob


----------



## brudgers (Sep 28, 2010)

Uncle Bob,

The code doesn't say what you want it to say.

The reason for that isn't oversight.

It's a 100 years of experience with carports and a mountain of fire reporting.

My son  is nine.

When he misuses his abilities to force people to do what he wants against their self interest, I tell him he's being a bully.

That's what your code analysis fosters, bullying.

It's not based sound interpretation.

It's not based on good public policy.

It's not even based on evidence.

It's simply making people kiss the ring.

It's wrong.

And you should stop.

Ben


----------



## mtlogcabin (Sep 28, 2010)

Since the code does not define a carport we should go to a dictionary. Webster and American Heritage define a carport as a roof extending from the side of a building. If there is a floor above  then I don't belive it would qualify as a carport. JMHO. 

R201.4 Terms not defined.

Where terms are not defined through the methods authorized by this section, such terms shall have ordinarily accepted meanings such as the context implies.

car·port (kär*′*pôrt′)

noun

a shelter for an automobile, consisting of a roof extended from the side of a building, sometimes with an additional wall

Webster's New World College Dictionary Copyright © 2010 by Wiley Publishing, Inc., Cleveland, Ohio.

car·port (kärˈpôrtˌ, -pōrtˌ)

noun An open-sided shelter for an automotive vehicle, usually formed by a roof projecting from the side of a building.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 4th edition Copyright © 2010 by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. All rights reserved.


----------



## brudgers (Sep 28, 2010)

Based upon R309.4 what are the requirements for carports?

Based upon R309.4 what are the requirements for carports beneath habitable rooms?

"Usually" doesn't mean always.

That's why you're able to take a vacation.


----------



## TJacobs (Sep 28, 2010)

brudgers said:
			
		

> "Per your building department there is no such thing as a carport."Brilliant.


Where did you get the statement in quotes?


----------



## georgia plans exam (Sep 28, 2010)

IMHO it may or may not be a carport but, it is definitely not a garage because it is open on at least two sides. No separation required.

GPE


----------



## Mule (Sep 28, 2010)

Okay guys..I think we've beat this thing to death.

I think it is time to agree that we all have different opinions on what the code specifies. It will be up to the design professional and the AHJ to determine how to make this call.

The thread is getting to a point that it is not benefitial to anyone reading it anymore.

Truce


----------



## brudgers (Sep 28, 2010)

TJacobs said:
			
		

> Where did you get the statement in quotes?


I'm anticipating your adoption of UBC 2010


----------



## brudgers (Sep 28, 2010)

Mule said:
			
		

> Okay guys..I think we've beat this thing to death. I think it is time to agree that we all have different opinions on what the code specifies. It will be up to the design professional and the AHJ to determine how to make this call.
> 
> The thread is getting to a point that it is not benefitial to anyone reading it anymore.
> 
> Truce


It's not the building department.

It's not the architect's office.

But what is said here influences both.

And it could influence future code cycles as well.

Every user has access to the ignore list feature, and nobody is required to click on the thread.

Anyone who doesn't find this thread beneficial should avail themselves of those options.


----------



## RJJ (Sep 30, 2010)

Yankee: I have had the situation as described in the OP. I have also had the drive through with a garage attached. No living space above on the garage attached just a connecting roof. With living space above and attached to the garage the under pass was protected. I memory serves me with 5/8" drywall. The garage had living area as well. With just the roof attaching the garage nothing was required.

Brudgers: I have to agree you don't need to read a thread. We all have that choice. Most of your comments seem to be with out foundation and just pure opinion. It seems that when a code section supports your opinion use jump on it. When it appears ambiguous then you rant on ducks and nine year old's! I think you should take your own advise and not be such a bully towards others.

Next: R309 is a totally worthless section of code. It tell the code official nothing other then the floor surface is to be non combustible and the floor needs slope.

It states that a carport has to be open on two sides. if not it, ... shall be considered a garage and shall comply with the provisions of this section for garages. Well! There are no provisions. Just a bunch of empty words.

Now the argument about kissing the ring is wonderful. The code does provide a few options. Sections 104.10 and 104.11 can be use to deal with this issue. If a building department takes the wrong approach and an applicant feels the code is miss applied then they have the right to appeal. You probable have the same section in your ub what ever 2010 addition.


----------



## brudgers (Sep 30, 2010)

RJJ said:
			
		

> Next: R309 is a totally worthless section of code. It tell the code official nothing other then the floor surface is to be non combustible and the floor needs slope.It states that a carport has to be open on two sides. if not it, ... shall be considered a garage and shall comply with the provisions of this section for garages. Well! There are no provisions. Just a bunch of empty words..


It lists the requirements.

I thought that was the purpose of the code.

What else should it do?


----------



## High Desert (Sep 30, 2010)

R309 has turned into more of a scoping/definition section. It tells you how to determine the difference between a carport and a garage for the purposes of applying other code provisions, such as R302.5 for garage/dwelling separtion and openings. Since there are no provisions for separation and openings for carports in R302.5, none are required. Oregon has futher clarified what a carport is to address this very issue because we thought the IRC did not address it adequately.

*CARPORT.* A carport is a structure use to shelter a vehicle, *having no enclosed uses above*, and is entirely open on two or more sides.


----------



## RJJ (Oct 1, 2010)

Brudgers: I agree with High Dessert in that it is just a scoping. I believe it should either be removed  or written in a manner that actually produces some validity. One problem I see with the code process is most every one has a code change, wants to get in front of the stage and expound on thier reasoning. Some of this is ok!

For a section like this to end up in print is poor code work. It leaves to much to be subjective. If a section is created to deal with a garage is should spell out the intent, and prescriptive elements that need to be meet either by reference to another section or contained in that section. To combined the two creates confusion. The same for a carport. Above HD creates a definition that would clearly end the confusion, however, it doesn't exist in the code.

I believe we all understand the intent of what a carport is supposed to be and in our minds we understand the difference between a garage and a carport. The problem is interpretations vary. Understanding is sometime misinformed. The result is confusion and disagreement. When this exist and combine it with poor code text we have problems. Code enforcement should not be left to the idea of because I said so. It should have clear text to support a conclusion. This will never happen for everything, but we need to strive for it.

I will try to get a photo of one of the two issues I have dealt with over the next day or so. At times BO's and DP's are left scratching thier heads on issues like this.


----------



## globe trekker (Oct 1, 2010)

Well said RJJ!    

.


----------



## brudgers (Oct 1, 2010)

RJJ said:
			
		

> Brudgers: I agree with High Dessert in that it is just a scoping. I believe it should either be removed  or written in a manner that actually produces some validity.


What part do you see as lacking in validity?


----------



## Big Willie (Oct 1, 2010)

Mule,

I guess that some aren't through beating up on this topic, or do not understand the term " truce "!


----------



## GHRoberts (Oct 1, 2010)

I was thinking about my car parking structure.

The west third is closed in on 3 sides. The center third is closed on one side - the side shared with the west third. The east third is open on all sides. They share a common roof.

I used to think the west third was a garage and the other two thirds were carports. But I now understand the entire structure could be a carport or a garage. Since it is a detached structure I don't really need to know which it is.


----------



## RJJ (Oct 1, 2010)

Big Willie: I believe we are past truce and are talking facts. What the code lacks or doesn't lack.

Brudgers: Validity? good question . I need to think on that before I answer.


----------



## High Desert (Oct 1, 2010)

GH, I drew a sketch of what you described and you're absolutely right. Just keep it away from a dwelling and the separation debate is over.


----------



## RJJ (Oct 2, 2010)

Brudgers: The question you raised on validity is an excellent question and perhaps needs a thread of it's own. For the section on carports and garages I would say both need to be defined. Then have identifications of the elements or parameters that make each unique. These items are lacking. I can agree with HD that it is basically a scoping sections allowing or directing one to other sections of the code. We all could agree that a garage is a structure and other sections would mandate the need for some type of foundation. In that simple example, I believe we could all agree. The same could be said for the framing of the roof. These seem to be givens.

The short coming with the section, even used as a scoping section is that it identifies a distinction of use or possible use. It creates two functions of space and leaves the Code official, theDP or contractor without a true understanding. One could say base on the words provided that a carport only has to have two open sides. Nothing else matters. One could also say that no living space can be above. Or yes living space could be above. The code is silent. The discussion in this very thread shows that ambiguity exists. In that case the code official needs to draw a conclusion. These type of conclusions at time are judgement calls. They may or may not be the right call.

The sections need to be cleaned up. Codes should be crystal clear and a little more wordsmithing is needed.


----------



## Mule (Oct 2, 2010)

RJJ said:
			
		

> Big Willie: I believe we are past truce and are talking facts. What the code lacks or doesn't lack.


I agree! As long as the topic stays in line and doesn't get stupid, this type of discussion is good.


----------



## Yankee (Oct 2, 2010)

How about this approach . . . we can attempt to define every detail of every mean, method or piece of construction but we will never cover all of the possibilities that we see in the field. How about some general, tight, scoping and a LOT of education for the building officials who have to make the decision on each unique real-life situation. Doesn't this approach marry well with the idea of reducing the code book, verbiage, and general micro-management attempted within the code, allow for different norms in different parts of the country and still focus on safety?


----------



## RJJ (Oct 3, 2010)

yank: what you say has merit. Training is needed and always will continue to be needed. It won't answer all questions or issues! I agree that the code book is getting over filled. Seems we add text by the wheelbarrow any more and it will be impossible to resolve all problems that may arise due to gray areas.

Your original post points to an area of less then ideal clarity. Brudgers was right when he stated the code does not say what one wants it to say. These issues arise quite often. Thus the relief is the appeals board when the BO and applicants can't come to a reasonable conclusion.


----------



## Uncle Bob (Oct 3, 2010)

If we were still under the 1997 STANDARD BUILDING CODE (SBCCI); this conversation wouldn't be happening.

And, we wouldn't need or be required to adopt the IRC or the old CABO; because everything came under the building code, including Residential.

1997 SBC;

503.2.2 Parking under Group R (residential). Where a one-story automobile parking garage, enclosed or open with grade entrance, is provided under a building of Group R occupancy, the floor/ceiling assembly between the parking garage and the Group R occupancy above shall provide a fire resistance rating not less than the occupancy separation required in 704.1.1.

704.1.1 Residential - 1 hour.

Automobile parking garage - 1 hour.

If we could adopt the 1997 SBC; instead of the IRC and IBC; we would be saving millions of dollars in energy and wood; because the 1997 SBC is 442 pages (and covers both of them); versus the 678 pages of the 2009 IBC and 868 pages of the IRC (total of 1,546 pages); and is a lot easier to understand for builders and officials. With the exception of a few over-educated folks here who have a hard time understanding simple english.  

Now, stick that in your Green Code pipe and smoke it,

Uncle Bob


----------



## brudgers (Oct 3, 2010)

Uncle Bob said:
			
		

> If we were still under the 1997 STANDARD BUILDING CODE (SBCCI); this conversation wouldn't be happening.


Where there is no locally adopted code, I can and often do work under SBC '97 because it's part of the State Fire Code.

Which is convenient because it coordinates well with NFPA.

Unsurprising given where SBCCI  was headquartered.

And practical since it makes rural churches with occupant loads over 300 possible.


----------



## Yankee (Oct 4, 2010)

_And practical since it makes rural churches with occupant loads over 300 possible._

And this is why it makes sense to have one code where the life safety elements are standard, and with building element adjustments for location.


----------



## brudgers (Oct 4, 2010)

Yankee said:
			
		

> _And practical since it makes rural churches with occupant loads over 300 possible._And this is why it makes sense to have one code where the life safety elements are standard, and with building element adjustments for location.


It's actually why it makes sense to have local and regional codes.

Or to just use the NFPA.

I'll point out that the conditions for avoiding sprinklers in an assembly occupancy over 300 persons are quite narrow and require fixed seating among other things.

Like the idea of fire separating carports, the blanket IBC requirement is there to complete a set of Pokemon, not because of actual experience.


----------



## Yankee (Oct 5, 2010)

brudgers said:
			
		

> It's actually why it makes sense to have local and regional codes.Or to just use the NFPA.
> 
> Like the idea of fire separating carports, the blanket IBC requirement is there to complete a set of Pokemon, not because of actual experience.


The NFPA is also a "blanket" code.

You just said that it makes sense to use the NFPA or have local/regional codes.

Which is it?


----------



## brudgers (Oct 5, 2010)

It's both.

In the past, there was a set of national codes and standards in the form of NFPA. From a practical standpoint, local and Regional building codes extended, replaced, or modified the NFPA requirements. In general the reasons for being different than NFPA were based on a perceived benefit to the local community and the NFPA codes and standards are organized and written with an understanding of this.

The IBC doesn't seek to extend or modify the NFPA codes and standards, it's sole purpose is to replace them. Therefore, the reason for differentiation is not perceived benefit to the local community. Often the reason is deliberate incompatibility for the purpose of differentiating it from the competition.

NFPA works everywhere because it's approach is minimalist and as a group they change requirements slowly based on experience.

IBC's approach is to regulate as much as possible as quickly as possible. They change requirements based on theory rather than application.

The elimination of traditional zero lot development from the IRC is a case in point. The reason was not that it is a hazard as it was allowed in IRC 2003. No it was because such development didn't fit in with an uninformed theoretical model of fire safety.


----------

