# Fire separation between drive thru and B use



## Resident (Dec 5, 2013)

Hello,

I am proposing an addition to a 2 story unsprinkled bank over an existing 2 lane drive through canopy.  The bank is 3000 sf per floor and the addition over the canopy will be 650 sf.  The fire chief is questioning me on a separation assembly between the drive through and the new B use above.  I cannot find any code requirements.  Does anyone have any suggestions?

This is my first post and hope I am in the right forum.  I have been reading this for a few years but just recently proudly became a sawhorse member.

Thank you.


----------



## cda (Dec 5, 2013)

Well just welcome

And thank you for supporting this site

You will get an answer just keep checking


----------



## cda (Dec 5, 2013)

Well not a building code person but

Did the fire chief just happen to give a section requiring separation?

Since the bank is a B, kind of think the drive through is either a B or accessory to it

Did you check 508 ibc 2009

Also 508.3

Should have asked which code and edition is this under


----------



## Resident (Dec 5, 2013)

Thank you for a prompt reply.  We are using the 2009 IBC with MA amendments.  I have not spoken to the Chief as we just received a special permit this evening with this condition.  He did not cite any section which I will ask for in a polite manner.  I should say I have no problem complying with the code but I like to see the section reference for my own education.  I thought about an accessory use but the area of the canopy is greater than 10% of the building area.  I have reviewed 508 but am not sure if the drive thru should be considered an S-2 use or if I can consider it a non separated use since I am not sure what the correct use of a drive thru is.  It is unenclosed on 3 sides so I wonder if that makes a difference.


----------



## cda (Dec 5, 2013)

To me either part of the B or U at the most

Nothing being stored there

Should get some answers tomorrow

What is the building official saying?? More his call


----------



## Builder Bob (Dec 5, 2013)

Building over drive thru....

Seems like the corridors would be required to be rated and I believe that section by the definition of corridor would require the 1 hour separation.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Dec 5, 2013)

I guess I do not understand why he wants a fire separation,  Is there a history of vehicle fires at bank drive ups? I would be more concerned with CO migrating through the floor from the running vehicles below

This was all I could find and unless it is specifically adopted it does not apply

D102.2.8 Permanent canopies.

Permanent canopies are permitted to extend over adjacent open spaces provided all of the following are met:

1.	The canopy and its supports shall be of noncombustible material, fire-retardant-treated wood , Type IV construction or of 1-hour fire-resistance-rated construction.


----------



## cda (Dec 5, 2013)

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> I guess I do not understand why he wants a fire separation,  Is there a history of vehicle fires at bank drive ups? I would be more concerned with CO migrating through the floor from the running vehicles belowThis was all I could find and unless it is specifically adopted it does not apply
> 
> D102.2.8 Permanent canopies.
> 
> ...


Would you consider the drive thru to be part of the B occupancy or would you call it something else


----------



## SAT (Dec 5, 2013)

S-2 is more for storing/parking.  As cda subjected U or B is more fitting. Drive through for a bank is part of the bank building and should be classified as Group B.

What if the drive through is detached structure you ask and I would still consider it Group U or B.

I am not familiar with MA amendments but based on my understanding of your post if they are considering this a mixed occupancy you should have an option to use separated or non-separated occupancy. Ask them what they are classifying the drive through.


----------



## rleibowitz (Dec 5, 2013)

If your in Massachusetts the Fire Chief does not have the authority to mandate anything! Jurisdiction lies with the Building Official.


----------



## Resident (Dec 5, 2013)

Thank you for all of your responses.  All have good points to consider.

To cda:  I agree it should be the BO's call but here in MA the Fire Departments generally tell them what they want.  I would consider the drive through to be a B use but will find out what the chief thinks.

To Builder Bob:  I check out the corridor rating requirements in 1018.1.  The occupant load for the second floor is less than 30 and there is only one means of egress required so I do not think a rating is required.

To mtnlogcabin:  Good point about the CO.  We are spray foaming the underside of the second floor in this area to meet insulation requirements and hope that cand the fact that the drive through is open on three sides will suffice.  I have also specified an ignition barrier.  I had never seen D102.2.8 Permanent Canopies.  I read it and in addition to calling for non-combustible materials or fire resistance rated construction it does not allow for canopies greater than 15" in width which the existing canopy is.  I am not sure how to find out if this section has been adopted by MA.  I will have to ask the chief.

To SAT:  The 5B building has a maximum floor plate of 3100 sf and is two stories so I believe I could consider it a non separated mixed use whatever the chief wants to call the use of the drive through except for H or I-2 which is highly unlikely.

All of these responses have helped walk me through some important issues.  Now that I feel fairly confident I do not need fire separation it is time to call the chief.  I may just offer to cement plaster the ceiling of the drive through if it comes down to a struggle.

Thank you


----------



## Resident (Dec 5, 2013)

To leibowitz:  That is good to know but on another job I have had a fire chief tell me he did not care what my expensive fire protection engineers said he would not allow what we were proposing and we could appeal his decision to the state.  He went on to proudly say he would get paid hourly for the time he spent at the appeal.  Certainly not the road I wish to go down.


----------



## cda (Dec 5, 2013)

Resident said:
			
		

> To leibowitz:  That is good to know but on another job I have had a fire chief tell me he did not care what my expensive fire protection engineers said he would not allow what we were proposing and we could appeal his decision to the state.  He went on to proudly say he would get paid hourly for the time he spent at the appeal.  Certainly not the road I wish to go down.


If they do not have a code section to stand on, sometimes you need to call their bluff.

Especially when it comes to time and money. That is why I normally do not stray from the code


----------



## mtlogcabin (Dec 5, 2013)

cda said:
			
		

> Would you consider the drive thru to be part of the B occupancy or would you call it something else


I would consider it a "B" occupancy. It is accessory to the bank


----------



## fatboy (Dec 5, 2013)

It is part of the B occupancy, period. Call him on it, there is no way the appeals board would support him.

And Welcome to the forum, and awesome you jumped in as a sawhorse, we all appreciate the support!


----------



## Architect1281 (Dec 5, 2013)

A Motor vehicle beneath any other use is addressed as a parking garage or s-2 use and if the car is running and not parked or stored is it still a garage? I have always treated drive under or drive through as if it were a garage use S-2; As a designer and as a reviewer enforcer. I do not treat the roof only canopy as other than an incidental or accessory to the main use..

You could start here for a justification or for a design approach.

510.7 Open parking garage beneath Groups A, I, B, M and R. ( again an opinion )

510.7.1 Fire separation. Fire barriers constructed in accordance with Section 707 or horizontal assemblies constructed in accordance with Section 711 between the parking occupancy and the upper occupancy shall correspond to the required fire-resistance rating prescribed in Table

508.4 for the uses involved. The type of construction shall apply to each occupancy individually, .............

Using that reasoning of parking occupancy  that would seem to be a cautious defensible approach.

The onesI have done would be 2 hour horizontal assembly as they are usually non supressed.

508.3 is in line with that reasoning..

You do have the pleasure of being subject to the sandbox mentality of the MA Fire service- good luck with that?

I rarely ask an official what they want I offer what I believe they are entitled to. and supply that in great detail. (a thorough code review with section and article )


----------



## Resident (Dec 5, 2013)

I called the fire chief and told him that I could not find anything in the code that would require a fire separation.  He said he could not find anything either.  He went on to say his concern was a car fire spreading into the office space above and cited examples of drive throughs he had seen with sprinklers.  He was not requesting sprinklers but wanted something to slow the spread of a fire.  I told him that I design to meet the code and was proposing to install the same kind of exterior gypsum 2X2 ceiling that exists.  (We have to take the existing one down to reinforce the structure)  I went on to say that my responsibilities were to design to meet code and minimize costs to my clients.  I did say that I would speak to the client to see what they felt.  If the client wants to use a similar ceiling I will just tell him that is what we will be doing.  End of story.  By the way we will have a smoke detector in the ceiling to alert anyone in the building of a fire and it would take less than 2 minutes to evacuate the entire building.

Thanks again.


----------



## cda (Dec 5, 2013)

We'll that is good he read the book and saw nothing

Now the smoke detector is this inside or outside the building


----------



## Resident (Dec 5, 2013)

Smoke detectors are both inside and out


----------



## cda (Dec 5, 2013)

Please do not put smoke detectors outside

The environment is not friendly to them

Plus most are not listed for freezing temps


----------



## Resident (Dec 5, 2013)

You have a good argument.  I checked section 406.3.3 and in doing so discovered that the only allowed construction types are I, II, and IV.  The building was built in 1996 and is VB.  Do you think that fact means the drive through could not be considered an open parking garage thereby negating the requirements of 509.7.  I was considering this to be non-separated occupancies per 508.3.


----------



## Resident (Dec 5, 2013)

I did not know that.  There is an exterior smoke that we planned to reuse.  It once set off the alarm when the spiders got inside it but otherwise has functioned well.  Do you have any better suggestions?


----------



## cda (Dec 5, 2013)

If anything heat detector,

What is the reason you want to put anything out there ?

I always welcome fire protection systems but location and reason needs to be taken into account


----------



## Resident (Dec 5, 2013)

I did not want to take away a part of the existing fire alarm system.


----------



## cda (Dec 5, 2013)

Ok if outside heat detector

Either fixed temp or rate of rise or combo of both

Boy you are getting your money's worth out of one question


----------



## Markmax33 (Dec 7, 2013)

There is no seperation required between B and U occupancies in TABLE 508.4 REQUIRED SEPARATION OF OCCUPANCIES if that helps you in a mixed occupancy scenario.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Dec 7, 2013)

My 2009 IBC requires 1 hour between a "U" & a "B" with sprinklers an 2 hours without sprinklers. Then again it is small enough to probably meet the non-separated portion of 508.3 if it is a U & a B.


----------



## Markmax33 (Dec 9, 2013)

Whoops I misread it!


----------



## Builder Bob (Dec 9, 2013)

I believe that you will have some sort of rating due tot eh fact that you have to have a thermal envelop for the energy code...........


----------

