# Rated wall between drive thru and convenience store?



## BayPointArchitect (Jun 16, 2012)

A convenience store owner wanted a covered drive thru adjacent a pass thru window.

The drafter thought it would be clever to put in garage doors and enclose the drive through during hours when the business is closed.

With good reason (LSC 36.1.1), FM denied the permit unless the entire building and covered area are sprinkled AND a one-hour rated wall is installed - complete with fire-rated glass between the drive-thru and convenience store.

Given a fully sprinkled building and one-hour rated barrier, we are trying to re-design an "equivalent level of safety" to avoid the fire rated pass-thru window.

Question #1:

Provided that the garage doors are removed and the covered roof over the drive thru is supported by a wall with large openings, how much area of that exterior bearing wall would need to be "open" for this to be considered a non-hazardous area rather than an enclosed parking area?

Question #2:

Does the LSC also have provisions for non-separated and most-restrictive occupancies similar to the IBC?

Thanks


----------



## cda (Jun 16, 2012)

I guess

1 how many sq ft is the entire thing

2 what occupancy are you and the fm calling this

3 what section is the fm using to require sprinklers???

4 Why is it considered parking?? It is a covered drive thru

5 totaly new building or add on?

6 what section of code is fm using to require the rated wall??


----------



## BayPointArchitect (Jun 16, 2012)

cda said:
			
		

> how many sq ft is the entire thing


2,700 S.F. for the entire building area comprised of 1,400 S.F. convenience store (Class "C" Mercantile) and a 1,300 S.F. covered drive through area ("parking area" according to the local State Fire Marshal).



			
				cda said:
			
		

> what occupancy are you and the fm calling this


According to the IBC, I would like to call the entire building 2,700 S.F. of S1 occupancy (most restrictive of the two occupancies).  But the State Fire Marshal is calling this Mercantile which needs a 2 hour separation by all parking areas per Life Safety Code 36.1.2.2.



			
				cda said:
			
		

> what section is the fm using to require sprinklers???


The sprinklers are not necessarily required but the two-hour rated separation may be reduced to only one-hour rated wall if the entire building (including the covered area) is sprinkled.  The building owner has opted to install the sprinklers to obtain a 25% discount on his insurance.



			
				cda said:
			
		

> Why is it considered parking?? It is a covered drive thru


I would agree with the Fire Marshal that if the owner insisted on garage doors and windows for the drive thru, then it would need to be treated like an enclosed parking garage.  After I was invited into the game, I removed the garage doors and windows and now I am trying to make this structure as open as possible to avoid the $7,000 worth of fire-rated glass.



			
				cda said:
			
		

> totaly new building or add on?


New building under construction.  Currently the foundation is complete and the fire sprinkler riser installed.



			
				cda said:
			
		

> what section of code is fm using to require the rated wall??


Again, LSC 36.1.2.2 which reads as follows:

Combined Mercantile Occupancies and Parking Structures.

The fire barrier separating parking structures from a building classified as a mercantile occupancy shall be

a fire barrier having a minimum 2-hour fire resistance rating.

Openings in the fire barrier shall not be required to be protected with fire

protection–rated opening protectives in enclosed parking structures that are protected throughout by an approved,

supervised automatic sprinkler system in accordance with 9.7.1.1(1), or in open parking structures, provided that all of

the following conditions are met:

(1) The openings do not exceed 25 percent of the area of the fire barrier in which they are located.

(2) The openings are used as a public entrance and for associated sidelight functions.

(3) The building containing the mercantile occupancy is protected throughout by an approved, supervised automatic

sprinkler system in accordance with 9.7.1.1(1).

(4) Means are provided to prevent spilled fuel from accumulating adjacent to the openings and entering the building.

(5) Physical means are provided to prevent vehicles from being parked or driven within 10 ft of the

openings. [how does this work for a drive thru window? = it doesn't]

(6) The openings are protected as a smoke partition in accordance with Section 8.4, with no minimum fire protection

rating required.


----------



## cda (Jun 16, 2012)

Interesting

How can someone label an area or assume what it may be used for, if the owner/ designer labels it for actual use??

The whole thing is a M!!!!

Sorry not 101 proficent


----------



## cda (Jun 16, 2012)

Do they need seperation,  where your fm is apparently

http://www.beerbarnbabes.com/pensacola_florida_2.jpg


----------



## cda (Jun 16, 2012)

How about a fire rated door or similar, for the opening with detection release???


----------



## ICE (Jun 16, 2012)

There's more to it than simply being able to drive a car into a building.

There must be plenty of enclosed parking garages in that FM's jurisdiction.

What about the other requirements of an enclosed parking garage such as ventilation etc. ?

Install a hose bibb and call it a car wash.

I guess you're lucky that the FM didn't call it a paint booth.

Wait a minute....I reread post #3 and see that the drive through area is 1300 sq ft.....that's enough covered space for eight cars.....the FM might be on to something here.



> 2,700 S.F. for the entire building area comprised of 1,400 S.F. convenience store (Class "C" Mercantile) and a 1,300 S.F. covered drive through area ("parking area" according to the local State Fire Marshal).


----------



## cda (Jun 16, 2012)

Once again not 101, but maybe check chapter 6 on this document the intro to 6 and page 6.6

http://www.wbdg.org/ccb/VA/VASTUDIES/codecomparison.pdf


----------



## cda (Jun 16, 2012)

Wait a minute....I reread post #3 and see that the drive through area is 1300 sq ft.....that's enough covered space for eight cars.....the FM might be on to something here.

Eight cars no waiting, once again how can't he fm assume what the area will be used for


----------



## fireguy (Jun 16, 2012)

cda said:
			
		

> How about a fire rated door or similar, for the opening with detection release???


Drive up window?  A question I have had about roll-up/bang down fire doors is the speed and velocity they fall at.  I think some of them are based upon the French Guiloteens (sp?)


----------



## cda (Jun 17, 2012)

Where is FM, i think he is a 101 person


----------



## mark handler (Jun 17, 2012)

I know this maybe a 101 issue but looking at if from an IBC side, It seems to be no different than a drive up window at a fast food restaurant or service station with a convenience store; both of which have been “interpreted” by the ICC as not needing fire separation.

My question is: Why is the “porte-cochere” so large?


----------



## RLGA (Jun 17, 2012)

Why not use overhead coiling grilles in lieu of grarage doors?


----------



## BayPointArchitect (Jun 18, 2012)

I believe my first approach should be to minimize the likelihood that there will be any vehicles parked (and bursting into flames) within the porte-cochere (a.k.a. "open-air drive thru").  Therefore, there will be no garage doors and no windows within the outermost exterior wall that supports the 24 ft. long overhang.  And within that wall that divides the convenience store and open-air drive-thru there are several windows typical of any retail space in addition to an automatic sliding door and sliding pass-thru window.  The Fire Marshal is currently allowing glass within that wall - provided that it is the fire-rated glass.  Although the building owner is ready to pay $7,000 for glass, there must be some effort to convert the "parking area" to an "open-air drive-thru".

Again, my question is how would I best re-design this scenario to eliminate the fire-rated separation wall between the vehicles and the liquor store/convenience store?


----------



## Coug Dad (Jun 18, 2012)

The drive through is not a "parking structure" as defined in NFPA 101 just because it has a door to secure it after hours.  The FM should educate himself and quit wasting people's money.


----------



## cda (Jun 18, 2012)

Go with original design and Call it all "M" and go to board of appeals

You are already sprinkling it

Have FM prove up code sections


----------



## BayPointArchitect (Jun 18, 2012)

I do not believe that there is a board of appeals when dealing with the State Fire Marshal.  His judgement is final.As for the code sections related to his comments, those are also included among the code review comments.See attachment.As you know, the IBC considers Mercantile (M) occupancies equal to motor vehicle Storage (S-1) and therefore no separation required per IBC Table 508.4.But the Life Safety Code is very clear in that Mercantile needs to be separated from Parking.My only hope is to either:Avoid the label, "parking structure"orAppeal for some practical consideration for "most restrictive and non-separated".It would be irrelevant if the entire use is considered "S" or "M" occupancy.  Either way, no separation would be required.

View attachment 592


View attachment 592


/monthly_2012_06/Comments.jpg.130f6efb762a0a504b47b55ba9cfbf72.jpg


----------



## north star (Jun 18, 2012)

*+ + + + + + + +*

FWIW, I would think that this application is more of a temp.

porte cochere as well.

BayPointeArchitect,

Can this porte cochere be sprinkled and be compliant with

the state FM ?

*+ + + + + + + +*


----------



## BayPointArchitect (Jun 18, 2012)

north star said:
			
		

> Can this porte cochere be sprinkled and be compliant with
> 
> the state FM ?


Yes.

1)  The entire attic area will be heated and insulated.

2)  The convenience store will be fully sprinkled NFPA 13

3)  The drive thru will be fully sprinkled NFPA 13 (wet system made possible by heated attic area above)

Never-the-less, the Fire Marshal (in accordance with LSC) requires a rated wall between the "parking area" and "convenience store".


----------



## cda (Jun 18, 2012)

sorry two last ones what edition of 101????

and what state is this in?? beside confusion oh nebraska

are they still under the 2000 edition of 101??????????


----------



## cda (Jun 18, 2012)

four item # 4

7.2.1.1.3 Occupied Building.

7.2.1.1.3.1    For the purposes of Section 7.2, a building shall be considered to be occupied at any time it meets any of the following criteria:

     (1)It is open for general occupancy.

     (2)It is open to the public.

     (3)It is occupied by more than 10 persons.

the what ever cannot have an occupant load of over 10!!!


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (Jun 18, 2012)

Coug Dad said:
			
		

> The drive through is not a "parking structure" as defined in NFPA 101 just because it has a door to secure it after hours.  The FM should educate himself and quit wasting people's money.


I would tend to agree with you, except for the part when it would have been completely enclosed.

At this point, I would check and see if the FM has issued any clarification statements or amended definitions in any way that might be effecting this project.

Perhaps there is a way to disconnect the porte cochere from the building, similar to a gas station canopy that extends over the roof of the convenience store.


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (Jun 18, 2012)

2000 edition if it is Nebraska



			
				cda said:
			
		

> sorry two last ones what edition of 101????and what state is this in?? beside confusion oh nebraska


----------



## RLGA (Jun 18, 2012)

Personally, I think this is an example of regulation leaving its senses.

Do they really think cars will be parked there during closed hours?

Do they require shopping malls to classify the mall portion as Group S-2 parking garages just because on occasion new car models are displayed?


----------



## cda (Jun 18, 2012)

So is the sfm the only one that reviews this project or is a building dept involved somewhere along the line????


----------



## cda (Jun 18, 2012)

Papio Bldg Dept said:
			
		

> 2000 edition if it is Nebraska


I thought we kept behind the times


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (Jun 18, 2012)

We take the cake on that one...We usually defer preliminary reviews until after they have met with sfm because the two codes just don't match up.  Few Nebraska jurisdictions have an sfm for in house reviews.  Most require an independent 2000 edition review through the sfm state office, and the sfm has recently taken the position that they don't really care if an IBC AHJ issues a C of O prior to their final inspection.   Other than that the locals are great to work with.


----------



## cda (Jun 18, 2012)

Papio Bldg Dept said:
			
		

> We take the cake on that one...We usually defer preliminary reviews until after they have met with sfm because the two codes just don't match up.  Few Nebraska jurisdictions have an sfm for in house reviews.  Most require an independent 2000 edition review through the sfm state office, and the sfm has recently taken the position that they don't really care if an IBC AHJ issues a C of O prior to their final inspection.   Other than that the locals are great to work with.


So who wins out if there is a conflict between sfm and Bo???


----------



## BayPointArchitect (Jun 18, 2012)

For this particular location, both the local code guru and the FM review plans independently.

The most restrictive interpretation of the two AHJ applies.

Generally speaking, the State Fire Marshal reviews in accordance with Life Safety Code

and the local Building Official reviews in accordance with the 2009 IBC.


----------



## north star (Jun 18, 2012)

*+ = +*

RLGA asked:





> "Do they really think cars will be parked there during closed hours?"


IMO, it's not really a matter of vehicles being parked in therewhen the business is closed, but maybe while the business is open........In

an enclosed building with vehicles, humans, petroleum & alcohol products

tends to be a dangerous mix, just begging for an ignition source.

[ Example: Dick & Jane roll in to purchase some `shine.........Possibly

their sled is already overheating and not running too well......It stalls

out inside the Liquor Dispensary and catches fire, ...possibly from

faulty electrical wiring, or from Dick & Jane having a rolling meth

lab in the rig with them......Either way, now there's a fire event

inside the building   ]...Essentially, I do not know if I would disagree

with the SFM......I WOULD however try to come to some sort of

reasonable design solution, ...if possible!......Just sayin' that

unintentional vehicle fires DO occur inside of buildings, and this

particular project needs to be looked at a little more closely.

No disrespect intended or aimed at anyone!

*= + =*


----------



## cda (Jun 18, 2012)

if you wind up requireing rated glass appears 8.2.3.2.2 allows an alternative, and I thought I heard that it is now accepted to wet non rated glass, in place of rated glass::

one ciites approach::

http://www.sjfd.org/FirePrev/water_wall.pdf

36.1.2.2 talks about parking structures, and does not appeared to be defined in 101, but refers you fron section 42.8 which refers you to nfpa 88A not sure which edition

6.1.14.2 seems to allow you to call it an m or s and apply the most restrictive to the entire building

are you dealing with a plan reviewer, and if so have you tried to have a set down with that person's boss??

7.2.1.4.1 exception 4 says an overhead door is good for occupant load of less than 10, so that covered area has to have an occupant load of less than ten

not sure how he is defining 36.3.2, part of that building"high Hazard" when the sprinklers will normaly eliminate any rated walls


----------



## cda (Jun 18, 2012)

north star said:
			
		

> *+ = +*RLGA asked:
> 
> IMO, it's not really a matter of vehicles being parked in there
> 
> ...


so if it was open on three sides , put still attached to the building,  would you need heartburn medicine???


----------



## Msradell (Jun 19, 2012)

Does anyone have a drawing of the proposed area?  I've seen earlier that he talks about the area being 1300sf and another place or talks about it being 24ft long.  Is both of these are correct is a very strange shaped addition is I'm sure one of them is incorrect.  If the 1300 is indeed correct and the area remains enclosed I can fully understand the need for the separation wall.


----------



## cda (Jun 19, 2012)

The store is 1400 and enclosed area 1300

The enclosed area is a drive through for the business

And that's it as in a "M" throughout

No drawing


----------



## Big Mac (Jun 20, 2012)

Where a structure is proposed for a purpose that specifically provided for in this code, such structure shall be classiifed in the group that the occupancy most nearly resembles, according to the fire safety and relative hazards involved.  2009IBC, Section 302.  I realize this quote is not from the 101 Life Safety Code, but I'll bet they have very similar language.


----------



## GCtony (Jun 20, 2012)

cda said:
			
		

> if you wind up requireing rated glass appears 8.2.3.2.2 allows an alternative, and I thought I heard that it is now accepted to wet non rated glass, in place of rated glass:ne ciites approach::
> 
> http://www.sjfd.org/FirePrev/water_wall.pdf
> 
> ...


----------



## mtlogcabin (Jun 20, 2012)

Could the "parking area" be a "U" occupancy under 406.1.2? I don't know a thing about 101 but this type of business has been around for over 20 years in the south east that I have known about with no seperations.


----------



## cda (Jun 21, 2012)

FM. Where you been vacation???

We have been waiting for your words of wisdom on this thread


----------



## FM William Burns (Jun 24, 2012)

Well since you asked CDA, I view the situation as follows and it should be viewed as a Class C Mercantile:

The SFMO will use the 09 version of 101 with state amendments. According to this, the facility should be classified as a Mercantile C and should be viewed as such and as follows:



> 6.1.14.1.3* Where incidental to another occupancy, areas used as follows shall be permitted to be considered part of the predominant occupancy and shall be subject to the provisions of the Code that apply to the predominant occupancy:





> (1) Mercantile, business, industrial, or storage use


This would allow the open air drive thru and associated “occupied” vehicles awaiting goods as part of the mercantile occupancy. They are not stored nor are they un-occupied or stationary making it a “parking structure” as defined in 101……

*3.3.170.21 Parking Structure Sections* of the Florida code. 

*However, there is the “hazard of contents” provision the SFMO should have considered and used not the “parking structure” argument.* 



> 6.2.1.3* For the purpose of this Code, where different degrees of hazard of contents exist in different parts of a building or structure, the most hazardous shall govern the classification, unless hazardous areas are separated or protected as specified in Section 8.7 and the applicable sections of Chapters 11 through 43.


The “Hazard of Contents” area of the code is one often used by myself and others to gain greater levels of protection for situations that have the potential to present greater risk and that may not be specifically prescribed for in the building code. 

This jurisdiction might have been able to apply this in classifying the occupied vehicles in waiting as a high hazard (see definition....flame, smoke and explosion):



> 36.3.2.2* High Hazard Contents Areas. High hazard contents areas, as classified in Section 6.2, shall meet all of the following criteria:





> (1) The area shall be separated from other parts of the building by fire barriers having a minimum 1-hour fire resistance rating, with all openings therein protected by self-closing fire door assemblies having a minimum 3/4-hour fire protection rating.
> 
> (2) The area shall be protected by an automatic extinguishing system in accordance with 9.7.1.1(1) or 9.7.1.2.
> 
> (3) In high hazard areas, all vertical openings shall be enclosed.


Now with that all being noted; I agree with the probability that there could be a car fire in the drive thru but this potential could exist at the exterior and or in proximity to any number of mercantile situations and occupancies. Personally, I would assure there was adequate egress from the convenience store area, drive thru and the facility had plenty of portable extinguishing capability and move on to the next one……choose your battles wisely.

I would be happy to travel to Tallahassee  

Back when I sold beer, my best account was the BX Beer Depot in Lake Worth, Florida and they were a non separated, non sprinkled drive thru.


----------



## cda (Jun 24, 2012)

FM thanks for putting down the fishing pole a minute

I think this is happening in Nebreska ;;;;

2000 edition Nfpa 101 if it is Nebraska


----------



## FM William Burns (Jun 24, 2012)

Oh....don't know where I got Florida from but the same should hold true for the 00 edition of 101 and amendments in Lincoln minus my willingness to go there


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (Jun 25, 2012)

cda said:
			
		

> So who wins out if there is a conflict between sfm and Bo???


The SFM is usually the most restrictive, so they almost always win out on that technicality, but when we console ourselves en masse on friday afternoons, we claim to be the winners of diminutive moral victories.


----------

