Garage/living space seperation

[Yankee]

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]

Absolutely.

 

[fatboy]

Agreed, absolutely.

 

[cboboggs]

Totally agree.

 

[Yankee]

Ya, me too, thanks : )

 

[brudgers]

Open on two sides is a carport by definition.

Only garages require separation.

 

[Glennman CBO]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[peach]

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

 

[brudgers]

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]

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

 

[Yankee]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[brudgers]

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]

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]

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

 

[pwood]

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]

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.