Garage/living space seperation

[brudgers]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Well said RJJ!

.

 

[brudgers]

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]

Mule,

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

 

[GHRoberts]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.