-
Welcome to the new and improved Building Code Forum. We appreciate you being here and hope that you are getting the information that you need concerning all codes of the building trades. This is a free forum to the public due to the generosity of the Sawhorses, Corporate Supporters and Supporters who have upgraded their accounts. If you would like to have improved access to the forum please upgrade to Sawhorse by first logging in then clicking here: Upgrades
Rated wall between drive thru and convenience store?
- Thread starter BayPointArchitect
- Start date
Papio Bldg Dept
Platinum Member
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.
BayPointArchitect
Sawhorse
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.
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.
Last edited by a moderator:
north star
Sawhorse
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2009
- Messages
- 4,596
+ = +
RLGA asked:
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!
= + =
RLGA asked:
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!
= + =
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
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
Last edited by a moderator:
Msradell
Sawhorse
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.
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
Silver Member
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
Beat me too it. You have the sprinkler system so it makes sense but if you didn't, how about fire shutters that cover the glass? Had a large glass wall that was also a seperation wall, instead of fire glass, shutters were specified and installed, triggered by heat sensors and also tied into the fire alarm panel.
Ask for code numbers, no code reference...not enforceable. This FM has to have someone that signs his paycheck.
mtlogcabin
SAWHORSE
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.
FM William Burns
Moderator
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:
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.
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):
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.
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:
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.
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):
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.
Last edited by a moderator:
FM William Burns
Moderator
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
Platinum Member
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.cda said: