# Exit Discharge Question for 3-Story Apartment Project



## ETThompson1 (Nov 14, 2018)

Hi

A question about a small apartment project I’m working on.  This is a 3-story, 12 unit apartment building, Type VB construction, about 12,500 sf.  R-2 apartments with an A-2 retail shell on level 01.  On the 3rd floor we have a small rooftop deck classified as R-2 due to its size (per 303.1.2).  The retail is separated from the residential area by 1-hour construction (we are fully type 13 sprinkelered).  We’re under the 2017 Ohio Building Code which is mostly based on the 2015 IBC.

My question is about exiting.  We have two enclosed exit stairs serving the apartments on the upper floors and a small roof amenity deck (classified as R-2 due to its size per 303.1.2).  These stairs are served by open air breezeway balconies on the upper levels.  In other words, you'd come out of your apartment onto this covered but open air breezeway, and then go to the enclosed exit stair to get out from the upper levels.

At the ground level, one of these stairs exits into the building lobby, so that is covered by the intervening spaces rule in 1016.2.  The second exits to the exterior, but it is initially (for about 10’) under the breezeway balconies.  Is this a problem?  I know I have to exit “directly to the exterior” but it I cannot find anything saying this would not be considered the exterior.  There is no specific definition of “Exterior” in our code.

Secondly, after you get out from under this balcony, you’re essentially in an approx. 5’ wide alley between the building and the property line.  Would this be considered an Egress Court?  And thus the rules of 1028.4?  So, I would therefore need to rate all adjacent walls to 1-hour?  This should not be a problem, as they are required to be rated already, but mostly wondering how to correctly interpret this Exit Discharge condition.

Thanks


----------



## RLGA (Nov 14, 2018)

Actually, for the exit into the lobby, Section 1016.2 is not applicable since that section only applies to the _exit access_. I think what you're looking for is Section 1028.1, Exception 1.

As for your main question, I don't believe this will be a problem as long as it complies with Section 1028.3, which states that an exit discharge component must be "sufficiently open to the exterior so as to minimize the accumulation of smoke and toxic gases."

Regarding your second question, the answer is yes. Per the definition in Chapter 2, an egress court is a "_court_ or _yard_ which provides access to a public way for one or more exits." Since what you describe conforms to a yard as defined in Chapter 2, then it would be considered an _egress court _and must have the required wall and opening protection.


----------



## ETThompson1 (Nov 14, 2018)

Great, thanks!

A related question, I would think this is obvious but I'm not sure where to prove it:  the doors out of our exit stairs may end up being closer together than the separation distance required at the upper floors.  Is there any distance requirement between where exit stairs come out?


----------



## cda (Nov 14, 2018)

How about "continuity"  ??

Are any of these enclosures rated?


----------



## ETThompson1 (Nov 14, 2018)

cda said:


> How about "continuity"  ??
> 
> Are any of these enclosures rated?



The stair enclosures?  Yes, they are 1-hour rated.


----------



## cda (Nov 14, 2018)

ETThompson1 said:


> The stair enclosures?  Yes, they are 1-hour rated.




Normally you have to maintain that rating till you get to public way                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         

Will have to dig up that section of the code


Not sure if it is 1020.6  ???


----------



## RLGA (Nov 14, 2018)

ETThompson1 said:


> Great, thanks!
> 
> A related question, I would think this is obvious but I'm not sure where to prove it:  the doors out of our exit stairs may end up being closer together than the separation distance required at the upper floors.  Is there any distance requirement between where exit stairs come out?


I’m not sure I follow...do you mean at the discharge level the doors from each stairwell are closer than the required separation or just closer than it is provided at the upper floors? As long as they meet the required separation distance, it complies.


----------



## ETThompson1 (Nov 14, 2018)

RLGA said:


> I’m not sure I follow...do you mean at the discharge level the doors from each stairwell are closer than the required separation or just closer than it is provided at the upper floors? As long as they meet the required separation distance, it complies.



The doors in to the stairs on the upper floors - where you go into the protected condition - meet the separation distance requirement.  But where they discharge, at the ground level exterior, they are closer together, and closer than the separation distance (1/3 of the diagonal).  Why would it matter if they were closer together where they discharge?  I thought the intent of the code requirement was to provide options in case one exit is blocked.  But where you come out shouldn't matter, should it?


----------



## steveray (Nov 14, 2018)

The "exit" doesn't stop until you get out to a public way...Sort of.....If a car crashes into one of the doors and catches on fire, does anyone get out of the building?


----------



## cda (Nov 14, 2018)

ETThompson1 said:


> The doors in to the stairs on the upper floors - where you go into the protected condition - meet the separation distance requirement.  But where they discharge, at the ground level exterior, they are closer together, and closer than the separation distance (1/3 of the diagonal).  Why would it matter if they were closer together where they discharge?  I thought the intent of the code requirement was to provide options in case one exit is blocked.  But where you come out shouldn't matter, should it?




So the exiting on the 1st floor is wrong to begin with???


----------



## ETThompson1 (Nov 14, 2018)

steveray said:


> The "exit" doesn't stop until you get out to a public way...Sort of.....If a car crashes into one of the doors and catches on fire, does anyone get out of the building?



These are not on a street, you're in a exterior alley until you get to the street.  So no door could be hit by a car...


----------



## ETThompson1 (Nov 14, 2018)

cda said:


> So the exiting on the 1st floor is wrong to begin with???



Can you explain what you mean by "wrong"?

The first level is the level these exit stairs discharge to.  If you were on the first floor, and there was a fire, you would have no need to go into these stairs to exit the building.  In fact all the dwelling units at level one have doors on the street, so they would not even have to go out into this back alley where the stairs are.  

I'm still not understanding if the doors *out* of these stairs have to be separated according to the 1/3 rule, and if so, why?  What would be the purpose?  Honestly, until someone raised the question above, it never occurred to me that this could be an issue.  

Here's the code language (emphasis mine):  "...Where two exits, exit access doorways, exit access stairways or ramps, or any combination thereof, are required _*from *_any portion of the exit access".  I took the "from" in that to mean that it only applies to the areas it serves, in other words the upper levels and doors.  It just doesn't make sense to me why they'd have to be separated where they come out.

The way I'd always understood it is the separation is to give you a choice of where to go in a fire.  But then you choose one stair or the other, and when you come out you don't have a choice...

I don't think I've even put separation distance on my level 01 life safety plans typically, though I'm not sure I've had the situation before where they are closer together.


----------



## cda (Nov 14, 2018)

ETThompson1 said:


> Can you explain what you mean by "wrong"?
> 
> The first level is the level these exit stairs discharge to.  If you were on the first floor, and there was a fire, you would have no need to go into these stairs to exit the building.  In fact all the dwelling units at level one have doors on the street, so they would not even have to go out into this back alley where the stairs are.
> 
> ...





Can you make the floor plan into a link

Post the link 

Might help


----------



## cda (Nov 14, 2018)

ETThompson1 said:


> Can you explain what you mean by "wrong"?
> 
> The first level is the level these exit stairs discharge to.  If you were on the first floor, and there was a fire, you would have no need to go into these stairs to exit the building.  In fact all the dwelling units at level one have doors on the street, so they would not even have to go out into this back alley where the stairs are.
> 
> ...






“”””. But where they discharge, at the ground level exterior, they are closer together, and closer than the separation distance (1/3 of the diagonal). “””

Sounds like if this is an existing building, existing exits

Sounds like they do not meet code now???


----------



## ETThompson1 (Nov 14, 2018)

I don't have the plans at home, so drew a quick diagram.  

The reason the doors at level 01 are closer together is the floor to floor from level 01 to 02 is higher than the upper floors, so we have to have an additional switchback in the stair (but due to tight site could not increase size of stair enclosure).

Contrary to my original post, the left stair does *not* currently exit into/through the lobby, but into this exterior space/alley that leads to the public way...


----------



## cda (Nov 14, 2018)

Brand new building?

Sorry lost on code overload this week.


----------



## ETThompson1 (Nov 14, 2018)

Yes, new construction.


----------



## cda (Nov 14, 2018)

I would say there is a problem on the 1st floor

I would say yes they have to be 1/3 apart,
Plus they appear to discharge into the same area???

Plus I still think if a person enters a rated shaft/ stair, that rating has to be maintained till out of the building.   

“””but it is initially (for about 10’) under the breezewaybalconies.”””


----------



## Builder Bob (Nov 15, 2018)

Once a level of protection is achieved in an exit, it cannot be reduced until you have reached the exit discharge (IBC 1022.1) - and me thinks you have a problem in the egress scheme presented....

Exit discharge is not to the public way - see definition of public way
level of protection in exit is not maintained to exit discharge
separation of exits in an issue. 
No elevator for accessibility ?
separation of exits 1/3 diagonal

Options - 1 interior exit stairway and another exterior stairway? - allowable for up to six stories

Roof area SF may have an area that requires 2 exits - only one exit provided. No dimensions provided so a guess based on apt sizing in sketch

etc. etc. etc.


----------



## steveray (Nov 16, 2018)

ETThompson1 said:


> These are not on a street, you're in a exterior alley until you get to the street.  So no door could be hit by a car...



To rephrase....The reason for exit separation is to reduce the likely hood of both being compromised in a single incident (car crash, dumpster fire, structural collapse, etc...) the exit discharge needs to be separated the same as the entrance to an exit....


----------



## ETThompson1 (Nov 18, 2018)

Let me tackle the questions Builder Bob (and Steveray) bring up in order...

First the original issue about the proximity of the doors out of the exit stairs at the ground floor:  I get the possible conceptual objection (the two exit doors are too close if one is compromised), but what I see in the actual code language is:  "_Where two exits, exit access doorways, exit access stairways or ramps, or any combination thereof, are required* from *any portion of the *exit access, *the distance... (etc)_"  The exit access is the path leading to, not from, these stairs.  The stairs themselves are the exits.  And once you get out of them, you're in the exit discharge.  Doesn't a reading of the actual language as above refer only to where you go in to the stairs?

And per RLGA's comments above, I can consider where they come out to be the exterior, even though it is for a few feet underneath the walkway above, because it is open enough to still qualify as exterior:  (from RLGA above);  "I don't believe this will be a problem as long as it complies with Section 1028.3, which states that an exit discharge component must be "sufficiently open to the exterior so as to minimize the accumulation of smoke and toxic gases."  If this is considered the exterior (and/or Egress Court, see below), how am I reducing the protection?

These doors do not exit to the public way directly, but are the exit access, and do exit to the exterior via this alley, which can be classified as an Egress Court.  I know I have to rate the walls of that (including fences along property line?) to 1-hour, and have 45 min openings at the doors and windows. But otherwise, this seems OK if it is true that, as RLGA says, I can consider it exterior.

I'll address the elevator and accessibility in the next post.


----------



## ETThompson1 (Nov 18, 2018)

As far as accessibility and elevators, we are fewer than 20 apartment units, so per the Ohio Building Code, we do not have to provide Type A units (OBC 1107.6.2.2.1). "_In Group R-2 occupancies containing more than 20 dwelling units or sleeping units, at least 2 percent but not less than one of the units shall be a Type A unit._"  

So we have only Type B units.  OBC 1104 exception 7 says "_Stories or mezzanines that do not contain accessible elements or other spaces as determined by Section 1107 or 1108 are not required to be served by an accessible route from an accessible level_", and 1107.4 exc 7 says "_An accessible route between stories is not required where Type B units are exempted by Section 1107.7_".  

Finally, section 1107.7 says; "
_1107.7.1 *Structures without elevator service. *Where no elevator service is provided in a structure, only the dwelling units and sleeping units that are located on stories indicated in Sections 1107.7.1.1 and 1107.7.1.2 are required to be Type A units and Type B units, respectively. The number of Type A units shall be determined in accordance with Section 1107.6.2.2.1.

1107.7.1.1 *One story with Type B units required. *At least one story containing dwelling units or sleeping units intended to be occupied as a residence shall be provided with an accessible entrance from the exterior of the structure and all units intended to be occupied as a residence on that story shall be Type B units.

1107.7.1.2 *Additional stories with Type B units. *On all other stories that have a building entrance in proximity to arrival points intended to serve units on that story, as indicated in Items 1 and 2, all dwelling units and sleeping units intended to be occupied as a residence served by that entrance on that story shall be Type B units._"

So, based on that I do not think we are required to have elevator service to the upper levels.


----------



## ETThompson1 (Nov 18, 2018)

Finally, as far as the roof deck and the single exit, OBC 1006.3.2 Single Exits exc. 2 says "_Rooms, areas and spaces complying with Section 1006.2.1 with exits that discharge directly to the exterior at the level of exit discharge, are permitted to have one exit or access to a single exit._"

The roof amenity is classified as a B Occupancy per 303.1.1.  And in Table 1006.2.1 it says for B Occupancy I can have a single exit for that occupancy if I'm fewer than 49 occupants, which we meet (we have 36 occupants).


----------



## cda (Nov 18, 2018)

Well as I say 

See if it flys

Maybe have a conceptual set down with the building offical 

And see if you get thumbs up or down!!!


----------



## ETThompson1 (Nov 18, 2018)

Although...  back to the elevator question:  I had considered the exception that got us out of having an elevator to the roof deck as 1104.4, which exempts stories that are less than 3,000sf (which we meet).  But the language in that section is confusing, with it's reference to "above and below" the entry level.  If my roof deck is on level 03 and that story is under 3,000sf is that a valid exception?


----------



## ETThompson1 (Nov 18, 2018)

cda said:


> Well as I say
> 
> See if it flys
> 
> ...



Yeah, we typically have a review prior to the official review, once we complete the DD design (that's where we are now).  However, the owner wants to submit an early set for permit, so we may just have to find out when we submit for review...


----------



## cda (Nov 18, 2018)

Ok

Interesting

Let us know


----------



## cda (Nov 18, 2018)

Just a point of order::

“””” First the original issue about the proximity of the doors out of the exit stairs at the ground floor: I get the possible conceptual objection (the two exit doors are too close if one is compromised), but what I see in the actual code language is: "_Where two exits, exit access doorways, exit access stairways or ramps, or any combination thereof, are required* from *any portion of the *exit access, *the distance... (etc)_" The exit access is the path leading to, not from, these stairs. The stairs themselves are the exits. And once you get out of them, you're in the exit discharge. Doesn't a reading of the actual language as above refer only to where you go in to the stairs?””””


So if the doors were next to each other on the ground floor,

You see no problem with that


----------



## ETThompson1 (Nov 18, 2018)

cda said:


> Just a point of order::
> 
> “””” First the original issue about the proximity of the doors out of the exit stairs at the ground floor: I get the possible conceptual objection (the two exit doors are too close if one is compromised), but what I see in the actual code language is: "_Where two exits, exit access doorways, exit access stairways or ramps, or any combination thereof, are required* from *any portion of the *exit access, *the distance... (etc)_" The exit access is the path leading to, not from, these stairs. The stairs themselves are the exits. And once you get out of them, you're in the exit discharge. Doesn't a reading of the actual language as above refer only to where you go in to the stairs?””””
> 
> ...



Well, I've never encountered a situation like this before, and I generally wouldn't do it, but I can't rule out this design based on that.  This came about when we raised the floor to floor height, we are *extremely* tight on the site, and the other options presented other really problematic challenges.  If I have to, I will, but I can't find anything in the code telling me I have to...though I could be wrong...


----------



## cda (Nov 18, 2018)

Wonder if this applies 


“” 1.4   “”




[paste:font size="5"]*Exits shall discharge directly to the exterior of the building. The exit discharge shall be at grade or shall provide a direct path of egress travel to grade. The exit dischargeshall not reenter a building. The combined use of Exceptions 1 and 2 shall not exceed 50 percent of the number and minimum width or required capacity of the required exits. 

Exceptions: 

1. Not more than 50 percent of the number and minimum width or required capacity of interior exitstairways and ramps is permitted to egress through areas on the level of discharge provided all of the following conditions are met: 

1.1. Discharge of interior exitstairways and ramps shall be provided with a free and unobstructed path of travel to an exterior exit door and such exit is readily visible and identifiable from the point of termination of the enclosure. 

1.2. The entire area of the level of exit discharge is separated from areas below by construction conforming to the fire-resistance rating for the enclosure. 

1.3. The egress path from the interior exit stairway and ramp on the level of exit discharge is protected throughout by an approved automatic sprinkler system. Portions of the level of exit discharge with access to the egress path shall be either equipped throughout with an automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1or 903.3.1.2, or separated from the egress path in accordance with the requirements for the enclosure of interior exit stairways or ramps. 

1.4. Where a required interior exitstairway or ramp and an exit access stairway or ramp serve the same floor level and terminate at the same level of exit discharge, the termination of the exit access stairway or ramp and the exit discharge door of the interior exitstairway or ramp shall be separated by a distance of not less than 30 feet (9144 mm) or not less than one-fourth the length of the maximum overall diagonal dimension of the building, whichever is less. The distance shall be measured in a straight line between the exit discharge door from the interior exit stairway or ramp and the last tread of the exit access stairway or termination of slope of the exit access ramp. *


----------



## ETThompson1 (Nov 19, 2018)

cda said:


> Wonder if this applies
> 
> 
> “” 1.4   “”
> ...



I looked at that, and actually I think it helps me.  I checked the commentary and this mentions that this (exception 1.4) is in the case where you have two separate types of exit stairs (Interior Exit Stairway and Exit Access Stairway) - the example in the commentary mentions a dedicated exit from a conference room in addition to the main building stair.  But the commentary also mentions that high-rises have a minimum distance between where exit stairs come out (403.5.1).  This would imply that this rule does *not* apply to non-high rise conditions such as mine.


----------



## ETThompson1 (Nov 19, 2018)

The issue raised I'm most wondering about is the accessible route to the roof deck.

Here's the context:  We have a small roof deck which is for the use of the tenants of the apartments (not the retail space).  Per our code, we are not required to have Type A fully accessible units, only Type B (see post #20 above).  As noted in post #20, we are only required to have them at the ground level units, and nothing in the code triggers an elevator for the apartment units above.

If the only units provided are Type B units, adaptable in the future but not designed for accessibility day one, would this mean the roof deck similarly would not be required to provide an accessible route on day one, but would need to be installed in the future if a wheelchair-bound tenant wanted to rent one of the Type B unit?

The second option is the exception I noted in post #25 above, referencing 1104.4 Exception 1.  Here is the language:  "1104.4 *Multistory buildings and facilities. *At least one accessible route shall connect each accessible story and mezzanine in multilevel buildings and facilities, Exception 1. An accessible route is not required to stories and mezzanines that have an aggregate area of not more than 3,000 square feet ( 278.7 m2)_per story _and are located above and below accessible levels. "

This wording is confusing, and the commentary does not really clarify things.  If the 3rd story, where the roof deck is located, is less than 3,000sf, does this provide an option?  (we're borderline 3,000, so may not work anyway).

Is it possible we could avoid an accessible route to this roof deck?  Given our site limitations, I would think only an elevator or LULA would work to meet this, but either of those would be problematic both in terms of cost and available space...


----------



## ETThompson1 (Feb 18, 2019)

Reviving this thread...



RLGA said:


> Actually, for the exit into the lobby, Section 1016.2 is not applicable since that section only applies to the _exit access_. I think what you're looking for is Section 1028.1, Exception 1.
> 
> As for your main question, I don't believe this will be a problem as long as it complies with Section 1028.3, which states that an exit discharge component must be "sufficiently open to the exterior so as to minimize the accumulation of smoke and toxic gases."
> 
> Regarding your second question, the answer is yes. Per the definition in Chapter 2, an egress court is a "_court_ or _yard_ which provides access to a public way for one or more exits." Since what you describe conforms to a yard as defined in Chapter 2, then it would be considered an _egress court _and must have the required wall and opening protection.



The building department is pushing back on the idea that these stairs at level 01 exit to the "exterior".  Again, as I said in post #1, these doors exit level 01 to the exterior in the sense that where you come out is unconditioned, but the doors are underneath the breezeway balcony structure for about 10' and pretty bounded by walls and other building elements.  The code does not define "exterior".  See the sketched floor plan in my post #15 - if you look at the upper level 2/3, you can see where the breezeway balcony is over the place where the two stairs exit out on level 01.  As you move to the right, you're out from under those and in a path (totally open to the sky, but bounded by the buidling on one side and a fence on the other) that leads to the public way.

I appreciate that 1028.3 supports my position, but it does not definitively say that it is considered exterior.  The commentary doesn't seem to add anything either.  I will try responding by using 1028.3, but is there any other information or interpretation that we could use to bolster our case?

Thanks


----------

