# Can an exit serve two buildings and be a separate building in and of itself?



## ewenme (Sep 20, 2011)

A developer and his engineer and architect are seeking to build an 18-plex apartment building: 3 stories, 6 units per floor. The original design has one exit per floor, which I say can't happen.  IBC Section 1021 requires two exits from stories with more than four dwelling units. Six is greater than four, therefore two exits are required. The engineer comes back with a new proposal:  what if we make it two buildings [with the required two-hour fire wall on the zero lot line] and make the exit a separate building between the two apartment buildings [now requiring only one exit per building] and enclose the exit within two-hour constructed walls?  He is thinking that going from the balcony into the fire-rated exit "building" should be allowed, since the code doesn't dis-allow it.  Has anyone dealt with someone wanting to construct an exit enclosure as a separate building and allow it to be used by two separate buildings on the same lot?  The building footprint is at the maximum allowed by zoning to meet setbacks and height.

Can you say 'frustration?'   Any and all comments are appreciated.  R-2 Occupancy, Type V-A construction with sprinklers.

Thanks, in advance.  Carol


----------



## mtlogcabin (Sep 20, 2011)

1021 is 4 dwelling units AND 50 ft of travel distance.

What is the travel distance from the most remote room in the most remote dwelling?


----------



## ewenme (Sep 20, 2011)

That is part of the problem:  The building is 25 feet deep, 120 feet wide and three stories high.  Worst case scenario: 25' to the front door, which means you are about 60 feet from the common path of egress [to the top of the stairs].  I still don't believe it's my job to show him how to meet the code requirements...it's his job to show me how he can meet the code requirements.  I just don't buy the 'exit as a separate building' theory that he's come up with. IMHO.


----------



## kilitact (Sep 20, 2011)

If the designer meets the requirements for fire walls I don't see a problem. Travel distance would stop at the exit enclosure which could help this design.


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (Sep 20, 2011)

The design has two exits, one exit being a horizontal exit (parapet above roof?) to this "second" building with a vertical exit enclosure at one end of the corridor, and the second being at the other end of the corridor?


----------



## mtlogcabin (Sep 20, 2011)

The 50 feet is total travel distance to an exit. Just give him the code sections. As kilitact states the travel distance stops at the exit enclosure and it is what it is if it meets code.



> Worst case scenario: 25' to the front door, which means you are about 60 feet from the common path of egress [to the top of the stairs].


BTW common path of travel is included in the overall maximum 50 ft length. From what you describe the travel distance will not meet code with one exit.


----------



## imhotep (Sep 20, 2011)

In addition to 50' travel distance the 125' common path egress travel distance would run to the exit discharge at the lowest level of the exit enclosure wouldn't it?  Also what is the occupant load?  1 per 200 gross.  If greater than 10 then per 1015 2 exits.  The balcony has to conform to 1019 as well does it not?


----------



## gbhammer (Sep 20, 2011)

imhotep said:
			
		

> Also what is the occupant load?  1 per 200 gross.  If greater than 10 then per 1015 2 exits. QUOTE]1015 and 1021 have exceptions to allow one exit if the building is sprinkled and has occ load of 20 or less.


----------



## imhotep (Sep 20, 2011)

Thank you.  Where do egress balconies per 1019 fit in?  Assume 4 occupants per unit (800 gross square feet) then egress balcony occupant load is 16 < 20 one exit permitted with sprinkling?


----------



## RJJ (Sep 20, 2011)

Hey Kilitach! you been off the BB for a while! Everything ok?


----------



## JustReid (Sep 20, 2011)

ewenme, the separate building wording is coming from 503.1 (2009 ed). This brings up a great point. When buildings are considered separate by 503.1, do they require their own independent means of egress? In the private sector, I have seen this applied this way; but, have also seen it allowed to egress across "buildings" (in terms of 503.1). In my opinion, the building you describe should be fine since the fire wall separations are being provided as long as the layout allows them to meet the 50 feet.   120 minus 10 for stair /2  = 55 already....not looking like it with the current layout.


----------



## gbhammer (Sep 20, 2011)

imhotep said:
			
		

> Thank you.  Where do egress balconies per 1019 fit in?  Assume 4 occupants per unit (800 gross square feet) then egress balcony occupant load is 16 < 20 one exit permitted with sprinkling?


1019 could have an impact it is hard to say without plans (dead ends would worry me). I do however think Papio is right, once they hit the balcony they have gone through a horizontal exit.


----------



## kilitact (Sep 20, 2011)

Common path of travel for this occupancy would be 125', travel distance would be 250'. The travel and common path of travel distance stops at the vertical enclosure wich taks you to either the discharge or a horizontal exit. Balcony's need to meet Section 1019.

Hello RJJ, was lurking for awhile then I thought I just had to throw my two cents in.


----------



## ewenme (Sep 20, 2011)

Once you are on the balcony [outside the individual dwelling unit] you are 'outside' in fresh air. Why would you want to 'go back into the buidling' to exit? IF the exit is a separate building, as suggested by the engineer, is that OK? Everyone's comments are appreciated. I believe if the 'exit as a separate building' is allowed, and the 'two' buildings with 3 units per floor are considered separate buildings by virtue of the 2-hour rated commone walls with the 'exit building' then the travel distance of 50' would go away. UP to four units can have one exit per floor. Anyone agree with that?


----------



## cda (Sep 20, 2011)

Horizontal exit?

But even with the two hour wall, as originally proposed you still have to provide required exiting for each building

Also are there going to be utilities and sprinkler pipe running between these TWO buildings???


----------



## gbhammer (Sep 20, 2011)

cda said:
			
		

> Horizontal exit?But even with the two hour wall, as originally proposed you still have to provide required exiting for each building


The travel distances reset once you pass from the dwelling unit through (horizontal exit 1016.1) the two hour wall to the balcony. At that point the balcony has to follow the rules of a corridor, and has to meet the requirements for common path of egress travel 1014.3 exc. #4 125'


----------



## cda (Sep 20, 2011)

I read the original post wrong

I guess if they can achieve two separate buildings that meet code, along with the shared exiting, different


----------



## brudgers (Sep 20, 2011)

ewenme said:
			
		

> Once you are on the balcony [outside the individual dwelling unit] you are 'outside' in fresh air. Why would you want to 'go back into the buidling' to exit? IF the exit is a separate building, as suggested by the engineer, is that OK? Everyone's comments are appreciated. I believe if the 'exit as a separate building' is allowed, and the 'two' buildings with 3 units per floor are considered separate buildings by virtue of the 2-hour rated commone walls with the 'exit building' then the travel distance of 50' would go away. UP to four units can have one exit per floor. Anyone agree with that?


   A sketch would be helpful.   However, I think the concept of horizontal exits is applicable, in general.

  Keep in mind that to create buildings a fire walls must be built - which requires quite a bit more than the typical stair enclosure, including structural independence.

  And the 50 foot travel distance is actual and based on the furnished space from the most remote point.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Sep 20, 2011)

1025.1 Horizontal exits.

Horizontal exits serving as an exit in a means of egress system shall comply with the requirements of this section. A horizontal exit shall not serve as the only exit from a portion of a building, and where two or more exits are required, not more than one-half of the total number of exits or total exit width shall be horizontal exits .

You cannot have just a horizontal exit serving one space

Common path of travel is not part of the equation on this scenario it is maximum 50 feet of total travel before you reach a protected egress path. It could be a exit passageway or a verticle exit enclosure.


----------



## cda (Sep 20, 2011)

so the question is will it be cheaper to make it two buildings with one exit, or one building with two exits????????????????????


----------



## gbhammer (Sep 20, 2011)

Ah good point (A horizontal exit shall not serve as the only exit from a portion of a building).

So you are saying that a sprinkled and properly designed 1019 egress balcony does not constitute a protected MOE.


----------



## texasbo (Sep 20, 2011)

I think what I'm reading (and it looks like cda sees this too), has nothing to do with a horizontal exit. It's a fire wall, dividing it into two buildings. Because it is two buildings, per the new Table 1021 (2009 IBC) only one exit from each building is required. And that one exit is provided to each building in the form of a single vertical exit enclosure. Is that correct ewenme?

Edit:

Here's why you tell them it won't work: if they are dividing it into two buildings, then you have an assumed lot line. A fire wall at a lot line can have no openings.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Sep 20, 2011)

> And that one exit is provided to each building in the form of a single vertical exit enclosure.


That's the way I see it to



> 25' to the front door, which means you are about 60 feet from the common path of egress [to the top of the stairs].


and the travel distance to that single exit currently exceeds the 50 foot maximum allowable.


----------



## JustReid (Sep 21, 2011)

I agree that a horizontal exit does not apply at the "exit" of the dwelling unit.

As far as using a separate building to exit from (503.1 defined separate building) imagine this scenario. You have a rectangular multi-story building with two stairwell exits at each of the long ends. For whatever reason there are two fire walls to break the building up IAW 503.1 (formerly known as area separation walls from the old UBC) into three separate sections. You now have three separate buildings who are utilizing the same egress system. Occupants from the center section have to exit through another "building" to get out from the upper levels. And occupants from the two end sections have to egress through other "buildings" to utilize their second exit. In my opinion, a separate egress system would not need to be provided from each of the "buildings" and the occupants should be allowed to egress through other "buildings" to get out.

The short point from this is yes, I think they should be allowed to use the other "building" to egress from.


----------



## imhotep (Sep 21, 2011)

ewenme said:
			
		

> A developer and his engineer and architect are seeking to build an 18-plex apartment building: 3 stories, 6 units per floor. The original design has one exit per floor, which I say can't happen.  IBC Section 1021 requires two exits from stories with more than four dwelling units. Six is greater than four, therefore two exits are required. The engineer comes back with a new proposal:  what if we make it two buildings [with the required two-hour fire wall on the zero lot line] and make the exit a separate building between the two apartment buildings [now requiring only one exit per building] and enclose the exit within two-hour constructed walls?  He is thinking that going from the balcony into the fire-rated exit "building" should be allowed, since the code doesn't dis-allow it.  Has anyone dealt with someone wanting to construct an exit enclosure as a separate building and allow it to be used by two separate buildings on the same lot?  The building footprint is at the maximum allowed by zoning to meet setbacks and height. Can you say 'frustration?'   Any and all comments are appreciated.  R-2 Occupancy, Type V-A construction with sprinklers.
> 
> Thanks, in advance.  Carol


Interesting scenario.  Appears possible.  Providing two exits seems more practical.

IBC 2009 -

2 hour fire wall complying with 706.

Common path of egress travel complying with 1014.

Travel distance complying with 1016.

Egress balcony complying with 1019.

1 hour exit enclosure complying with 1022.

Accessibility?


----------



## brudgers (Sep 21, 2011)

texasbo said:
			
		

> Here's why you tell them it won't work: if they are dividing it into two buildings, then you have an assumed lot line.


  That is incorrect.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Sep 21, 2011)

I hate to keep :beatdhrsbut common path of travel is not a part of the equation as described by the OP. There is no charging lanquage from Table 1021.2 or Section 1021.2 that will get you to 1014.3

As I said before the Maximum total travel distance permitted from the most remote space on the floor to an exit is 50 feet

2009 IBC


----------



## texasbo (Sep 21, 2011)

brudgers said:
			
		

> That is incorrect.


Deleted

Edit: you're right - inaccurate language for this case. The OP said: "  The engineer comes back with a new proposal: what if we make it two buildings [with the required two-hour fire wall on the zero lot line] and make the exit a separate building between the two apartment buildings ".

If the fire wall is built on the lot line between two buildings, per the OP, then the fire wall cannot have openings.


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (Sep 21, 2011)

texasbo said:
			
		

> Here's why you tell them it won't work: if they are dividing it into two buildings, then you have an assumed lot line. A fire wall at a lot line can have no openings.


deleted

edit:

Horizontal Exiting would not be possible if a lot line was established at every fire wall, and no openings were permitted.


----------



## texasbo (Sep 21, 2011)

Papio Bldg Dept said:
			
		

> deletededit:
> 
> Horizontal Exiting would not be possible if a lot line was established at every fire wall, and no openings were permitted.


See my edit. However, the concept of horizontal exit keeps getting bandied about, and from what I can tell, that isn't even in play here, based on the OP. Ewenme hasn't clarified, but I THINK she is saying the latest proposal is a fire wall on a lot line between two buildings, and that would allow no openings.


----------



## cda (Sep 21, 2011)

Does the two hour have to be on a lot line for the concept to work???

Or can't  they just chop the building in two with the wall on the same lot???? And do the same concept


----------



## texasbo (Sep 21, 2011)

cda said:
			
		

> Does the two hour have to be on a lot line for the concept to work???Or can't  they just chop the building in two with the wall on the same lot???? And do the same concept


In this particular case, I don't think it matters. If they were trying to make it a  horizontal exit (and there was no lot line), as has already been noted, it couldn't serve as the only exit.


----------



## imhotep (Sep 21, 2011)

texasbo said:
			
		

> In this particular case, I don't think it matters. If they were trying to make it a  horizontal exit (and there was no lot line), as has already been noted, it couldn't serve as the only exit.


Is it not the case that on a property line or off the entire structure would have to remain in a single ownership?  If a lot line was established at the 2 hr fire wall for purposes of separating ownership then it would be a party wall and no openings are allowed.


----------



## Examiner (Sep 21, 2011)

Is the FIRE WALL able to stand on its own upon collapse of the building on either side?  Is the 2-hour FIRE WALL a true fire wall?  If it is not then the EXIT Travel does not start over again.  It has to be a true FIRE WALL to start exit travel over again.  I do not recall anyone asking about the structural integrity of the FIRE WALL.


----------



## texasbo (Sep 21, 2011)

imhotep said:
			
		

> Is it not the case that on a property line or off the entire structure would have to remain in a single ownership?  If a lot line was established at the 2 hr fire wall for purposes of separating ownership then it would be a party wall and no openings are allowed.


Strictly by code, if there is a lot line, then no openings permitted. Some (including myself) have allowed legal documents to tie properties together under certain conditions.


----------



## cda (Sep 21, 2011)

texasbo said:
			
		

> In this particular case, I don't think it matters. If they were trying to make it a  horizontal exit (and there was no lot line), as has already been noted, it couldn't serve as the only exit.


Agree horizontal exit is not in play


----------



## cda (Sep 21, 2011)

Examiner said:
			
		

> Is the FIRE WALL able to stand on its own upon collapse of the building on either side?  Is the 2-hour FIRE WALL a true fire wall?  If it is not then the EXIT Travel does not start over again.  It has to be a true FIRE WALL to start exit travel over again.  I do not recall anyone asking about the structural integrity of the FIRE WALL.


Has been asked a couple of times in different ways

Will it be cheaper to add another exit than to try to do the wall???

Maybe there is some site size limitation driving this???


----------



## imhotep (Sep 21, 2011)

cda said:
			
		

> Agree horizontal exit is not in play


The OP implied the exit access was via a balcony.  If this is the case then how is 1019 applied?  1/2 hr fire partition separating dwellings from balcony with rated doors & fire window assemblies.


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (Sep 21, 2011)

texasbo said:
			
		

> See my edit. However, the concept of horizontal exit keeps getting bandied about, and from what I can tell, that isn't even in play here, based on the OP. Ewenme hasn't clarified, but I THINK she is saying the latest proposal is a fire wall on a lot line between two buildings, and that would allow no openings.


The part I deleted addressed the difference between a horizontal exit fire wall and a party wall.  In this case, if it is indeed on a lot line, then it shall be considered a party wall fire wall, and exiting through that wall is prohibited as a result of not allowing openings within a 0-3ft distance of the lot line.  If a lot consolidation is performed to remove the lot line, then perhaps the horizontal exiting option would come into play, however, that could only account for 50% of the exiting.

I guess I remain confused on how many exits are being provided/utilized, and where an egress balcony comes into play here.  Need more information perhaps.

I am also confused on why we continue to talk about the 50' travel distance for one means of egress.  It seems apparent at this point that without some sort of alternative design or fire wall/horizontal exit at the unit to corridor connection, the 50' travel distance is no longer an option, and egress balconies do not factor as an increase until two means of egress are required.

Did I miss something?


----------



## mtlogcabin (Sep 21, 2011)

> Can an exit serve two buildings and be a separate building in and of itself?


Separate for what purpose?

1. To get around the maximum 4 units per story requirement for a single exit.

2. 503.1 General. allows a fire wall to create a separate building

3. FIRE WALL. A fire-resistance-rated wall having protected openings, which restricts the spread of fire and extends continuously from the foundation to or through the roof, with sufficient structural stability under fire conditions to allow collapse of construction on either side without collapse of the wall. A fire wall does not require a lot line be established

4. TABLE 706.4 footnote a only requires a 2 hour wall with Type V construction

5. TABLE 715.4 requires 1.5 hour opening protection for the door

6. 1022.6 Exit enclosure exterior walls.

Exterior walls of an exit enclosure shall comply with the requirements of Section 705 for exterior walls

7. 705.3 Exception: Two or more buildings on the same lot shall either be regulated as separate buildings or shall be considered as portions of one building if the aggregate area of such buildings is within the limits specified in Chapter 5 for a single building. Where the buildings contain different occupancy groups or are of different types of construction, the area shall be that allowed for the most restrictive occupancy or construction. This would allow the openings in the fire wall if the aggregate area of all buildings does not exceed the limitations in Chapter 5

8. A verticle exit enclosure is only required a one-hour rating when serving 3 floors

This is my understanding

All he is proposing is a 2 hour vertical exit enclosure installed between and serving 2 apartment buildings. He wants to call then separate buildings to get around the maximum 4 dwelling units per floor restriction.

I think code will permit the concept

With a single exit (the verticle exit enclosure) the problems are the travel distance limits and possible dead end corridor issue on the exterior balcony.


----------



## ewenme (Sep 21, 2011)

Picture this:  one story has six apartments, three on the left of the center "exit buidling" and three on the right. Now stack two more pancakes of the same flavor on top. You have three stories with six units each, however, the proposal is to make three buildings: nine units [3 per story] in one building, separated by a two-hour wall from the vertical exit enclosure, which we'll call building three, and a third building, which we'll call building two with 9 units [3 per story].  These buildings are all under one roof, and all on one lot. The footprint of the building is the maximum allowed by Zoning.  The worst case scenario for exiting is from the end unit on the third story, 25 feet to exit the dwelling, onto the balcony that provides the access to the vertical exit; another 50-55 feet to the vertical exit, and then two flights of stairs to the exit discharge at grade.  The basic questions are:  can two separate buildings use the same exit? can the exit be considered a separate building?

MT: since the balcony is not enclosed with walls, it cannot be considered a corridor, so the dead-end corridor is not an issue. IMHO.

The whole structure will be sprinklered, as required by the IFC...even the balconies, as they have roof over and balcony over balcony.

THanks for additionl light you can shed.

Carol


----------



## TJacobs (Sep 21, 2011)

Since it is on a single lot the firewall concept could create a horizontal exit since no party wall means openings OK.  Question: once out on the egress balcony are you outside the whole time, on outside stairs, or do you reenter another building to access the stairs?


----------



## mtlogcabin (Sep 21, 2011)

> MT: since the balcony is not enclosed with walls, it cannot be considered a corridor, so the dead-end corridor is not an issue. IMHO.


1019.1 General.

Balconies used for egress purposes shall conform to the same requirements as corridors for width, headroom, dead ends and projections.



> 25 feet to exit the dwelling, onto the balcony that provides the access to the vertical exit; another 50-55 feet to the vertical exit


That is 75 to 80 feet of travel distance which exceeds

TABLE 1021.2

STORIES WITH ONE EXIT

MAXIMUM OCCUPANTS (OR DWELLING UNITS)

PER FLOOR AND TRAVEL DISTANCE

Third story

R-2c

4 dwelling units and 50 feet travel distance

It has to meet both requirements. It doesn't so require a second exit.


----------



## gbhammer (Sep 21, 2011)

View attachment 1079

	

		
			
		

		
	
something like this maybr with only one stair insted of two

View attachment 480


View attachment 480


/monthly_2011_09/build.jpg.0f9ddbbe36fbc6e2061f479fe4e42d03.jpg


----------



## cda (Sep 21, 2011)

Mt

"""Can an exit serve two buildings and be a separate building in and of itself?""""

Been sick this week and no thinking straight, at least that is my story and sticking to it

Thought about after the post and know maybe in this situation it can work


----------



## mtlogcabin (Sep 21, 2011)

cda said:
			
		

> Mt"""Can an exit serve two buildings and be a separate building in and of itself?""""
> 
> Thought about after the post and know maybe in this situation it can work


A verticle exit enclosure is normally constructed as a fire barrier under 707 if a designer wants to use 706 they can and if the AHJ wants to accept the design as separete buildings to meet exiting requirements I believe they can. If you wrap the apartments around the stair enclosure which will reduce the travel distance it will work it just doesn't work as described.


----------



## brudgers (Sep 21, 2011)

ewenme said:
			
		

> Picture this:  one story has six apartments, three on the left of the center "exit buidling" and three on the right. Now stack two more pancakes of the same flavor on top. You have three stories with six units each, however, the proposal is to make three buildings: nine units [3 per story] in one building, separated by a two-hour wall from the vertical exit enclosure, which we'll call building three, and a third building, which we'll call building two with 9 units [3 per story].  These buildings are all under one roof, and all on one lot. The footprint of the building is the maximum allowed by Zoning.  The worst case scenario for exiting is from the end unit on the third story, 25 feet to exit the dwelling, onto the balcony that provides the access to the vertical exit; another 50-55 feet to the vertical exit, and then two flights of stairs to the exit discharge at grade.  The basic questions are:  can two separate buildings use the same exit? can the exit be considered a separate building?   MT: since the balcony is not enclosed with walls, it cannot be considered a corridor, so the dead-end corridor is not an issue. IMHO.  The whole structure will be sprinklered, as required by the IFC...even the balconies, as they have roof over and balcony over balcony.    THanks for additionl light you can shed.  Carol


  For illumination: this is the sort of clusterflop you get when an engineer tries to play architect...or when a jurisdiction looks the other way on plan stamping.


----------



## texasbo (Sep 21, 2011)

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> A verticle exit enclosure is normally constructed as a fire barrier under 707 if a designer wants to use 706 they can and if the AHJ wants to accept the design as separete buildings to meet exiting requirements I believe they can. If you wrap the apartments around the stair enclosure which will reduce the travel distance it will work it just doesn't work as described.


Ya, I'm buying into this in principle, now. No lot line, no horizontal exit. Just a complying fire wall (and all that that encompasses), dividing the spaces into separate buildings, and a properly constructed vertical exit enclosure, as long as travel distances are ok.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Sep 21, 2011)

brudgers said:
			
		

> For illumination: this is the sort of clusterflop you get when an engineer tries to play architect...or when a jurisdiction looks the other way on plan stamping.


From the OP



> A developer and his engineer and architect


walk into bar....


----------



## ewenme (Sep 21, 2011)

Brudgers: There is no cluster here. Only a valid code question. The architect and engineer are working together, as MT noted from my original post. And the AHJ is not ignoring any plans, as we don't have any plans as yet. We had ideas that are being considered, with the question: "would you allow...?"  Hence my posing the issue on this forum so I could see what others are thinking, and tap into the vast resources available on this forum.  You assume too much.

Carol


----------



## alora (Sep 21, 2011)

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> From the OPwalk into bar....


From the OP



			
				ewenme said:
			
		

> ... The engineer comes back with a new proposal:  what if ...


... and say "ouch".


----------



## brudgers (Sep 21, 2011)

ewenme said:
			
		

> Brudgers: There is no cluster here. Only a valid code question. The architect and engineer are working together, as MT noted from my original post. And the AHJ is not ignoring any plans, as we don't have any plans as yet. We had ideas that are being considered, with the question: "would you allow...?"  Hence my posing the issue on this forum so I could see what others are thinking, and tap into the vast resources available on this forum.  You assume too much.  Carol


   In that case, the architect should be reported to the board for taking on a project outside their range of competence.


----------



## ewenme (Sep 21, 2011)

texasbo: I was hoping my 'picture this' visualization would help to understand that each separate apartment building would have only 3 units per floor [hence qualifying for one exit] and that the two apartment buildings would zero-lot-line with the vertical exit [building #3] which would be accessed from the balconies of the two separate dwelling buildings. The two-hour verticle exit would be under a common roof with the 2-hour walls from footings through roof providing the separation between the buildings. Does this make sense?  Does it change your opinion? Thanks, Carol


----------



## JustReid (Sep 21, 2011)

View attachment 1080

	

		
			
		

		
	
I picture it like the attached. It sounds like there is an agreement that the overall concept is doable. However, in your case ewenme, they do not comply with the 50' travel required by 1021.2 so they have to revise their concept (or footprint layout) or I don't see how you can approve it.

View attachment 481


View attachment 481


/monthly_2011_09/building.jpg.bb4a6c62d8465bb52c14d8e78ce55bcc.jpg


----------



## Builder Bob (Sep 21, 2011)

I still do not think this would meet code, as a hortizontal exit cannot be the only exit........it can only make up 50% of the required exit.

[
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





Is this the concept you are posing ewenme?

Numbers above buildings indicate building number..... as in bldg. 1, bldg 2. bldg.3


----------



## gbhammer (Sep 21, 2011)

JustReid said:
			
		

> View attachment 1080
> 
> 
> 
> ...


If thats it then I agree that it would not work.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Sep 21, 2011)

JustReid said:
			
		

> View attachment 1080
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That  is the way I pictured it and it would be a verticle exit enclosure not a horizontal exit and it could work except for the travel distances


----------



## texasbo (Sep 21, 2011)

ewenme said:
			
		

> texasbo: I was hoping my 'picture this' visualization would help to understand that each separate apartment building would have only 3 units per floor [hence qualifying for one exit] and that the two apartment buildings would zero-lot-line with the vertical exit [building #3] which would be accessed from the balconies of the two separate dwelling buildings. The two-hour verticle exit would be under a common roof with the 2-hour walls from footings through roof providing the separation between the buildings. Does this make sense?  Does it change your opinion? Thanks, Carol


Yes, if you'll wade through my ramblings, I came around to agree with the concept. I just stepped on myself thinking about a lot line at the wall, and you clarified the lot line isn't there.

 Lots of if's though. Fire walls must be constructed correctly in terms of structural independence, and dealing with termination at projections. Travel distance and dead-ends still in play. All things brought up by different members.

BB: you are right that if only one exit is provided, it can't be through a HE, but this isn't a horizontal exit; it's a case of separate buildings, that if properly separated, each have one exit - not through a HE, but into an exit enclosure. The two hour fire wall doesn't serve as an HE, it's just there to make 2 separate buildings. Or three...

But as others have said, travel distance and proper arrangement of exterior exit balconies look like the biggest obstacles.


----------



## imhotep (Sep 21, 2011)

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> That  is the way I pictured it and it would be a verticle exit enclosure not a horizontal exit and it could work except for the travel distances


I concur.  50' travel distance is a big hurdle.


----------



## ewenme (Sep 21, 2011)

Builder Bob:

Your drawing isn't quite the same as the proposal: if you were to look at it in plan view, your three apartments would be drawn perpendicular to the stairs, and then in the face elevation you would see 9 apartments on each side of the verticle exit. I hope that clarifies one point.  The balconies would start from the fartherest apartment on each side, but are not planned to extend to the end of the building, only to the door of the end apartment.

In a sprinkled building, according to Table 1016.1, travel distance can be 250 feet. As noted in 1016.1, travel distance is to ... a vertical exit enclosure, so the Table at 1021.2 would no longer apply IF it would be acceptable to have an exit as a building, serving two buildings. [all citations from the 2009 IBC]

Carol


----------



## imhotep (Sep 21, 2011)

ewenme said:
			
		

> Builder Bob:Your drawing isn't quite the same as the proposal: if you were to look at it in plan view, your three apartments would be drawn perpendicular to the stairs, and then in the face elevation you would see 9 apartments on each side of the verticle exit. I hope that clarifies one point.  The balconies would start from the fartherest apartment on each side, but are not planned to extend to the end of the building, only to the door of the end apartment.
> 
> In a sprinkled building, according to Table 1016.1, travel distance can be 250 feet. As noted in 1016.1, travel distance is to ... a vertical exit enclosure, so the Table at 1021.2 would no longer apply IF it would be acceptable to have an exit as a building, serving two buildings. [all citations from the 2009 IBC]
> 
> Carol


I don't agree.  Footnote a under Table 1016.1 refers us to Section 1021.2 For buildings with one exit.  (4 dwellings) 50 feet travel distance.


----------



## globe trekker (Sep 22, 2011)

Two separate exits sure seems a lot easier and [ code ] compliant.

.


----------



## alora (Sep 22, 2011)

Shirley, someone in Moscow, ID has to have a scanner.


----------



## Paul Sweet (Sep 22, 2011)

IBC 1002 definition: "EXIT, HORIZONTAL. A path of egress travel from one building to an area in another building on approximately the same level, or a path of egress travel through or around a wall or partition to an area on approximately the same level in the same building, which affords safety from fire and smoke from the area of incidence and areas communicating therewith."

If you are going from one building to another you are creating a horizontal exit.  As several people have pointed out, IBC 1025.1 prohibits a horizontal exit from being the only exit from a portion of a building.

Nice try, but they can't do it without a code modification.  I don't know how they could show that this provides equivalent safety.


----------



## JustReid (Sep 22, 2011)

Paul Sweet said:
			
		

> "EXIT, HORIZONTAL. A path of egress travel from one building to an area in another building on approximately the same level, or a path of egress travel through or around a wall or partition to an area on approximately the same level in the same building, which affords safety from fire and smoke from the area of incidence and areas communicating therewith." If you are going from one building to another you are creating a horizontal exit.  As several people have pointed out, IBC 1025.1 prohibits a horizontal exit from being the only exit from a portion of a building.


Respectfully disagree. This would mean that any fire wall utilized by 503.1 with a passageway through it is automatically a horizontal exit. I interpret the quoted IBC section 1002 to mean that it will allow the exiting from one building to another be through a horizontal exit. If the first is taken as an absolute then the second would have to also. That would mean that any "path of egress travel through or around a wall or partition to an area on ... the same level in the same building" is also a horizontal exit.

The designer has the ability to designate when a horizontal exit is going to be applicable.


----------



## Builder Bob (Sep 23, 2011)

Builder Bob said:
			
		

> I still do not think this would meet code, as a hortizontal exit cannot be the only exit........it can only make up 50% of the required exit.[
> 
> 
> 
> ...


In this concept, a firewall was used to create seperate buidlings. A firewall can be used as an hortizontal exit. However, in this concept, it would not be allowed as building 1 & 3 do not have any exits provided except for the hortizontal exit.

Section 1022.1 A horizontal exit shall not serve as the only exit from a portion of a building, and where two or more exits are

required, not more than one-half of the total number of exits or total exit width shall be horizontal exits.


----------



## Builder Bob (Sep 23, 2011)

Second Try.... Not sure where the wall rating are located at ??


----------



## mtlogcabin (Sep 23, 2011)

JustReid said:
			
		

> Respectfully disagree. This would mean that any fire wall utilized by 503.1 with a passageway through it is automatically a horizontal exit. I interpret the quoted IBC section 1002 to mean that it will allow the exiting from one building to another be through a horizontal exit. If the first is taken as an absolute then the second would have to also. That would mean that any "path of egress travel through or around a wall or partition to an area on ... the same level in the same building" is also a horizontal exit. The designer has the ability to designate when a horizontal exit is going to be applicable.


Exactly and well said


----------



## Paul Sweet (Sep 23, 2011)

I should have said "If you are EXITING from one building to another you are creating a horizontal exit."

The buildings with apartments don't have any exits except into the separate stairway building.  The path of egress travel goes from one building (the apartment building) to an area in another building (the stairway building) on approximately the same level.  If that isn't a horizontal exit, what is it?


----------



## cda (Sep 23, 2011)

Paul you may be walking horizontally, but in your set up dies not meet ibc definition of horizontal exit

Because the building you are walking out of has no other exits as required to be a compliant horizontal exit


----------



## JustReid (Sep 23, 2011)

Paul Sweet said:
			
		

> I should have said "If you are EXITING from one building to another you are creating a horizontal exit."The buildings with apartments don't have any exits except into the separate stairway building.  The path of egress travel goes from one building (the apartment building) to an area in another building (the stairway building) on approximately the same level.  If that isn't a horizontal exit, what is it?


I think in this case it would be an exit enclosure. The designer could simply state that they are not using it as a horizontal exit because they are not required to. They would only designate it as a horizontal exit if they needed to obtain the benefit of a horizontal exit. In this particular case they can not make it a horizontal exit because it is a single exit and horizontal exits can not serve that purpose. And they do not need to because it is an exit stair. So it is an exit by a different definition.

It would be nice to have a plan for the discussion because we could all be picturing something different.


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (Sep 23, 2011)

JustReid said:
			
		

> The designer has the ability to designate when a horizontal exit is going to be applicable.


To a degree...it's kind of like saying a designer has the ability to designate whatever, whenever it is going to be applicable.  Granted the code is not written to withstand most discussions of semantics and semiotics, however, in this case, and by definition, it is what they said it is.

The only means of exit from these buildings is through a fire wall.  Designers are not infallible...and occasionally they get things wrong too.  In my opinion, respectfully agreeing to disagree, to not describe this as a horizontal exit through a fire wall would be an incorrect assessment. While it is true that not all openings in a fire wall/barrier are horizontal exits, all exits in fire walls/barriers are horizontal exits.

The term, horizontal exit,_ refers to a fire-resistance-rated wall (fire wall or barrier) that subdivides a building or buildings into multiple compartments and provides an effective barrier to protect occupants from a fire condition within one of the compartments.  After occupants pass through a horizontal exit, they must be provided sufficient space to gather and must also be provided with another exit such as an exterior door or exit stairway, through which they can exit the building. A horizontal exit may be an element of a means of egress when in compliance with the requirements of this section.  The actual horizontal exit is the protected door opening in a wall, open air balcony or bridge that separates two areas of a building (IBC 2006 Commentary)._

Magritte would be proud of your logic.  However, any exit through a fire wall, or in some cases fire barriers, is indeed a horizontal exit (by design or default), and shall be treated as such.  If the designer does not want it to be a horizontal exit, then they should not put a fire wall/barrier there.  Just because a designer says 'Ceci n'est pas une sortie horizontale' does not mean it is not horizontal exit.

I would not hinge my interpretation on an 'any' versus 'all,' or by omission, argument...and would start looking for another loop hole.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Sep 23, 2011)

Remember the only reason the designer wants to call it a separate building is to get around the requirements of TABLE 1021.2

STORIES WITH ONE EXIT which limit him to 4 dwelling units per floor. He wants to use the verticle exit enclosure as a means to do this.

A horizontial exit is not a mandatory requirement it is a designers option to use in large buildings when needed to meet exiting requirements.

I believe the AHJ under 104.11 has the ability to approve such a design. She may want additional recorded documents to assure the 3 structures operate as a single unit for the life of the building.

Personally I  probably would not allow it and advise them to go to the board of appeals to approve the alternate design.


----------



## brudgers (Sep 23, 2011)

JustReid said:
			
		

> I think in this case it would be an exit enclosure. The designer could simply state that they are not using it as a horizontal exit because they are not required to. They would only designate it as a horizontal exit if they needed to obtain the benefit of a horizontal exit. In this particular case they can not make it a horizontal exit because it is a single exit and horizontal exits can not serve that purpose. And they do not need to because it is an exit stair. So it is an exit by a different definition.    It would be nice to have a plan for the discussion because we could all be picturing something different.


   Exiting from one building by passing into another is a horizontal exit.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Sep 23, 2011)

> However, any exit through a fire wall, or in some cases fire barriers, is indeed a horizontal exit (by design or default), and shall be treated as such.


Disagree

Door openings in Fire Walls and Fire Barriers do not automatically create a horizontal exit

FIRE BARRIER. A fire-resistance-rated wall assembly of materials designed to restrict the spread of fire in which continuity is maintained.

FIRE WALL. A fire-resistance-rated wall having protected openings, which restricts the spread of fire and extends continuously from the foundation to or through the roof, with sufficient structural stability under fire conditions to allow collapse of construction on either side without collapse of the wall.


----------



## JustReid (Sep 23, 2011)

Papio Bldg Dept said:
			
		

> While it is true that not all openings in a fire wall/barrier are horizontal exits, all exits in fire walls/barriers are horizontal exits.


Unless it is an exit enclosure. Otherwise all exit stairs would be horizontal exits.

I don't think it is looking for a loop hole. The designer is given code compliant tools to use when designing. Different exit options are available to them. Hence, using it at their choice. I think the really big topic here is whether or not "buildings" by 503.1 need to have their own separate means of egress system. I know 503.1 says for the purpose of height and area but does the code say anything about exiting? (Other than in the definition of Horizontal Exit). I think ICC would have made the determination more clear rather than nesting it in the definition of horizontal exit. Maybe not though.


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (Sep 23, 2011)

JustReid said:
			
		

> Unless it is an exit enclosure. Otherwise all exit stairs would be horizontal exits.


ICC does not stand for intentionally clear and concise.  All buildings, and areas, need, at a minimum at least one means of egress, and are permitted to share that means of egress system in compliance with the various components provided for in the code.  Some may be used at the discretion of the designer, and others are a requirement based upon other choices made by the designer (i.e., building area, height, number of exits, travel distances, etc.).

Not all exit enclosures are required to be fire walls.  In the OP case, the exit enclosure would only need to be rated up to 1 hour, and thereby not a horizontal exit.  The OP is attempting to loop hole the requirement for two means of egress by creating a horizontal exit into a separate building.  Hard for me to see it any other way, regardless of my want to.


----------



## imhotep (Sep 23, 2011)

JustReid said:
			
		

> Unless it is an exit enclosure. Otherwise all exit stairs would be horizontal exits.  I don't think it is looking for a loop hole. The designer is given code compliant tools to use when designing. Different exit options are available to them. Hence, using it at their choice. I think the really big topic here is whether or not "buildings" by 503.1 need to have their own separate means of egress system. I know 503.1 says for the purpose of height and area but does the code say anything about exiting? (Other than in the definition of Horizontal Exit). I think ICC would have made the determination more clear rather than nesting it in the definition of horizontal exit. Maybe not though.


I think you hit the point.  If the DP separates per 503.1 then, by a strict application, the separate building must be provided at least 1 exit (two buildings two exits).  Setting that issue aside if the DP separates at both sides of a single set of exterior exit stairs then there is a case for a horizontal exit serving the 3 dwellings located on the upper floors.  I don't think I would want to make a preliminary determination that the scheme works.  I would ask for an interpretation from the authors of the code, the appeals board, every reviewer I know and strangers on the street.  It is quite creative however.


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (Sep 23, 2011)

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> DisagreeDoor openings in Fire Walls and Fire Barriers do not automatically create a horizontal exit


_ 1022.2 (2006 IBC)  Separation.  The separation between buildings or refuge areas connected by a horizontal exit shall be provided by a fire wall complying with Section 705 or a fire barrier complying with Section 706 and having a fire-resistance rating of not less than 2 hours. _

Not all exits through fire barriers are horizontal exits, true, but in *some* cases, they may be.  Exits through a fire wall, by definition are horizontal exits.


----------



## JustReid (Sep 23, 2011)

Papio Bldg Dept said:
			
		

> ICC does not stand for intentionally clear and concise.


We are in 100% agreement about this. :agree

On the other stuff, I guess I will have to look into it more to see if I can understand it better.

It would have been nice to be discussing actual plans but... I hope that the answer is completely clear for ewenme now


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (Sep 23, 2011)

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> DisagreeDoor openings in Fire Walls and Fire Barriers do not automatically create a horizontal exit


_ 1022.2 (2006 IBC)  Separation.  The separation between buildings or refuge areas connected by a horizontal exit shall be provided by a fire wall complying with Section 705 or a fire barrier complying with Section 706 and having a fire-resistance rating of not less than 2 hours. _

Not all exits through fire barriers are horizontal exits, true, but in *some* cases, they may be.  Exits through a fire wall, by definition are horizontal exits.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Sep 23, 2011)

> ICC does not stand for intentionally clear and concise.


That was great LMAO

With your permission I may use it as a signature on the neww ICC site


----------



## ewenme (Sep 23, 2011)

AAAAAaaaahhh.... finally getting to the point!  JustReid and Imhotep... now you understand my original question.  Papio:  your explanation of what ICC does not stand for is perfect!  I am still in doubt as to whether one verticle exit enclosure can serve two buildings, and I'm not inclined to give on the 'two exits are required'.  This discussion has been most instructional and interesting. I think I'm in good company when it comes to code analysis.

And, Building Bob, your drawings give me pause, because you interpreted what I put in verbiage totally differently than I intended the verbiage to describe. Just shows that perspectives can differ when it comes to 'seeing' what you're thinking.  I thought I described a long narrow building with balconies on one long face with the verticle exit in the middle. The U-shaped building completely threw me! I made some drawings to post, but they were too large, ever after reducing. I think I tried to use too much color. I'll work on that.

And whoever called me Shirley...I'm not Shirley.


----------



## gbhammer (Sep 23, 2011)

Perhaps Alora meant to say - surely in stead of - Shirley

Surely, someone in Moscow, ID has to have a scanner.


----------



## JustReid (Sep 23, 2011)

Ted Striker: Surely you can't be serious.

Rumack: I am serious... and don't call me

Shirley.

Airplane was a great movie.


----------



## gbhammer (Sep 23, 2011)

Could be the start of a new migration thread.

What is the air speed of an unladen 747?


----------



## ewenme (Sep 23, 2011)

I got the reference, but did't want to take the bait and prepetuate the groans...


----------



## gbhammer (Sep 23, 2011)

ewenme said:
			
		

> I got the reference, but did't want to take the bait and prepetuate the groans...


Ah those groans might just be music to the ears of some.


----------



## imhotep (Sep 23, 2011)

gbhammer said:
			
		

> Ah those groans might just be music to the ears of some.


I want the kids in bed by nine, the yard watered, the dog fed, and the gate locked and get a note to the milkman NO MORE CHEESE!


----------



## brudgers (Sep 23, 2011)

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> DisagreeDoor openings in Fire Walls and Fire Barriers do not automatically create a horizontal exit
> 
> FIRE BARRIER. A fire-resistance-rated wall assembly of materials designed to restrict the spread of fire in which continuity is maintained.
> 
> FIRE WALL. A fire-resistance-rated wall having protected openings, which restricts the spread of fire and extends continuously from the foundation to or through the roof, with sufficient structural stability under fire conditions to allow collapse of construction on either side without collapse of the wall.


First, I said "Exiting by".

Second a fire barrier does not create a horizontal exit nor does it separate buildings.


----------



## brudgers (Sep 23, 2011)

ewenme said:
			
		

> I am still in doubt as to whether one verticle exit enclosure can serve two buildings


It could, but not as the only exit from either building or both buildings.


----------



## Builder Bob (Sep 26, 2011)

ewenme said:
			
		

> And, Building Bob, your drawings give me pause, because you interpreted what I put in verbiage totally differently than I intended the verbiage to describe. Just shows that perspectives can differ when it comes to 'seeing' what you're thinking.  I thought I described a long narrow building with balconies on one long face with the verticle exit in the middle. The U-shaped building completely threw me! I made some drawings to post, but they were too large, ever after reducing. I think I tried to use too much color. I'll work on that.


I have to upload to photobucket or some other third party entity, that is the only way I can post the diagrams, I cannot do it directly from my computer.....Hope that helps.

BTW, I understand that some people have had issues with some of the third party file sites, just ensure the virus guard is active and up to date.


----------



## globe trekker (Sep 26, 2011)

> *"BTW, I understand that some people have had issues with some of the third party file sites, just ensure the virus**guard is active and up to date."*


I agree with BB on this. Be very careful of some of the 3rd party storage sites. Carol, is thereany way that you could upload a very basic drawing without the colors, ..something similar to

a "paper napkin drawing" type submittal?

Also, I would be very hesitant to approve a single exit "only" in this scenario. Remember, emergency personnel may be going up that same set of exit stairs, in addition to occupants coming down.

.


----------



## Paul Sweet (Sep 26, 2011)

OK, let's take this a little further and see what happens.

Picture a series of 20' x 30' apartments all in a row with a fire wall on one side.  There is less than 50' travel distance within each unit.  Once you step through the door that some say isn't a horizontal exit you are in another building with a balcony and a single exit stair.  Since that building is an exit, there is no limit on travel distance within the exit.

How many apartments are allowed to share this single exit stair in the separate building?

4?

6?

10?

100?

No limit?


----------



## mtlogcabin (Sep 26, 2011)

> How many apartments are allowed to share this single exit stair in the separate building?


The number of dwelling units would be restricted by the 50 foot travel distance and design.

The level of protection in this separate building verticle exit enclosure by code is significantly increased over the minimum 1 hour requirement 45 min door

to 2 hours 90 min door and the ability to meet:

706.2 Structural stability.

Fire walls shall have sufficient structural stability under fire conditions to allow collapse of construction on either side without collapse of the wall for the duration of time indicated by the required fire-resistance rating


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (Sep 26, 2011)

Paul Sweet said:
			
		

> OK, let's take this a little further and see what happens.Picture a series of 20' x 30' apartments all in a row with a fire wall on one side.  There is less than 50' travel distance within each unit.  Once you step through the door that some say isn't a horizontal exit you are in another building with a balcony and a single exit stair.  Since that building is an exit, there is no limit on travel distance within the exit.
> 
> How many apartments are allowed to share this single exit stair in the separate building?
> 
> ...


Would this scenario look something like your birdhouse picture?


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (Sep 26, 2011)

brudgers said:
			
		

> First, I said "Exiting by".Second a fire barrier does not create a horizontal exit nor does it separate buildings.


Thirdly, a fire barrier complying with Section 706 with a fire-resistance rating of not less than 2 hours can create a horizontal exit per 1022.2 (Separation) of the 2006 IBC...and therefore, would separate buildings, and, or refuge areas.


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (Sep 26, 2011)

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> That was great LMAO
> 
> With your permission I may use it as a signature on the new ICC site


It is common knowledge, or should be, and therefore I have no copyright on it.

I am however, still trying to come up with a good acronym for the NEC.  I am open to any suggestions...I am stuck on Nothings Ever Clear, but that is only really applicable to 20% of the code.


----------



## globe trekker (Sep 26, 2011)

NEC = Not Even Close

NEC = Numerous Electrical Conundrums

NEC = Not-understood Electrical Code

NEC =  National Electrical Confusion

.


----------



## cda (Sep 26, 2011)

?????????????????

not enough confusion

no electrodes crossed

nother electrical camaïeu


----------



## gbhammer (Sep 26, 2011)

No electricians culled (during the making of this document)

Never Electrify Crickets (during the making of this document)

Needed Excellent Creativity (during the making of this document)


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (Sep 26, 2011)

I think we are on to something with the electrical confusion.

In Yoda-ese, it could translate to, "Not Electrical Contractor" does make.


----------



## Builder Bob (Sep 26, 2011)

Back to original Poster question


----------

