# Requirements for stairs that are not required for egress



## nealderidder (Sep 10, 2012)

IBC 2006 1001.1 states that "The provisions of this chapter shall control the design, construction and arrangement of means of egress components required to provide an approved means of egress from structures and portions thereof."

In a multi-family project I have some units that have access from exterior patios down to grade. Not all units have these patio "exits" and they are not required for egress from the units. So... are there any requirements for width? or handrails? or anything??

I'm getting squeezed by setbacks from setbacks from setbacks and don't have enough room to get a full 36" wide stair from the patios down to grade (I've got about 32"). It seems to me like these "secondary" stairs that serve only one dwelling unit don't need to meet Chapter 10.

What say you?

thanks,

Neal


----------



## Inspector 102 (Sep 10, 2012)

As an inspector, if it looks like a duck, treat it like a duck. I feel the stairs would have to meet the design elements of Chapter 10 whether a required exit or accessory to the dwelling unit. I would look for width, handrails, guardrails, rise/run requirements to be met unless a variance is approved by the state in my case. Not sure who would have that authority in your case.


----------



## fatboy (Sep 10, 2012)

I would have to say compliance required. Where in another thread, there were stairs that were elsewhere on the property, away from the structure, these are a function of the structure. JMHO


----------



## nealderidder (Sep 10, 2012)

So... waterfowl taxonomy over adopted code language? Or are you invoking 104.1, the "because I said so" clause?

Only kidding, I appreciate the response, I'm grasping at straws here...


----------



## Paul Sweet (Sep 10, 2012)

If I remember correctly, the 36" stair width requirement was put into the old CABO 1 & 2 Family Dwelling Code to make it easier to move furniture up & down stairs.  I don't see any safety concerns with a 32" wide stair.


----------



## Francis Vineyard (Sep 10, 2012)

Neal,

The 32 inch width of the stair tread permitted for handrail projection can comply;

*1012.8 Projections. *Projections into the required width of _stairways _and _ramps _at each _handrail _shall not exceed 41/2 inches (114 mm) at or below the _handrail _height.







Francis


----------



## Big Mac (Sep 10, 2012)

I see nothing in the code that would permit less than 36" width.


----------



## Gregg Harris (Sep 10, 2012)

IRC R 311.7.1 allows the width bellow 32inches wide depending on one or two rails, and specifies the 36 inch width above the hand rail and bellow the max head room


----------



## fatboy (Sep 10, 2012)

I had considered that option, but with needing two handrails, being on the exterior of the R-2, and the comment regarding setback issues, I didn't know if that made a difference. Handrails are still going to be part on the "structure", and they would be outside the required 32" below.


----------



## north star (Sep 10, 2012)

*= < > =*

We seem to be mixing the codes on this one...

Maybe * nealderidder* can clarify which code he

is referencing for his application.

Define multi-family and which code will apply,

the IRC or the IBC, ...and which edition.

Also, look at Section 1009.1, Exception # 1,

in the `06 IBC  [ 36" width ].

*= > < =*


----------



## fatboy (Sep 10, 2012)

OP stated multi-family and he's in CO, my assumption (I know) was IBC, R-2.


----------



## nealderidder (Sep 10, 2012)

In my original post I noted the applicable code (2006 IBC). We have wandered off the topic though. I'm not asking what I need to do to comply with chapter 10. I'm asking if I even need to comply with Chapter ten since this stair is not a required means of egress.

The very first paragraph in chapter 10 says "The provisions of this chapter shall control the design, construction and arrangement of means of egress components *required to provide an approved means of egress* from structures and portions thereof."

My question is - If the stair is not "required" for egress (its not) why would it have to comply with Chapter 10?


----------



## ICE (Sep 10, 2012)

Before this is over, it will be a plant stand.



> My question is - If the stair is not "required" for egress (its not) why would it have to comply with Chapter 10?


Well because it's a stair.

Just because it's not "the required means of egress" does not make it any less of a means of egress.

On top of that, the code says "approved" not required.  In other words, follow chapter ten and you will have an approved means of egress.


----------



## north star (Sep 10, 2012)

*+ + + +*

I concur with *ICE'* evaluation!....Because it is not

a "required" MOE, doesn't make it any less of a

stairway, in which, there are still requirements to

meet from Ch. 10.

I still say 36" in width!  

*+ + + +*


----------



## pwood (Sep 10, 2012)

the stairs are providing egress from a "portion thereof" of the structure so therefore compliance with chapter 10 is mandatory.


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (Sep 10, 2012)

Not to derail the thread, but as ICE noted, you could call it a plant ledge and use the Chapter 1 Section for alternative design/methods...you know, if you are inclined to grasping at straws and such.


----------



## Big Mac (Sep 10, 2012)

Chapter 10 is the only Sectionof the code that deals with stairways.  Though it doesn't state specifically that all stairs need to comply with Chapter 10, that certaiy is the implication given no secondary standard for stairways.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Sep 10, 2012)

Required or not it is part of a means of egress and needs to comply

MEANS OF EGRESS. A continuous and unobstructed path of vertical and horizontal egress travel from any occupied portion of a building or structure to a public way. A means of egress consists of three separate and distinct parts: the exit access, the exit and the exit discharge.


----------



## Francis Vineyard (Sep 10, 2012)

The stairs needs to comply;

*Reason: *There are two proposals – one for each side of the coin. The purpose is to clarify if non-required building components are required to comply with the requirements in this chapter. Based on my experiences, there is broad disagreement among building officials on this.

The Code currently is moot on the issue and interpretations vary significantly. The reason to include it is to give clear guidance to officials and designers on whether or not a non-required component has to meet the same design requirements and have the same features as if the component were required. E1-07/08 last cycle proposed one option. Either a change as proposed above or amending this proposal to the opposite (see other proposal to this section), solves the problem.

*Cost Impact: *The code change proposal will not increase the cost of construction.

*PART II – IFC*

*Committee Action: Approved as Submitted*

*Committee Reason: *The committee agreed that all exits, including non-required exits, should comply with the minimum requirements of Chapter 10.

*NOTE: PART I REPRODUCED FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY – SEE ABOVE*

*PART I – IBC MEANS OF EGRESS*

*Revise as follows:*

*1001.1 General. *Buildings or portions thereof shall be provided with a means of egress system as required by this chapter. The provisions of this chapter shall control the design, construction and arrangement of means of egress components required to provide an approved means of egress from structures and portions thereof. The provisions of this chapter shall control the design, construction and arrangement of all means of egress components.

*Reason: *Same as Part II – See above.

*PART I – IBC MEANS OF EGRESS*

*Committee Action: Disapproved*

*Committee Reason: *The proposed language is too general. In addition, it would allow stairways and other building elements to not meet the life safety requirements that they should meet (e.g., Sections 1003.6 and 1008.1).

Source: E1-07/08, Part II

Francis


----------



## Sifu (Sep 10, 2012)

My experience and teaching has always been that if it looks like a set of stairs it will be expected to perform like a set of stairs.  When people are running out of a building they aren't going to pause to verify that they can safely and efficiently traverse the stairs before they escape the fire they are running from.  In this case the OP is looking to reduce the width, which presents a debate, but where would the end of the exceptions be if one took the opinion that the code doesn't apply?  I am reminded of the IFC/IBC/NFPA requirement that an exit door, even if not required, can not be obstructed, disguised, locked, etc., because it carrys an expectation of performance.  Thats the way I was learned anyway.


----------



## lunatick (Sep 13, 2012)

Stairs, from my pov, is answered by if / then statements

1. Building or Site. If Bldg, see below. If Site, see ADA-SAD to see what may be requirements.

2. Egress or Not. If Egress then, see code. Note, not all egress stars are within enclosures, etc. If not:

What are they for

1. convenience

2. decoration (monumental)

3. equipment access (osha)

4. landscaping

But they are always constructed to be functional for the species intended for using them.

Industry standard for this would be, imo, requirements from the applicable code (model bldg code, osha, etc).

That stated, the bldg code does allow for narrower stairs (alternating tread devices), etc. So, there may exist precedence, but there is also code intent.

btw, Disney could construct some animatronic ducks for all of your amusement.


----------

