# NFPA 101 just what is it?



## BSSTG (Mar 24, 2012)

Greetings all,

Gearing up for what may be a legal battle. I recently issued a stop work order for a completely out of code spiral stair. The property owner is fighting tooth and nail (ex mayor). He is going for a variance. Now our variance process, if done through committee, is only valid for "building codes or subdivision ordinances". since spiral stairs are a part of the Life Safety Code, and, are adopted as a part of the Fire Code, I'm thinking that this guy will not have the ability for a variance through that particular process.

I guess the basic question is, is the Life Safety Code NFPA 101 a building code? If it is not a "building code", then this guy will have to go before Council for his variance which is what I want. I'm sure the city atty will agree.

I would have waited to post this up till later this week but I've been out of town for some training and all of this variance stuff came up while I was gone. I haven't had a chance to look at NFPA 101 yet. I know it references spiral stairs but I'm not sure how just yet. I know this will be pressing Monday am.

And just when things were going pretty smooth. Oh well.

Once again thanks for yall's input. It's tough being the only code dude in town sometimes with no one to bounce this stuff off of.

BS


----------



## mark handler (Mar 24, 2012)

Life Safety Code, known as NFPA 101, is a consensus standard widely adopted in the United States. It is administered, trademarked, copyrighted, and published by the National Fire Protection Association and, like many NFPA documents, is systematically revised on a three year cycle.

Despite its title, the standard is not a legal code, is not published as an instrument of law, and has no statutory authority in its own right. However, it is deliberately crafted with language suitable for mandatory application to facilitate adoption into law by those empowered to do so.

The bulk of the standard addresses "those construction, protection, and occupancy features necessary to minimize danger to life from fire, including smoke, fumes, or panic". The standard does not address the "general fire prevention or building construction features that are normally a function of fire prevention codes and building codes".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_Safety_Code


----------



## cda (Mar 24, 2012)

Ok twenty questions

1 commercial or residental

2 what code has the city actualy adopted

3 city cannot techinacly approve  a variance, they can look at other codes for equivalent

4 if 101 is adopted as part of IFC, than in what capacity hospitals and nursing homes only? Or for any building ??


----------



## BSSTG (Mar 24, 2012)

1 the sprial stair is in a house that was converted from a garage under with an apt over. It is now just a plain ole R3 with no garage.

2 all I codes adopted and NFPA 101was adopted as part of the Fire Code.

3 and yes the city can approve a variance. it's a home rule city and the procedures are in the municipal ordinances. all appeals sections have been deleted in the adopted codes and replaced with the variance procedures. My pont is that a variance committee can only apply a variance to a building code by the adopted ordinance. Hence the question. Is NFPA 101 a building code? I say it is not. If is not, then a variance cannot be granted by this committee.

4 101 was adopted without any reference to a particular type of bldg.

BS


----------



## cda (Mar 24, 2012)

1 yes it is a design code

2 if this is a true house and not a business, if you adopted the Irc, that should be what the project is reviewed under

3 not an irc person , but I believe spirals are allowed in the Irc,

Someone can confirm or deny that one

4 sad that variances are granted


----------



## Daddy-0- (Mar 25, 2012)

Spirals are allowed in the IRC. Is it the only egress?


----------



## brudgers (Mar 25, 2012)

What are your specific concerns?

  [He asked from his office in the loft accessible only by a spiral staircase]


----------



## BSSTG (Mar 25, 2012)

IRC calls for a min step width of 26". this one is 20". also the the balusters are to be set so a 4 3/8" sphere can't pass through. this unit measures over 5". open space between the steps is also limited in size as to not allow a 4" sphere. that won't fly either.

this stair unit doesn't pass muster with any of the IRC requirements as far as I can tell.

this is not a requirred egress. spirals are not allowed to be. at least the dude got that part right.

BS


----------



## cda (Mar 25, 2012)

09

R311.7.9.1 Spiral stairways. Spiral stairways are permitted, provided the minimum clear width at and below the handrail shall be 26 inches (660 mm) with each tread having a 71/2-inch (190 mm) minimum tread depth at 12 inches (914 mm) from the narrower edge. All treads shall be identical, and the rise shall be no more than 91/2 inches (241 mm). A minimum headroom of 6 feet 6 inches (1982 mm) shall be provided.


----------



## Mark K (Mar 25, 2012)

If NFPA 101 was adopted as part of the IFC then you have laready created a board of appeals you just may not have activated it.  Reference IFC Section 108.

SECTION 108 BOARD OF APPEALS

[A] 108.1 Board of appeals established.

In order to hear and decide appeals of orders, decisions or determinations made by the fire code official relative to the application and interpretation of this code, there shall be and is hereby created a board of appeals. The board of appeals shall be appointed by the governing body and shall hold office at its pleasure. The fire code official shall be an ex officio member of said board but shall have no vote on any matter before the board. The board shall adopt rules of procedure for conducting its business, and shall render all decisions and findings in writing to the appellant with a duplicate copy to the fire code official.

This board of appeals may be seperate than the board of appeals for the building code.  Note also that the members of the board of appeals is to be appointed by the governing body.  It would appear that the Council could decide to appoint themselves to the board of appeals and rule on the problem or they would appoint other individuals to fill this role.


----------



## brudgers (Mar 25, 2012)

BSSTG said:
			
		

> IRC calls for a min step width of 26". this one is 20". also the the balusters are to be set so a 4 3/8" sphere can't pass through. this unit measures over 5". open space between the steps is also limited in size as to not allow a 4" sphere. that won't fly either.  this stair unit doesn't pass muster with any of the IRC requirements as far as I can tell.  this is not a requirred egress. spirals are not allowed to be. at least the dude got that part right.  BS


  If it is not the required means of egress, and does not meet the requirements for spiral stairs...  then, it's a ladder.


----------



## permitguy (Mar 25, 2012)

First, NFPA 101 is not a building code.  From NFPA 101 1.1.6, "The _Code_ does not address the following:  General fire prevention or building construction features that are normally a function of fire prevention codes and building codes."

Second, the spiral stair provisions in NFPA 101 are identical to those in the IRC (NFPA 101, 7.2.2.2.3).  I'm not sure what they're trying to gain by applying NFPA 101 to the spiral staircase in question.

The "attic stair" defense is probably their best option to win over the deciding body.  Sadly, some of them will probably buy it.


----------



## BusiSussie (Mar 25, 2012)

like +++

I'm like this!


----------



## ICE (Mar 25, 2012)

Sussie, Judge Wapner is on at 9:00


----------



## BSSTG (Mar 25, 2012)

Yea, as much as I hate to say it. This guy with the spiral stair is not my favorite person. Nor is he a favorite of many of the citizens since he's always gotten away with just about anything he wants over the years with his scummy mobile home parks. I've had a couple of powers that be congratulate me on standing up to the old geezer. I'm told that no one ever has.

Sometimes I miss digging ditches.

BS


----------



## BSSTG (Mar 25, 2012)

Yea, as much as I hate to say it, this guy with the spiral stair is not my favorite person. Nor is he a favorite of many of the citizens since he's always gotten away with just about anything he wants over the years with his scummy mobile home parks. I've already had a couple of powers that be congratulate me on standing up to the old geezer. I'm told that no one ever has.

Sometimes I miss digging ditches.

BS


----------



## cda (Mar 25, 2012)

1.1* Scope. 1.1.1 Title. NFPA 101, Life Safety Code, shall be known as the Life Safety Code®, is cited as such, and shall be referred to herein as “this Code” or “the Code.” 1.1.2 Danger to Life from Fire. The Code addresses those construction, protection, and occupancy features necessary to minimize danger to life from the effects of fire, including smoke, heat, and toxic gases created during a fire. 1.1.3 Egress Facilities. The Code establishes minimum criteria for the design of egress facilities so as to allow prompt escape of occupants from buildings or, where desirable, into safe areas within buildings. 1.1.4 Other Fire-Related Considerations. The Code addresses other considerations that are essential to life safety in recognition of the fact that life safety is more than a matter of egress. The Code also addresses protective features and systems, building services, operating features, maintenance activities, and other provisions in recognition of the fact that achieving an acceptable degree of life safety depends on additional safeguards to provide adequate egress time or protection for people exposed to fire. 1.1.5* Considerations Not Related to Fire. The Code also addresses other considerations that, while important in fire conditions, provide an ongoing benefit in other conditions of use, including non-fire emergencies. 1.1.6 Areas Not Addressed. The Code does not address the following: (1)*General fire prevention or building construction features that are normally a function of fire prevention codes and building codes


----------



## brudgers (Mar 25, 2012)

BSSTG said:
			
		

> Yea, as much as I hate to say it. This guy with the spiral stair is not my favorite person. Nor is he a favorite of many of the citizens since he's always gotten away with just about anything he wants over the years with his scummy mobile home parks. I've had a couple of powers that be congratulate me on standing up to the old geezer. I'm told that no one ever has.   Sometimes I miss digging ditches.  BS


  If there is a stair which meets means of egress requirements, then this fight over the ladder boils down to searching for a way to say "no" for personal reasons, not professional ones.  I.e. you're not standing up to this person, you're using your position to carry out a vendetta.


----------



## jim baird (Mar 26, 2012)

There has been discussion here aplenty over whether exit components, when not required, have to meet specs.

I agree w/brudgers that spiral not being exit means is less culpable as a violation.

I have done delicious battle with what I regard as "slumlords", but sometimes you have to carefully choose which battles to fight.  If you have an appeals board that is receptive, you can just take the lawyerly approach and make your argument based in reason, whether or not your grounds are shaky.


----------



## BSSTG (Mar 26, 2012)

Thanks Jim. (and others) I have been swayed after reading yours and Brudger's responses and after close scrutiny of the IRC. Since a different means of egress is provided it probably should be allowed. I just hope no one ever breaks their neck on this thing.

By the way Mr. Brudgers, I never would have let my personal feeling initiate a red tag. By that reasoning, I could never issue a red tage solely on personal opinion of someone. I don't carry out "vendettas". That said, I believe your right otherwise. And yea, this guy is still not my favorite person.

thanks

BS


----------



## cda (Mar 26, 2012)

Sounds like you should document that there is a code compliant exit and the design of the spiral stairs do not meet code


----------



## brudgers (Mar 26, 2012)

cda said:
			
		

> Sounds like you should document that there is a code compliant exit and the design of the spiral stairs do not meet code


  There are no spiral stairs.  There's a ladder.

  Ladders are outside the scope of the IRC.


----------



## ICE (Mar 26, 2012)

Well one must accept the premise that Section R311 applies to one complete means of egress and excludes all other instances of the use of the components found in section R311.  Then again, maybe not.  Your ladder would have to look a lot more like a ladder and a lot less like  spiral stairs to keep me from grinning when you tell me it's a ladder.


----------



## cda (Mar 26, 2012)

brudgers said:
			
		

> There are no spiral stairs.  There's a ladder.
> 
> Ladders are outside the scope of the IRC.


down boy down, heal, sit

Exception: The ladder or steps required by SectionR310.2.1 shall be permitted to encroach a maximum of 6 inches (152 mm) into the required dimensions of the window well.

R310.2.1 Ladder and steps. Window wells with a vertical depth greater than 44 inches (1118 mm) shall be equipped with a permanently affixed ladder or steps usable with the window in the fully open position. Ladders or steps required by this section shall not be required to comply with Sections R311.5 and R311.6. Ladders or rungs shall have an inside width of at least 12 inches (305 mm), shall project at least 3 inches (76 mm) from the wall and shall be spaced not more than 18 inches (457 mm) on center vertically for the full height of the window well.


----------



## gbhammer (Mar 26, 2012)

*R311.7.9 Special stairways*. … shall comply with all requirements  of section *R311.7*

*R311.7 Stairways.* _(yes stairways __period__)_Not stairways that are a part of MOE.

If that were the case they would have said so seeing as how they did just that in* R311.7.9.2* bulkhead stairs in basements that are not the required means of egress do not need to meet the requirements of* R311.7*It is a stair not a ladder just because Brudger thinks it should be called one. There is no definition for ladder because they are common items, and when you look at one you know what it is. Look at the spiral in the Ex-Mayor’s office and no one would call it a ladder, they would 99.9% of the time say spiral stair. The .01% would be a baby with no vocabulary yet.


----------



## ICE (Mar 26, 2012)

gbhammer said:
			
		

> The .01% would be a baby with no vocabulary yet.


I do enjoy you.


----------



## brudgers (Mar 26, 2012)

ICE said:
			
		

> Well one must accept the premise that Section R311 applies to one complete means of egress and excludes all other instances of the use of the components found in section R311.  Then again, maybe not.  Your ladder would have to look a lot more like a ladder and a lot less like  spiral stairs to keep me from grinning when you tell me it's a ladder.


  Always glad to make you smile.  Is your city attorney an employee, or a contractor paid by the hour?


----------



## brudgers (Mar 26, 2012)

gbhammer said:
			
		

> *R311.7.9 Special stairways*. … shall comply with all requirements  of section *R311.7* *R311.7 Stairways.* _(yes stairways __period__)_Not stairways that are a part of MOE.  If that were the case they would have said so seeing as how they did just that in* R311.7.9.2* bulkhead stairs in basements that are not the required means of egress do not need to meet the requirements of* R311.7*It is a stair not a ladder just because Brudger thinks it should be called one. There is no definition for ladder because they are common items, and when you look at one you know what it is. Look at the spiral in the Ex-Mayor’s office and no one would call it a ladder, they would 99.9% of the time say spiral stair. The .01% would be a baby with no vocabulary yet.


  If it doesn't comply, it ain't a stairway.


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (Mar 26, 2012)

c'est ne pas une stair?  Magritte would be so dissappointed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ren%C3%A9_Magritte#Philosophical_and_artistic_gestures


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (Mar 26, 2012)

brudgers said:
			
		

> If it doesn't comply, it ain't a stairway.


It is a piece of art...and if kermudgingly ex-mayors want to climb up and down pieces of art installed in their home instead of taking the stairs like normal people, I for one am vertically inclined to let them.


----------



## gbhammer (Mar 26, 2012)

brudgers said:
			
		

> If it doesn't comply, it ain't a stairway.


Interesting way to look :inspctr at the code. No stair in a walk out basement needs ever to comply with 311.7 ever again. :surr

Ha the HBA will dance a jig and memorialize Brudgers as the great liberator. :cheers

SHEEEEESH :banghd


----------



## cda (Mar 26, 2012)

Papio Bldg Dept said:
			
		

> It is a piece of art...and if kermudgingly ex-mayors want to climb up and down pieces of art installed in their home instead of taking the stairs like normal people, I for one am vertically inclined to let them.





			
				brudgers said:
			
		

> If it doesn't comply, it ain't a stairway.


No it is a spiral stair with code violations

Just because a house has code violations, that does not make it not a  house


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (Mar 26, 2012)

cda said:
			
		

> No it is a spiral stair with code violationsJust because a house has code violations, that does not make it not a  house


but we are saying that a metal stair shaped thingy is not a stair, and therefore there are no non-compliance issues.  Think of it as someone putting in a slide, which I actually did for a client.  they had a perfectly compliant stair that served the second floor, and they had a gate at the top of the slide.  Just cause the kids climbed back up the slide instead of taking the stairs didn't mean I neede to make the slide comply with stairs section of the code.


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (Mar 26, 2012)

I suppose you could also think of it as a fire-man's pole...albeit there might be a few things to encumber one's descent.


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (Mar 26, 2012)

cda said:
			
		

> No it is a spiral stair with code violationsJust because a house has code violations, that does not make it not a  house


If I put two headers (2-2x12s + 2-2x6s) in a wall over an opening requiring a minimum 2-2x12 header, and the second header is a 2-2x6 header which would be non-compliant if the 2-2x12 was not installed, would you still write me up, or just shake your head and laugh at me for being silly?


----------



## gbhammer (Mar 26, 2012)

Why have a stair at all from the second floor if the bedrooms have egress windows. Just use a slide they already have an MOE.

Why make the stair comply if they have egress windows.

cda said it taking that path of logic "lets just not call it house so long as there is a violation it doesn't need to meet any standard of the code since it really isn't a house" that just won't work its like have youre cake and eat it too.


----------



## permitguy (Mar 26, 2012)

These receptacles are in excess of the minimum required; therefore, I can wire them however I please.

That furnace is capable of providing the minimum level of heat and is vented properly; therefore, I can vent this extra furnace however I please.

I've already provided a compliant restroom in this design; therefore, this one can be laid out however I please.

That stairway is constructed per code; therefore, this stairway can be built however I please.

I could understand some of this ridiculousness coming from designers with a vendetta against codes in general or contractors looking for some "wiggle room" after a costly mistake, but I wouldn't expect it from knowledgable code enforcement professionals.


----------



## brudgers (Mar 26, 2012)

Papio Bldg Dept said:
			
		

> but we are saying that a metal stair shaped thingy is not a stair, and therefore there are no non-compliance issues.  Think of it as someone putting in a slide, which I actually did for a client.  they had a perfectly compliant stair that served the second floor, and they had a gate at the top of the slide.  Just cause the kids climbed back up the slide instead of taking the stairs didn't mean I neede to make the slide comply with stairs section of the code.


  1:12 makes a pretty dull slide.


----------



## brudgers (Mar 26, 2012)

gbhammer said:
			
		

> Why have a stair at all from the second floor if the bedrooms have egress windows. Just use a slide they already have an MOE.  Why make the stair comply if they have egress windows.   cda said it taking that path of logic "lets just not call it house so long as there is a violation it doesn't need to meet any standard of the code since it really isn't a house" that just won't work its like have youre cake and eat it too.


  I have two sheds.  They're not non-compliant houses.


----------



## brudgers (Mar 26, 2012)

permitguy said:
			
		

> These receptacles are in excess of the minimum required; therefore, I can wire them however I please.  That furnace is capable of providing the minimum level of heat and is vented properly; therefore, I can vent this extra furnace however I please.  I've already provided a compliant restroom in this design; therefore, this one can be laid out however I please.  That stairway is constructed per code; therefore, this stairway can be built however I please.  I could understand some of this ridiculousness coming from designers with a vendetta against codes in general or contractors looking for some "wiggle room" after a costly mistake, but I wouldn't expect it from knowledgable code enforcement professionals.


  This reminds me of the plans examiner who insisted that every window in every bedroom must meet EERO dimensions.  Again, the circular ladder is not a stair.

  The slide isn't a ramp.

  My two sheds are not houses.

  And Abe was right, a horse only has four legs regardless of what you want to call its tail.


----------



## permitguy (Mar 27, 2012)

NFPA 101 just what is it?

. . . says the designer with a vendetta against codes in general.


----------



## jim baird (Mar 27, 2012)

A mute duck looks like a duck and waddles.  Without a quack is it still one?


----------



## gbhammer (Mar 27, 2012)

jim baird said:
			
		

> A mute duck looks like a duck and waddles.  Without a quack is it still one?


Nope no way jim it's a shed. Sheds are mute and if you put one on skids in a 90 mph gust it even waddles.


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (Mar 27, 2012)

permitguy said:
			
		

> I could understand some of this ridiculousness coming from designers with a vendetta against codes in general or contractors looking for some "wiggle room" after a costly mistake, but I wouldn't expect it from knowledgable code enforcement professionals.


In other words it is ridiculous to allow a secondary decorative stair, salvaged from an older home/building, which does not meet the current codes for a MOE stair?  Does the code ever take this position with other MOE elements?

R311.4.2 Door type and size.  The required exit door shall be a side hinged door not less than 3 feet in width and 6 feet 8 inches in height.  Other doors shall not be required to comply with these minimum dimensions.

I respectfully agree to disagree that this secondary decorative non-compliant stair is an albatross around my code enforcement neck, and can not some how be part of a reasonable approval assessement for alternative design as indicated in 104.11.  _The provisions of this code are not intended to prevent the installation of any material or to prohibit any design...not specifically prescribed by this code._

Put a gate at the upper and lower landings that comply with the guard opening limitations, document it and move on.


----------



## cda (Mar 27, 2012)

Now I have to take my firefighter slide pole out of my house!!!!!!!!!!

http://www.disneylies.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/dl_tour/dl_tour_450.jpg


----------



## gbhammer (Mar 27, 2012)

Papio Bldg Dept said:
			
		

> Put a gate at the upper and lower landings that comply with the guard opening limitations, document it and move on.


Ok I would be good with that. Maybe just add a sign "DECORATIVE DEATH TRAP IN CASE OF FIRE" :devil


----------



## permitguy (Mar 27, 2012)

> In other words it is ridiculous to allow a secondary decorative stair, salvaged from an older home/building, which does not meet the current codes for a MOE stair?


Yep.

A skinny door is, at worst, inconvenient (provided a compliant door is present).  The stair being described is quite a bit more than inconvenient.  The code specifically says "other doors shall not be required to comply with these dimensions."  Where is that language for stairways?

The OP said nothing about this spiral staircase being relocated from an older home/building.  In any case, what is your stance on the antique, non-listed wood-burning stove being relocated?  I guess that's okay, too?  "We only vented it because we like the way the vent looks.  It's art!"  Fine.  Just put a gate around it.

Let's call this what it is:  knowingly giving in to a non-compliant installation because it isn't thought to be worth the hassle of making it right.


----------



## brudgers (Mar 27, 2012)

permitguy said:
			
		

> Yep.  A skinny door is, at worst, inconvenient (provided a compliant door is present).  The stair being described is quite a bit more than inconvenient.  The code specifically says "other doors shall not be required to comply with these dimensions."  Where is that language for stairways?  The OP said nothing about this spiral staircase being relocated from an older home/building.  In any case, what is your stance on the antique, non-listed wood-burning stove being relocated?  I guess that's okay, too?  "We only vented it because we like the way the vent looks.  It's art!"  Fine.  Just put a gate around it.  Let's call this what it is:  knowingly giving in to a non-compliant installation because it isn't thought to be worth the hassle of making it right.


  Question: with a second means of escape from the second floor is the building more or less dangerous?    Keep in mind that the code expects people to jump from the second or third floor in an emergency.    It doesn't prohibit concrete below an EERO.

    It doesn't even prohibit spikes below one.

    If I call this what it is, Jeff may send me a PM.

    But you can take an educated guess at what I would call this approach to the code.


----------



## brudgers (Mar 27, 2012)

gbhammer said:
			
		

> Ok I would be good with that. Maybe just add a sign "DECORATIVE DEATH TRAP IN CASE OF FIRE" :devil


  Have you ever seen a fire escape?  Did you apply common sense when looking at it?


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (Mar 27, 2012)

permitguy said:
			
		

> Let's call this what it is:


"An agreement to disagree."


----------



## KZQuixote (Mar 27, 2012)

brudgers said:
			
		

> Question: with a second means of escape from the second floor is the building more or less dangerous?


I guess that depends on whether or not the second means of escape presents it's own safety hazards.

Open risers that pass a 4" sphere.

5" plus between balusters.

You're sawing off the limb you're standing on Ben.

Bill


----------



## brudgers (Mar 27, 2012)

KZQuixote said:
			
		

> I guess that depends on whether or not the second means of escape presents it's own safety hazards.   Open risers that pass a 4" sphere.  5" plus between balusters.  You're sawing off the limb you're standing on Ben.  Bill


  It doesn't present any more safety hazards than an open window.


----------



## FM William Burns (Mar 27, 2012)

Man, I'm really trying hard to not get on that secondary egress allowance being to jump thing............... I'm with Brudgers!


----------



## gbhammer (Mar 27, 2012)

how about this: 
	

		
			
		

		
	

View attachment 1274


View attachment 552


View attachment 552


/monthly_2012_03/572953c39de3c_381781.jpg.e254a03d977ce10abdc32784eb77d486.jpg


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (Mar 27, 2012)

gbhammer said:
			
		

> how about this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I am not a lilputian, but if I were, that votive holder would make one heck of a good not-a-stair.


----------



## gbhammer (Mar 27, 2012)

Papio Bldg Dept said:
			
		

> I am not a lilputian, but if I were, that votive holder would make one heck of a good not-a-stair.


 place human candles here.



			
				gbhammer said:
			
		

> Ok I would be good with that. Maybe just add a sign "DECORATIVE DEATH TRAP IN CASE OF FIRE" :devil


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (Mar 27, 2012)

Why don't we just put 18" wide doors at the top and bottom landings of the not-a-stair so no one will be confused as to it not being a means of egress.


----------



## FM William Burns (Mar 27, 2012)

I was lost like 37 posts ago.

Is this the "required" MOE?

Is this an existing R3 and it has a spiral staircase that is evaluated as non-compliant?

If its governed by 101 and the stair meets 7.2.2.2.3 then its compliant and the owner can appeal the ruling through the fire code.

If it is governed by IBC since work is being done or some other change driving IBC is happening then IBC will rule and an appeal to that is necessary.


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (Mar 27, 2012)

FM William Burns said:
			
		

> I was lost like 37 posts ago. Is this the "required" MOE?
> 
> Is this an existing R3 and it has a spiral staircase that is evaluated as non-compliant?


My understanding of the OP is that there are two stairs both serving the same second floor space, one is compliant with the IRC and the other, a spiral stair, is not.  This is a conversion of an existing detached garage into an R3 residence.


----------



## gbhammer (Mar 27, 2012)

I get that it is not the means of egress.

What I don't see is where it says in the code that you can create code violations and ignore them because you have decided to re-label.

The commentary in both the IRC and the IBC says:

*Stair.* A change in elevation, consisting of one or more risers.

**** All steps, even a single step, are defined as a stair. This makes the stair requirements applicable to all steps unless specifically exempt in the code.****


----------



## permitguy (Mar 27, 2012)

> Question: with a second means of escape from the second floor is the building more or less dangerous?


In this case, less.  As you so frequently point out when trying to argue against sprinklers, stairways cause thousands of injuries and deaths even when they're built in accordance with codes.  This one isn't.



> Keep in mind that the code expects people to jump from the second or third floor in an emergency.


No, it doesn't.



> But you can take an educated guess at what I would call this approach to the code.


 . . . and you can take an educated guess about how much I care what you would call this approach.

Funny how nobody is willing to argue the case for allowing the laundry list of issues I posted before.  I guess this "ignoring requirements" phenomena is exclusive to stairways?

FM Burns:  I believe this is a new stairway in an IRC structure.  The IRC requirements for spiral stairways are identical to those found in NFPA 101, and there is no allowance to ignore those requirements for certain stairways in an IRC structure.


----------



## permitguy (Mar 27, 2012)

I meant more dangerous - less safe.


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (Mar 27, 2012)

gbhammer said:
			
		

> I get that it is not the means of egress.What I don't see is where it says in the code that you can create code violations and ignore them because you have decided to re-label.
> 
> The commentary in both the IRC and the IBC says:
> 
> ...


Exactly, that is the obvious, to the letter of the code, per Chapter 3 interpretation.  Chapter 1 (with it's "BO clauses" for those with code vendettas), however gives some wiggle room to Chapter 3, but ultimately if you don't make that interpretation, and want to follow the letter of the code, you are stuck and have to reject the OP's spiral stair.

In this AHJ, for an R3 occupancy, we would accept an alternative design that meets the life safety requirements of the code.

God help you if you want to install an 18" wide door (a minor inconvenience but permitted by the code) to a dining room without a MOE window, and decide to gorge yourself on _"chocolate covered cherry sugar bombs"_ (bonus points for reference) for a week until you reach the point you can no longer get out.


----------



## gbhammer (Mar 27, 2012)

I really am an equal opportunity arguer and feel it only fair to say that I would have no problem arguing the case for the not stair if it wasn’t so much like a stair. The reasons for stair regulations are well stated and have been seen in more than one post before and this thing is unsafe because people will treat it like a stair and be less careful than they would if they were trying to navigate a non-stair.


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (Mar 27, 2012)

permitguy said:
			
		

> Funny how nobody is willing to argue the case for allowing the laundry list of issues I posted before.  I guess this "ignoring requirements" phenomena is exclusive to stairways?


I have been playing the opposite game with you all day, funny how you don't think a room with an 18" wide door way and fixed windows in not a life safety issue either, but perfectly acceptable by the code.

What we have here is is a failure to communicate (and convince the other of our position)...and it stems from you looking at the code from a literal strict adherence to the letter of the code, and others looking at if from a perspective that views the code as a document open to reasonable interpretation.  Both perspectives are legitimate, just not preferred.  And just as you may view my doorway example as an unreasonable application of the code, I also view your laundry list as unreasonable.


----------



## gbhammer (Mar 27, 2012)

I did not argue on the door senario because we amended the code: 2'6" for passageway doors and 2'4" for bathrooms


----------



## permitguy (Mar 27, 2012)

> funny how you don't think a room with an 18" wide door way and fixed windows in not a life safety issue either, but perfectly acceptable by the code.


The argument is self-limiting.  If I can't get in, then I don't have to worry about getting out.  The "gaining weight during occupancy" argument is cute, but could be made for a 32" clear width door as well.



> it stems from you looking at the code from a literal strict adherence to the letter of the code, and others looking at if from a perspective that views the code as a document open to reasonable interpretation.


There is quite a difference between ignoring requirements and considering intent when applying the code.  I'm all for applying intent in this (or any) case.  The intent here is that all stairways are built to minimum standards so the occupants who use them on a daily basis can do so safely.  It isn't just about egress.  If it were, we wouldn't have requirements for handrail returns at the bottom of a stairway.

When the only argument is that "we have a compliant one right over there," then there is little difference between ignoring stair requirements and ignoring any of the requirements I posted above.

Both sides are presented here.  I'm fine leaving it at that.  More than anything, I don't want someone to find this thread in the future and think there was consensus that "extra" stairs don't have to meet code.


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (Mar 27, 2012)

gbhammer said:
			
		

> I did not argue on the door senario because we amended the code: 2'6" for passageway doors and 2'4" for bathrooms


well let's try something we can all argue, assuming there are no local amendments:  The OP states, eventually, that there is one compliant MOE stair provided from the second level.  Which of the following are acceptable, additional code compliant installations:

1) 8:9 rise run spiral stair with open risers and 5" spacing between balusters.

2) Fire pole with compliant guard rail gate at top landing.

3) Mounted ladder with compliant guard rail gate at top landing.

4) Slide with compliant guard rail gate at top landing.

5) Diving board with compliant guard rail gate at top landing.

6) Climbing rope with compliant guard rail gate at top landing.


----------



## KZQuixote (Mar 27, 2012)

Papio Bldg Dept said:
			
		

> well let's try something we can all argue, assuming there are no local amendments:  The OP states, eventually, that there is one compliant MOE stair provided from the second level.  Which of the following are acceptable, additional code compliant installations:1) 8:9 rise run spiral stair with open risers and 5" spacing between balusters.
> 
> 2) Fire pole with compliant guard rail gate at top landing.
> 
> ...


Don't leave out the EERO opening adjacent to the top of the spiral stair with the concrete landing pad at ground level, embedded spikes optional.

Bill


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (Mar 27, 2012)

I knew I was forgetting something.

7) EERO opening adjacent to the top of the spiral stair with the concrete landing pad at ground level, embedded spikes optional.


----------



## ICE (Mar 27, 2012)

2 through 7 sound doable.  The only improvement I can think of is to add an alligator and if nothing happens, toss in a tiger.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Mar 27, 2012)

Stairs have treads which is what you step on with the front of the foot while climbing or descending

Ladders have rungs which is usually a rod or bar that require the middle of the foot to climb or descend


----------



## brudgers (Mar 28, 2012)

Does any portion of the building code explicitly allow a climbing wall?


----------



## gbhammer (Mar 28, 2012)

brudgers said:
			
		

> Does any portion of the building code explicitly allow a climbing wall?


Would anyone unintentionally use a climbing wall as a stair?

The reason I have any issue with non-stair is that stairs are taken for granted because there is a certain amount of conformity that people have come to expect. Take away the conformity in an obvious way and people become aware of the difficulty they will have in navigating the obstacle, such as a climbing wall or ladder, and I have little or no problem with the whole not a stair premise.

That is not the case with this OP. Here you have a non conforming stairway. It is dangerous mainly because of its innocuous nature. The average person will be unaware that the structure is a non-stair and will in most cases unconsciously attempt to navigate down or up as they would any other stairway.

The only exception to the stair requirements is in cellar stairs and spiral stairs and those exceptions are due to their unique natures; even so they have requirements that make them conforming.

Again I would feel comfortable with a structure that was obviously designed in a nonconforming manor.


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (Mar 28, 2012)

Good morning!



			
				gbhammer said:
			
		

> Would anyone unintentionally use a climbing wall as a stair?


 certain pharmaceuticals come to mind that would lead to that being an unintentional action.





			
				gbhammer said:
			
		

> The reason I have any issue with non-stair is that stairs are taken for granted because there is a certain amount of conformity that people have come to expect. Take away the conformity in an obvious way and people become aware of the difficulty they will have in navigating the obstacle, such as a climbing wall or ladder, and I have little or no problem with the whole not a stair premise.


 So now we are back to regulating expected uses...we all know where that conversation gets us.  [insert devil's advocate emoticon]

So many if, then what, questions to be asked...

If the local AHJ had amended the code to state that decorative stairs shall not be required to comply as long as a compliant MOE stair is also provided, would you have similar feelings of expectation?

If I buy a house built in 1970 with a spiral stair and it meets the specs of the OP, are my expectations different?  Won't the balusters and treads be non-compliant with today's codes too?  What of those death traps?  Or are we just not that concerned to where we feel it necessary to enforce code minutia?  Obviously, I don't see the domino effect that leads to the corruption of the life safety portions of the code the way others do.


----------



## Alias (Mar 28, 2012)

Papio Bldg Dept said:
			
		

> I suppose you could also think of it as a fire-man's pole...albeit there might be a few things to encumber one's descent.


OUCH OUCH OUCH!

Not a pretty picture.................


----------



## gbhammer (Mar 28, 2012)

just left another thread

http://www.inspectpa.com/forum/showthread.php?8148-Hotel-Electric-Room

and:

Not to hijack the thread, but if the corridor was not rated / not compliant so not by definition a corridor / could we not just call it a non-corridor, you know relabel it as an intervening space. Of course you would still need to meet travel distances but if you did why not save the cost on doors?

The whole a stair is not a stair thing has me looking at the book a bit differently.


----------



## Alias (Mar 28, 2012)

BSSTG -

My conundrum is how would he apply for a variance?  This is a building code/NFPA issue, not a planning & zoning issue.  We grant variances here for planning & zoning issues i.e. - curb & gutter, sidewalk requirements, etc.; but not for building code issues.

And opening another can of worms, what does your city planning & zoning code require in reference to off-street covered parking?  Every residential unit here is required to have a minimum of 1 covered parking space, be it a garage or a carport.


----------



## brudgers (Mar 28, 2012)

gbhammer said:
			
		

> Would anyone unintentionally use a climbing wall as a stair?  The reason I have any issue with non-stair is that stairs are taken for granted because there is a certain amount of conformity that people have come to expect. Take away the conformity in an obvious way and people become aware of the difficulty they will have in navigating the obstacle, such as a climbing wall or ladder, and I have little or no problem with the whole not a stair premise.  That is not the case with this OP. Here you have a non conforming stairway. It is dangerous mainly because of its innocuous nature. The average person will be unaware that the structure is a non-stair and will in most cases unconsciously attempt to navigate down or up as they would any other stairway.  The only exception to the stair requirements is in cellar stairs and spiral stairs and those exceptions are due to their unique natures; even so they have requirements that make them conforming.   Again I would feel comfortable with a structure that was obviously designed in a nonconforming manor.


  tl;dr I didn't expect it, therefore it is wrong.


----------



## BSSTG (Mar 28, 2012)

Greetings Alias,

Our ordinances specifically allows for variances to building codes and subdivision code when done by the variance committee. The ordinance is specific. Any other variance has to be granted by City Council with any appeals going to District Court. That was what prompted the orginal question "NFPA 101 What is it?" Since the variance committee can only grant a variance for a building or subdivision code, then a variance to NFPA 101 could only be granted by City Council I contend. I personally believe that the LIfe Safety Code is not a "building code" and the variance committee has no authority to grant a variance.

Bear in mind this is a "home rule city" with a "weak mayor/council system" To put another way, city council can do whatever they want as long as it does not conflict with any state or federal law. There is no zoning.

The reason for this line of questioning is that our variance committee consists of the mayor, mayor pro tem, director of public works, and the building inspector (me) as an ex officio member. Since we have no director of public works, there are only 2 voting members on the committee being the mayor and mayor pro tem. They would both be highly inclined approve the variance being politically motivated IMHO. However, if the variance request goes before city council, as I feel it should, it could be a different outcome plus I would be able to lay out the case for or against if need be.

We have formally adopted the 09 LIfe Safety Code. This stair is noncompliant with that code. If the noncompliant stair is allowed under IRC rules, then it may be disallowed under NFPA 101 I feel with the only recourse being a variance by city council.

I might add that I made a formal request for an interpretation of R311.7.9.1. My question is this.

Code Reference: International Residential Code

Code Edition: 2009

Code Section: R311.7.9.1

Questions: Should the requirements in this section apply to all spiral stairs even if the spirals are not required for a means of egress? To put it another way, a compliant stairway is provided for the required egress from a second story. Should an additional spiral stair, if installed, be required to meet the requirements of 311.7.9.1?

I did receive an email back from ICC awhile ago and the question is being reviewed. Of course it doesn't address NFPA 101, but it will be interesting to hear back from them especially hearing so many varied opinions on this board and among others with whom I talk with.

Have a great evening!

BSSTG


----------



## texasbo (Mar 29, 2012)

"R311.1 General. Stairways...shall comply with this section." Period. Says nothing about additional non-required stairs.

The argument that "because it doesn't comply with stair requirements, it isn't a stair" is one of the most ridiculous ones I've seen in a while.

With that bizarre logic, tell me the specific IRC violation if someone used that same reasoning for the ONLY stair from the second floor.


----------



## gbhammer (Mar 29, 2012)

texasbo I already tried the PERIOD statement.



			
				gbhammer said:
			
		

> *R311.7.9 Special stairways*. … shall comply with all requirements  of section *R311.7**R311.7 Stairways.* _(yes stairways __period__)_Not stairways that are a part of MOE.
> 
> If that were the case they would have said so seeing as how they did just that in* R311.7.9.2* bulkhead stairs in basements that are not the required means of egress do not need to meet the requirements of* R311.7*It is a stair not a ladder just because Brudger thinks it should be called one. There is no definition for ladder because they are common items, and when you look at one you know what it is. Look at the spiral in the Ex-Mayor’s office and no one would call it a ladder, they would 99.9% of the time say spiral stair. The .01% would be a baby with no vocabulary yet.


----------



## imhotep (Mar 29, 2012)

texasbo said:
			
		

> "R311.1 General. Stairways...shall comply with this section." Period. Says nothing about additional non-required stairs.The argument that "because it doesn't comply with stair requirements, it isn't a stair" is one of the most ridiculous ones I've seen in a while.
> 
> With that bizarre logic, tell me the specific IRC violation if someone used that same reasoning for the ONLY stair from the second floor.


*SECTION R311 MEANS OF EGRESS *

*R311.1 Means of egress.* All dwellings shall be provided with a means of egress as provided in this section. The means of egress shall provide a continuous and unobstructed path of vertical and horizontal egress travel from all portions of the dwelling to the exterior of the dwelling at the required egress door without requiring travel through a garage.

As an only stair it would be the means of egress and the point is moot.  Your hypothetical does not pass muster.  If the element in question is not part of the means of egress then where does the authority to regulate it come from?  Perhaps turn to the intent section.

*R101.3 Intent. *The purpose of this code is to establish minimum requirements to safeguard the public safety, health and general welfare through affordability, structural strength, means of egress facilities, stability, sanitation, light and ventilation, energy conservation and safety to life and property from fire and other hazards attributed to the built environment and to provide safety to fire fighters and emergency responders during emergency operations.

Can I install an opening and a pole connecting two floors?  R312.1 would require that a guard be placed on the upper level.  So the designer comes back and proposes that a guard be installed that also acts as a gate.  In this case what if the individual installed a guard at the floor opening?


----------



## texasbo (Mar 29, 2012)

gbhammer said:
			
		

> texasbo I already tried the PERIOD statement.


I know, and others posted similar things. Just wanted to go on record as agreeing.


----------



## imhotep (Mar 29, 2012)

brudgers said:
			
		

> If it is not the required means of egress, and does not meet the requirements for spiral stairs...  then, it's a ladder.


Or a duck.  Call me a liar.


----------



## texasbo (Mar 29, 2012)

imhotep said:
			
		

> *SECTION R311 MEANS OF EGRESS **R311.1 Means of egress.* All dwellings shall be provided with a means of egress as provided in this section. The means of egress shall provide a continuous and unobstructed path of vertical and horizontal egress travel from all portions of the dwelling to the exterior of the dwelling at the required egress door without requiring travel through a garage.
> 
> As an only stair it would be the means of egress and the point is moot.  Your hypothetical does not pass muster.


My response was using the 2006 edition, in response to a post using the 2006, so yes, it does pass muster.

However, I admit that some of us, myself included, need to quote the codes we're using, and use more recent editions.


----------



## imhotep (Mar 29, 2012)

texasbo said:
			
		

> My response was using the 2006 edition, in response to a post using the 2006, so yes, it does pass muster.However, I admit that some of us, myself included, need to quote the codes we're using, and use more recent editions.


You say it passes muster and I respectfully disagree.  The 2006 IRC provision you cite falls under *SECTION R311 MEANS OF EGRESS*.  The case at hand unquestionably has a means of egress provided.  The question arises from the fact that the element (ladder-duck-spiral stair looking thingy) does not comply with the requirements for a means of egress.  Take away the means of egress provided and there is clearly no discussion.  I'll stick with the requirement for a guard at the upper level and leave it at that.  If a designer proposes the thingy in an open to the public building then I would go to the mattresses, but in a residence?

Is a guard required at a 2nd story operable window with a sill located at 18" off the floor?  Hmmmm......


----------



## brudgers (Mar 29, 2012)

Arguing with Texbo is like playing chess with a pigeon.

    At some point, he'll knock over all the pieces,

    strut around with his chest out,

     and poop on everything.


----------



## gbhammer (Mar 29, 2012)

imhotep said:
			
		

> You say it passes muster and I respectfully disagree.  The 2006 IRC provision you cite falls under *SECTION R311 MEANS OF EGRESS*.  The case at hand unquestionably has a means of egress provided.  The question arises from the fact that the element (ladder-duck-spiral stair looking thingy) does not comply with the requirements for a means of egress.  Take away the means of egress provided and there is clearly no discussion.  I'll stick with the requirement for a guard at the upper level and leave it at that.  If a designer proposes the thingy in an open to the public building then I would go to the mattresses, but in a residence?  Is a guard required at a 2nd story operable window with a sill located at 18" off the floor?  Hmmmm......


The argument that there is already a means of egress is a dodge. In walkout basements if you use the not-a-step supporters logic the stair to the first floor does not need to be code compliant.


----------



## brudgers (Mar 29, 2012)

gbhammer said:
			
		

> The argument that there is already a means of egress is a dodge. In walkout basements if you use the not-a-step supporters logic the stair to the first floor does not need to be code compliant.


  What sort of tread and riser requirements do you choose to enforce on a laundry chute?


----------



## gbhammer (Mar 29, 2012)

brudgers said:
			
		

> What sort of tread and riser requirements do you choose to enforce on a laundry chute?


 "Ring Around the Rosie"



			
				gbhammer said:
			
		

> Would anyone unintentionally use a *"laundry chute"* as a stair?The reason I have any issue with non-stair is that stairs are taken for granted because there is a certain amount of conformity that people have come to expect. Take away the conformity in an obvious way and people become aware of the difficulty they will have in navigating the obstacle, such as a climbing wall or ladder or *laundry chute*, and I have little or no problem with the whole not a stair premise.
> 
> Again I would feel comfortable with a structure that was obviously designed in a nonconforming manor.


"Ashes to ashes we all fall down."


----------



## Darren Emery (Mar 29, 2012)

brudgers said:
			
		

> What sort of tread and riser requirements do you choose to enforce on a laundry chute?


None. But if you build a spiral staircase, I would enforce the code requirements.


----------



## permitguy (Mar 29, 2012)

> If a designer proposes the thingy in an open to the public building then I would go to the mattresses, but in a residence?


 Right, 'cause gravity is much less effective in a residence.  I usually just jump from the top stair and float like a feather to the bottom.


----------



## Alias (Mar 29, 2012)

BSSTG -

Well, all I can say is good luck.  I feel your pain.  I am dealing with a large commercial project, idiot owners, and a mayor who thinks he knows everything and is interfering every step of the way.

Sue, "Where the West Still Lives" (translation - Where the good ol' boy network is alive and well.)


----------



## imhotep (Mar 29, 2012)

permitguy said:
			
		

> Right, 'cause gravity is much less effective in a residence.  I usually just jump from the top stair and float like a feather to the bottom.


So do you require guards at upper level operable windows with sills below 36" above the floor?  Is gravity less effective at that location?


----------



## permitguy (Mar 29, 2012)

> So do you require guards at upper level operable windows with sills below 36" above the floor?


Nope.  I just enforce the code.

R312.2.1 Window sills.

In dwelling units, where the opening of an operable window is located more than 72 inches (1829 mm) above the finished grade or surface below, the lowest part of the clear opening of the window shall be a minimum of 24 inches (610 mm) above the fininshed floor of the room in which the window is located. Operable sections of windows shall not permit openings that allow passage of a 4-inch-diameter (102 mm) sphere where such openings are located within 24 inches (610 mm) of the finished floor.

Exceptions:

1. Windows whose openings will not allow a 4-inch-diameter (102 mm) sphere to pass through the opening when the opening is in its largest opened position.

2. Openings that are provided with window fall prevention devices that comply with ASTM F 2090.

3. Windows that are provided with window opening control devices that comply with Section R312.2.2.



> Is gravity less effective at that location?


Nope, but I don't see people coming and going through windows with the frequency I see people descending and ascending stairways.


----------



## imhotep (Mar 29, 2012)

permitguy said:
			
		

> Nope.  I just enforce the code.R312.2.1 Window sills.
> 
> In dwelling units, where the opening of an operable window is located more than 72 inches (1829 mm) above the finished grade or surface below, the lowest part of the clear opening of the window shall be a minimum of 24 inches (610 mm) above the fininshed floor of the room in which the window is located. Operable sections of windows shall not permit openings that allow passage of a 4-inch-diameter (102 mm) sphere where such openings are located within 24 inches (610 mm) of the finished floor.
> 
> ...


Which code do you reference?


----------



## brudgers (Mar 29, 2012)

permitguy said:
			
		

> Nope, but I don't see people coming and going through windows with the frequency I see people descending and ascending stairways.


  But you can't tell the difference between a stair and a ladder.


----------



## KZQuixote (Mar 29, 2012)

brudgers said:
			
		

> But you can't tell the difference between a stair and a ladder.


Hi Ben,

And Obviously, neither can you.

Ted


----------



## fireguy (Mar 30, 2012)

I will say we took a patient down a spiral staircase once.  I was shorted than my partner.  He got the lower position, the patient was in a chair and had the upper postion.  I don't how we did not end up at the bottom, in a pile.  Right then I figured a spiral staircase were a bad idea.


----------



## texasbo (Mar 30, 2012)

brudgers said:
			
		

> Arguing with Texbo is like playing chess with a pigeon.    At some point, he'll knock over all the pieces,
> 
> strut around with his chest out,
> 
> and poop on everything.


Translation: The very best argument I could come up with is "since it violates the stair provisions, it isn't a stair", so I'll create a diversion with a worn out old insult involving poop, and I'll start talking about laundry chutes. Then maybe everyone will forget how ignorant my earlier post was.


----------



## texasbo (Mar 30, 2012)

imhotep said:
			
		

> You say it passes muster and I respectfully disagree.  The 2006 IRC provision you cite falls under *SECTION R311 MEANS OF EGRESS*.  The case at hand unquestionably has a means of egress provided.  The question arises from the fact that the element (ladder-duck-spiral stair looking thingy) does not comply with the requirements for a means of egress.  Take away the means of egress provided and there is clearly no discussion.  I'll stick with the requirement for a guard at the upper level and leave it at that.  If a designer proposes the thingy in an open to the public building then I would go to the mattresses, but in a residence?  Is a guard required at a 2nd story operable window with a sill located at 18" off the floor?  Hmmmm......


Apples to oranges. A window isn't a stair. So let me ask you an apples to apples question. If the residence has one complying stair, with complying rails and guards, would you allow a second complying stair to be installed with no rails or guards whatsoever? Of course you wouldn't. So why would you allow a second one with noncomplying treads and risers?

Also, your statement about not allowing such a violation in a commercial building, but allowing it in a dwelling shows that you acknowledge it as a violation, but you're willing to arbitrarily overlook it; that's a dangerous policy.


----------



## imhotep (Mar 30, 2012)

texasbo said:
			
		

> Apples to oranges. A window isn't a stair. So let me ask you an apples to apples question. If the residence has one complying stair, with complying rails and guards, would you allow a second complying stair to be installed with no rails or guards whatsoever? Of course you wouldn't. So why would you allow a second one with noncomplying treads and risers?Also, your statement about not allowing such a violation in a commercial building, but allowing it in a dwelling shows that you acknowledge it as a violation, but you're willing to arbitrarily overlook it; that's a dangerous policy.


Apples to apples.  I'd require a guard be installed at the opening at the upper level and a guard be placed along the open side of the non-stair when it is 30" above the floor.

You call it a violation and, with the required guards,  I call it a thingy.  Without the guards it is a violation.  With the guards it is folly.

There is a fundamental difference between a public facility and a single family residence.  Knowing how and when to draw lines is a code professionals duty.  To not acknowledge the difference between a home and a public facility is poor policy.


----------



## texasbo (Mar 30, 2012)

imhotep said:
			
		

> There is a fundamental difference between a public facility and a single family residence.  Knowing how and when to draw lines is a code professionals duty.  To not acknowledge the difference between a home and a public facility is poor policy.


I agree completely; in fact, I think knowing how and when to draw the line is one of the most important duties. Judgement is a critical skill required in our profession. It is also one of the most difficult. In my opinion, allowing a clear and obvious code violation by calling it a "thingy" in a home, while admitting that you would not allow it in another building, falls way on the wrong side of that line we must draw.


----------



## imhotep (Mar 30, 2012)

texasbo said:
			
		

> I agree completely; in fact, I think knowing how and when to draw the line is one of the most important duties. Judgement is a critical skill required in our profession. It is also one of the most difficult. In my opinion, allowing a clear and obvious code violation by calling it a "thingy" in a home, while admitting that you would not allow it in another building, falls way on the wrong side of that line we must draw.


Install the guards and the folly is in compliance.  Just because you call it a 'clear and obvious violation' does not make it so.  If one should like to act capriciously then they could require complete engineering and design documents on every single element that goes into the folly.  One could assert authority by forcing the applicant to prove that the guards will resist lateral forces and that all vertical forces are transferred to the foundation.  That all the materials that comprise the folly comply with all applicable code provisions.  Demand a written explanation of the rationale for the folly, and perhaps kneel before Zod.  No...that would be over the top.

Given a residential client who insisted on constructing a folly (read was willing to spend perhaps unlimited resources with little likelihood of success) I would not ask the AHJ to condone it, just permit or deny it.  I would not be relying on the opinion of an inspector, plan reviewer or even the Building Official.  I would first make sure that it complies with the applicable provisions of the adopted code, and then appeal the final determination.  It seems unlikely in the extreme that the developer of a commercial or public building project would be interested in doing what it would take to assert and demonstrate compliance for little or no benefit.  I would expect the AHJ to know and respect the difference between a house and another building that would fall under the IBC and not the IRC.  I would expect to have to answer for types of construction and materials, shafts and opening protectives, design requirements, etc. ad infinitum, ad nauseum.

Can I install a fire-pole in a residence?   How about a slide?


----------



## permitguy (Mar 30, 2012)

Installing a guard around a code violation does not make it disappear.  Would you let them build a guard around the entire house and then say the code doesn't apply to said house?

I hate to break this to some of you, but if you're uncomfortable having to sometimes tell people "no", you chose the wrong profession.  If you spend more time trying to justify non-compliance than you do enforcing compliance, then you should switch to the other side and be a rogue design professional or contractor.  You can still contribute here and drive code enforcement professionals crazy, but at least your drivel will be in context that way.


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (Mar 30, 2012)

permitguy said:
			
		

> Installing a guard around a code violation does not make it disappear.  Would you let them build a guard around the entire house and then say the code doesn't apply to said house?


Not to belabor the point, but fire-poles, climbing walls, ropes, ships ladders and slides are not covered by the code, and are thereby compliant, and less of a risk than a slightly non-compliant stair?

Believe me I fully understand your position that there is no allowance in the code for a non-compliant stair, even if it is in addition to a compliant MOE stair...I just don't agree with that interpretation of that intent, or that the intent for MOE is somehow not met.


----------



## imhotep (Mar 30, 2012)

permitguy said:
			
		

> Installing a guard around a code violation does not make it disappear.  Would you let them build a guard around the entire house and then say the code doesn't apply to said house?I hate to break this to some of you, but if you're uncomfortable having to sometimes tell people "no", you chose the wrong profession.  If you spend more time trying to justify non-compliance than you do enforcing compliance, then you should switch to the other side and be a rogue design professional or contractor.  You can still contribute here and drive code enforcement professionals crazy, but at least your drivel will be in context that way.


What violation?  Why would you think that placing a guard around a house addresses the point at hand?  There is a non-complying floor opening and walking surface connecting the upper and lower levels.  I assume we agree it is not a spiral stair because it does not meet the requirements for a spiral stair.  It is not a means of egress, but there is a means of egress provided elsewhere.  What violation?  Require guards per R312 and what violation remains?

I would comment on your parting counsel, but I think I should rather just toss poo.


----------



## ICE (Mar 30, 2012)

The idea that stairs are only required to meet the code spelled out in R311 if the stairs are part of the MOE implies that the hazards associated with stairs are only present during a rush to exit.  After all, the MOE is only paramount when there is a reason to get the Hell out of a building.  So if the second story is on fire, a code compliant set of stairs is a great asset but if you're merely taking the dirty Genes to the laundry all bets are off?

The side of this discussion that says "Well hey, we've got a compliant MOE so we can have a jacked-up set of stairs and call it anything but stairs" misses the point of stairs.  Stairs are a part of a MOE whether there is one or twenty.   Ladders, slides, poles and free-falls are all OK and you can do as you see fit with them but stairs are stairs.  If there are stairs, the stairs will be constructed following the code as written in R311 and will be considered as part of the MOE.  Granted the code requires but one MOE but the code doesn't doesn't allow additional MOE without any regard to R311.


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (Mar 30, 2012)

ICE said:
			
		

> Ladders, slides, poles and free-falls are all OK and you can do as you see fit with them but stairs are stairs.  If there are stairs, the stairs will be constructed following the code as written in R311 and will be considered as part of the MOE.


What would you do with a set of stair stepped book shelves 24 inches deep by 24" wide that step up 16" alongside a MOE stair wall?  Would you call those a stair or a book case even if you could walk up them and reach the second floor?   Or are we just stirring the pot a bit to keep a dead thread going?

There are two general sides to this issue...Both make valid arguments (and ridiculous ones too, myself included), but neither is changing their position.  Time to move on.


----------



## ICE (Mar 30, 2012)

Papio Bldg Dept said:
			
		

> What would you do with a set of stair stepped book shelves 24 inches deep by 24" wide that step up 16" alongside a MOE stair wall?  Would you call those a stair or a book case even if you could walk up them and reach the second floor?  * Or are we just stirring the pot a bit to keep a dead thread going?*There are two general sides to this issue...Both make valid arguments (and ridiculous ones too, myself included), but neither is changing their position.  Time to move on.


I'm not allowed to voice an opinion?  Yes there are two sides and one is correct.


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (Mar 30, 2012)

I have solved it.  I knew there was a prescriptive way around this little hot topic.  Simply build a 48" deep window well at the bottom of the stair case and then it is compliant:

_*R310.2.1  Ladder and steps. *__ Window wells with a vertical depth greater than 44 inches shall be equipped with a permanently affixed ladder or steps usable with the window in the fully open position.  __*Ladders or steps required by this section shall not be required to comply with Sections 311.5 and 311.6.*_

_"Where there is a code, there is a way."_  John Rutter


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (Mar 30, 2012)

ICE said:
			
		

> I'm not allowed to voice an opinion?  Yes there are two sides and one is correct.


Yes, you are allowed to voice an opinion, and we don't agree.  I am okay with that...I think you are too.

Welcome back to the fray tiger.


----------



## ICE (Mar 30, 2012)

Papio Bldg Dept said:
			
		

> I have solved it.  I knew there was a prescriptive way around this little hot topic.  Simply build a 48" deep window well at the bottom of the stair case and then it is compliant:_*R310.2.1  Ladder and steps. *__ Window wells with a vertical depth greater than 44 inches shall be equipped with a permanently affixed ladder or steps usable with the window in the fully open position.  __*Ladders or steps required by this section shall not be required to comply with Sections 311.5 and 311.6.*_
> 
> _"Where there is a code, there is a way."_  John Rutter


Well now you are being  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=INykEdJSIDs&feature=related

And just so that you know, post #23 was me stirring the pot.


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (Mar 30, 2012)

ICE said:
			
		

> Well now you are being  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=INykEdJSIDs&feature=related


Are you saying I am being goofy, or I am being an AJAX stair fixer?      It's Friday somewhere.


----------



## ICE (Mar 30, 2012)

Papio Bldg Dept said:
			
		

> Are you saying I am being goofy, or I am being an AJAX stair fixer?      It's Friday somewhere.


If Goofy built stairs, he could take lessons from your side of this thread.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Mar 30, 2012)

BSSTG said:
			
		

> I just hope no one ever breaks their neck on this thing.


I agree it can not be approved as a stair. Fail it as a set of stairs but mention it would be cute as a spiral plant stand. Tell the owner you will be back in a couple of days for a re-inspection. Then on your re-inspection document with photos the existance of a spiral plant stand and move on.


----------



## BSSTG (Mar 30, 2012)

Geez! I'm really itchin to hear back from ICC on this. Of course that won't answer the original question, but that's ok, it will be informative.

Yea MT, when I look at stairs I am mindful that some folks like a couple of martinis from time to time like me. And I've busted my carcass on my own stairs because the last step at the bottom is only about 5' since I added concrete there. In fact, these stairs as originally constructed did not have a legal handrail which caused my sister to fall and get banged up. Bear in mind this happened before I had ever looked at any code book besides the NEC so I didn't know the difference. I learned pretty quick when my sister fell though. They were quickly fixed.

BSSTG


----------



## brudgers (Mar 30, 2012)

texasbo said:
			
		

> Translation: The very best argument I could come up with is "since it violates the stair provisions, it isn't a stair", so I'll create a diversion with a worn out old insult involving poop, and I'll start talking about laundry chutes. Then maybe everyone will forget how ignorant my earlier post was.


  Suck in that chest.


----------



## brudgers (Mar 30, 2012)

texasbo said:
			
		

> Judgement is a critical skill required in our profession.


  You have mastered it.  Unfortunately, it is the poor kind.


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (Mar 30, 2012)

Each day is what we make of it, and I see an opportunity here.



			
				brudgers said:
			
		

> Suck in that chest.


I had an idea of what I wanted to eat but didn't have a recipe for it. This is what I did, and it was scrumptious.

Ingredients:

2 pigeons (ONLY country pigeons will do, well-fed on farmer's corn, etc.)

Olive oil

Balsamic vinegar

Garlic

Salt & Pepper

Pomegranate molasses (regular molasses will do)

Meat broth

Sprinkle of zatar and oregano

Bay leaf

1-2 c. red wine

3 onions, diced into chunks

2 carrots, cut into rounds

Celariac, diced

5-6 potatoes cut into rounds

Butter

Cheddar cheese, grated

Meat portion of the filling: Clean pigeons, remove the breast meat (which is red like a duck's) and marinate in oil, vinegar, garlic, pepper, and pomegranate molasses overnight. The following morning, put the meat and its marinade in the crock pot along with meat broth (I used pig broth I had previously made), a healthy sprinkle of zatar, a bay leaf, oregano, red wine. Set the crock pot on high for a few hours, then on low. Total crock time, 8 hours.

Veggie portion of the filling: In a heavy cast iron skillet, glazed onions with butter and olive oil. Add carrots, and a big piece of celeriac cut into small bits. When vegetables are soft, add potatoes (I used one Mila, a Magic Molly, a Troll, a Red Norland, a Red Maria...). Cover the skillet and keep flame on low. Flip the veggies regularly, checking for dryness, and add either butter or liquid from the meat to keep them moist. Total veggie time, 4.5 hours.

Crust: Blind-baked a bottom crust using the Nothing-in-the House pie crust recipe in a deep 9" pie mold.

Putting it all together: When the crust is blind-baking, combine the strained meat and the veggies in a bowl and add grated cheddar cheese, salt, and pepper. Fill the crust, covering it with a top crust and cut out a pigeon (or crust design of your choice). Bake the pie another 25-30 minutes to melt the cheese and bake the top crust.

Meanwhile,use the remaining broth and marinade from the meat to make a rue in the same cast iron skillet the veggies were cooked in.

The pie should be served with a sense of irony and tongue firmly in cheek. Bon Appetite.


----------



## brudgers (Mar 30, 2012)

ICE said:
			
		

> If Goofy built stairs, he could take lessons from your side of this thread.


  And if he built ladders?


----------



## brudgers (Mar 30, 2012)

BSSTG said:
			
		

> Geez! I'm really itchin to hear back from ICC on this. Of course that won't answer the original question, but that's ok, it will be informative.  Yea MT, when I look at stairs I am mindful that some folks like a couple of martinis from time to time like me. And I've busted my carcass on my own stairs because the last step at the bottom is only about 5' since I added concrete there. In fact, these stairs as originally constructed did not have a legal handrail which caused my sister to fall and get banged up. Bear in mind this happened before I had ever looked at any code book besides the NEC so I didn't know the difference. I learned pretty quick when my sister fell though. They were quickly fixed.  BSSTG


  A dwelling with a code compliant stair is more dangerous than one without sprinklers.


----------



## jhansen (Mar 30, 2012)

Good afternoon everyone, I usually just lurk but wanted to add to this conversation. I have been doing some research the last couple of days for an upcoming variance request for a home owner who installed non conforming steps.  What I found out was that 12,000 people a year in the US die from falls from stairs.

Just because a stair is not a required exit does not mean that people who use it and wont fall. For that reason I enforce the stairway provisions for all stairs constructed.

http://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/pdf/coffee-break/cb_fp_2010_52.pdf


----------



## texasbo (Mar 30, 2012)

brudgers said:
			
		

> What sort of tread and riser requirements do you choose to enforce on a laundry chute?


How many steps are in the recovery program that you surely must be entering soon? Your posts indicate that your drinking problem has returned.

And while we're talking about poop, and chutes, how about that poopchute you call a design studio? You squeezed out any noncomplying secondary stairs lately, and told the client it was ok because it wasn't a stair?

You are incompetent, and a menace to the public. Such a design should not only be red-tagged, but should reported to the state board of architectural examiners.

It's not a "thingy", or a "folly", or a plant stand, or a climbing wall, or a fire pole, or any of the other ridiculous nomenclature that's been bandied about in 7 pages that make me weep for the future of our profession. It's an effing stair, and it doesn't comply with the code.

Based on your history of carelessness for public safety, and gross negligence in the application of the code, I'm not at all surprised with the assclownery I've seen from you. You are a perfect example of why many architects have diminished their profession to something between a laborer with no education, and a paraprofessional such as a draftsmen or surveyor. Despite the professionalism exhibited by many of the other architects on this forum, the negligence and ineptitude you display are examples of why there are so many architects who are unemployed, have changed careers, and/or are being paid little more than the guy up on the roof swinging the hammer.

But despite my lack of surprise at your ridiculous posts, I am saddened that there are actual building professionals on this forum who are willing to wink at it in a dwelling, while fully admitting it wouldn't be allowed elsewhere, and those building professionals who liken a stair violation to such nonsense as a climbing wall, fire pole, or a piece of art.


----------



## texasbo (Mar 30, 2012)

jhansen said:
			
		

> Good afternoon everyone, I usually just lurk but wanted to add to this conversation. I have been doing some research the last couple of days for an upcoming variance request for a home owner who installed non conforming steps.  What I found out was that 12,000 people a year in the US die from falls from stairs.Just because a stair is not a required exit does not mean that people who use it and wont fall. For that reason I enforce the stairway provisions for all stairs constructed.
> 
> http://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/pdf/coffee-break/cb_fp_2010_52.pdf


No, they don't die from falls from stairs. They die from falls from "thingies"


----------



## brudgers (Mar 30, 2012)

texasbo said:
			
		

> How many steps are in the recovery program that you surely must be entering soon? Your posts indicate that your drinking problem has returned.   And while we're talking about poop, and chutes, how about that poopchute you call a design studio? You squeezed out any noncomplying secondary stairs lately, and told the client it was ok because it wasn't a stair?   You are incompetent, and a menace to the public. Such a design should not only be red-tagged, but should reported to the state board of architectural examiners.  It's not a "thingy", or a "folly", or a plant stand, or a climbing wall, or a fire pole, or any of the other ridiculous nomenclature that's been bandied about in 7 pages that make me weep for the future of our profession. It's an effing stair, and it doesn't comply with the code.  Based on your history of carelessness for public safety, and gross negligence in the application of the code, I'm not at all surprised with the assclownery I've seen from you. You are a perfect example of why many architects have diminished their profession to something between a laborer with no education, and a paraprofessional such as a draftsmen or surveyor. Despite the professionalism exhibited by many of the other architects on this forum, the negligence and ineptitude you display are examples of why there are so many architects who are unemployed, have changed careers, and/or are being paid little more than the guy up on the roof swinging the hammer.  But despite my lack of surprise at your ridiculous posts, I am saddened that there are actual building professionals on this forum who are willing to wink at it in a dwelling, while fully admitting it wouldn't be allowed elsewhere, and those building professionals who liken a stair violation to such nonsense as a climbing wall, fire pole, or a piece of art.


  Suck in your chest.


----------



## texasbo (Mar 30, 2012)

brudgers said:
			
		

> Suck in your chest.


Do you read Architectural Digest while you're squeezing this stuff out?


----------



## brudgers (Mar 30, 2012)

jhansen said:
			
		

> Good afternoon everyone, I usually just lurk but wanted to add to this conversation. I have been doing some research the last couple of days for an upcoming variance request for a home owner who installed non conforming steps.  What I found out was that 12,000 people a year in the US die from falls from stairs.  Just because a stair is not a required exit does not mean that people who use it and wont fall. For that reason I enforce the stairway provisions for all stairs constructed.  http://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/pdf/coffee-break/cb_fp_2010_52.pdf


  More people die from intentional self inflicted gunshots a year.   You can't regulate stupidity.

  But Texas has been known to hire it into building official positions.


----------



## texasbo (Mar 30, 2012)

brudgers said:
			
		

> More people die from intentional self inflicted gunshots a year.   You can't regulate stupidity.
> 
> But Texas has been known to hire it into building official positions.


I see a framing hammer in your future. Or jail.


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (Mar 30, 2012)

jhansen said:
			
		

> Good afternoon everyone, I usually just lurk but wanted to add to this conversation. I have been doing some research the last couple of days for an upcoming variance request for a home owner who installed non conforming steps.  What I found out was that 12,000 people a year in the US die from falls from stairs.Just because a stair is not a required exit does not mean that people who use it and wont fall. For that reason I enforce the stairway provisions for all stairs constructed.
> 
> http://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/pdf/coffee-break/cb_fp_2010_52.pdf


thanks for posting and welcome to the forum!

just curious, of those 12,000 falls from stairs, only half occur in residential applications?  So now we are at 6,000 stair deaths in SFR?

Do you know if the dimensional criteria used in the Coffee Break report were used to establish which of all stair deaths were caused by non-compliant stairs?  If this is the case, we should have seen a sharp drop in stair case deaths when jurisdictions switched from the 2003 IRC to the 2006.


----------



## jhansen (Mar 30, 2012)

The numbers are just a total of all accidental deaths that were caused by falls from stairs. I am sure some of the falls were from code compliant stairs. I am not trying to make the point that if all stairs are code compliant that there would be no accidents, just saying that accidents would be reduced if all stairs had a uniform rise, run, adequate width, hand/guard rail, ext....


----------



## mtlogcabin (Mar 30, 2012)

> I am saddened that there are actual building professionals on this forum who are willing to wink at it in a dwelling, while fully admitting it wouldn't be allowed elsewhere, and those building professionals who liken a stair violation to such nonsense as a climbing wall, fire pole, or a piece of art.


Texasbo

I agree as a stair it is a violation and needs to be addressed but it does not need to be removed or even corrected

Some fights are not worth the battle and to take this to a variance board to get approval (most variance boards are wimps) when there is already a compliant stair serving the area is not worth the fight. I would work to get the homeowner to agree to install a guard at the top and agree to use it for some other purpose, a shelving unit, plant stand or whatever then to tell them it has to be removed. There is always more than one solution to a problem.  If the homeowner chooses to do something different after we leave so be it.

A variance board should never have a part in the decision of application of any building, fire or life safety code


----------



## BSSTG (Mar 30, 2012)

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> A variance board should never have a part in the decision of application of any building, fire or life safety code


That's precisely the point which started this thread. In my case the variance committee is only allowed to do variances for building and subdivision code, not life safety code. Hence the original question about NFPA 101. Now truth be known, I really don't care much for variance committees either after having seen all of this. Nevertheless, I have to deal with it best I can. It's not something that's going to go away even after I hit the Mega Millions tonight. It's just that someone else will have to deal with it.

BSSTG


----------



## AegisFPE (Mar 30, 2012)

Where a compliant MOE stair is provided, I cannot agree that the code would prohibit you from rescuing a legacy spiral stair you remember from a house in your childhood, which is now being torn down, and install it in such a manner that it connects two levels of your home (which are already provided with compliant MOE). This is a clear distinction from someone attempting to replace their sole modern existing MOE stair, or adding a new loft where this legacy stair is the only access.

I cannot get behind the approach of installing a guard per R312 only at the top. While it may technically meet the code, it would effectively trap someone ascending the legacy staircase at the top (imagine propensity for a fall of trying to turn around at the top the staircase, or climbing over the guard!) Upon removal of the guard by the occupants _(because it was only installed after the AHJ strong-armed them and made them install it as an impediment to using the legacy stair, which they may want to do from time-to-time for nostalgia-sake)_ would eliminate any protection it was intended to offer.

Perhaps a more amicable solution would be "an approved barrier (similar to a swinging gate found at the LOED per IBC 1022.7)" that complies with the opening limitations of R312, and is installed at the top of the legacy staircase to prevent persons from unintentionally descending. This could be approved per R104.11 as an alternative to a guard which would be prescribed per R312 to be provided along floor openings, as the legacy staircase is less of a hazard than the edge of a balcony, but more of a hazard than a modern stair.

Through this process the applicant could be educated in why stair provisions have changed, and the concerns of the AHJ. Get their buy-in that they want to keep their home safe for guests of all ages, and let them develop a self-closing barrier device that readily allows occupants ascending the stair to get to the upper floor without having to man-handle some latch system, while requiring someone to have to intentionally open the barrier to descend the legacy stair. If they had a hand in developing an aesthetically pleasing solution, they may not be as likely to remove it.



			
				permitguy said:
			
		

> Nope, but I don't see people coming and going through windows with the frequency I see people descending and ascending stairways.





			
				Papio Bldg Dept said:
			
		

> just curious, of those 12,000 falls from stairs, only half occur in residential applications? So now we are at 6,000 stair deaths in SFR?


_"The researchers examined emergency department data from the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System (NEISS) for 1990 to 2008. The analysis included an estimated 98,415 children and teens -- 5,180 per year -- who were treated for injuries related to falling out of windows.__(MedPage, 8/21/11)__"_ As this number excludes adults falling from windows, the total annual number of falls from windows may exceed 6,000 persons, such that falls from windows may be comparable to falls down stairs.

And of those 6,000 falls down SFR stairs, I wonder how many of those victims had a choice in "stairs." Was there only one option, or could they have chosen an alternative route? Where there is a more "challenging" "stair" or a stair that complies with current MOE criteria, I would expect fall-prone and risk-averse occupants to utilize the MOE stair. Where both are provided, the minimum level of safety prescribed by the code is achieved.

And what about falls in bathtubs or showers? Stairs are small potatoes! _"The State of Home Safety in America™ Report (2002) found that injuries related to bathtubs and showers caused more than 170,000 emergency room visits in a single year. __(Home Safety Council No. 14, pg.8)__"_


----------



## AegisFPE (Mar 30, 2012)

With regard to NFPA 101, there is a similar provision for a barrier provided with stairs in Section 7.7.3.2. However, insofaras the subject legacy stair is not part of the means of egress, it may be considered part of the building, such that NFPA 101 may not apply. Regardless, NFPA 101 also provides for alternatives to be approved by the authority in Section 1.4.3.


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (Mar 30, 2012)

Thanks Aegis!

I have no intention of riding this dead horse home, let alone into next week.  Have a great weekend everyone, take care and watch your step.


----------



## imhotep (Mar 30, 2012)

AegisFPE said:
			
		

> Where a compliant MOE stair is provided, I cannot agree that the code would prohibit you from rescuing a legacy spiral stair you remember from a house in your childhood, which is now being torn down, and install it in such a manner that it connects two levels of your home (which are already provided with compliant MOE). This is a clear distinction from someone attempting to replace their sole modern existing MOE stair, or adding a new loft where this legacy stair is the only access. I cannot get behind the approach of installing a guard per R312 only at the top. While it may technically meet the code, it would effectively trap someone ascending the legacy staircase at the top (imagine propensity for a fall of trying to turn around at the top the staircase, or climbing over the guard!) Upon removal of the guard by the occupants _(because it was only installed after the AHJ strong-armed them and made them install it as an impediment to using the legacy stair, which they may want to do from time-to-time for nostalgia-sake)_ would eliminate any protection it was intended to offer.
> 
> Perhaps a more amicable solution would be "an approved barrier (similar to a swinging gate found at the LOED per IBC 1022.7)" that complies with the opening limitations of R312, and is installed at the top of the legacy staircase to prevent persons from unintentionally descending. This could be approved per R104.11 as an alternative to a guard which would be prescribed per R312 to be provided along floor openings, as the legacy staircase is less of a hazard than the edge of a balcony, but more of a hazard than a modern stair.
> 
> ...


Well said.  It's funny that just saying guard per R312 conjured-up an image of a solid wall with no provision to pass through to the floor opening and 'legacy spiral stair'.  It reminds me once again that it just ain't real 'till it's on paper.


----------



## permitguy (Mar 30, 2012)

As already posted, the IRC has recognized the problem with falls from windows and addressed it.  Unless of course someone calls it "an operable piece of transparent art installed in plane with the wall."  Then I guess it doesn't have to meet those requirements.


----------



## jhansen (Mar 30, 2012)

Aegis

12,000 people dont fall down stairs, 12,000 people die when they fall down stairs. Stairs are by far the number one hazard in a SFR..... The number of accidents are much much higher.

The only accident that kills more people than stair falls and car accidents


----------



## ICE (Mar 30, 2012)

brudgers said:
			
		

> And if he built ladders?


----------



## brudgers (Mar 30, 2012)

jhansen said:
			
		

> Stairs are by far the number one hazard in a SFR


  The hazard of stairs in a dwelling pales in comparison to the hazard of a fire arm.


----------



## texasbo (Mar 30, 2012)

brudgers said:
			
		

> The hazard of stairs in a dwelling pales in comparison to the hazard of a fire arm.


Amen. And the ICC is proposing an amendment to the IRC regarding firearms as we speak. Or squeeze.


----------



## ICE (Mar 30, 2012)

texasbo said:
			
		

> Or squeeze.


Sometimes I wonder how on Earth I managed to buy into a group that included you two.  Then I read some of my own stuff and I understand.

Quote Originally Posted by KZQuixote View Post

I say now, I mean, I say now!

Can we have a moment of silence while the International Ice Code spontaneously generates a new code section requiring ladder blocking under non-bearing partitions.

Of course because this new section will be uniformly enforced across his concrete jungle, it'll be OK!

FogHorn

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

One Eye you do get around don't you. We all pretty much agreed that there is no code for that. And could you get the code straight please. It is not International. It is Intergalactic. Your sister Texasbo named it that because she didn't want to be left out. Big surprise, that one. Y'all thought Scooter was a guy huh. I know...I was just as surprised as you are. Best part is, she wanted to say prophylactic code because she thinks my name is Dick. A head that big you would figure that the brain was a workhorse. What a disappointment; don't you agree?

Tiger


----------



## AegisFPE (Mar 30, 2012)

jhansen said:
			
		

> 12,000 people dont fall down stairs, 12,000 people die when they fall down stairs. Stairs are by far the number one hazard in a SFR..... The number of accidents are much much higher.


That statistic is misleading for the subject case for multiple reasons:

1. The subject project already has 1 MOE stair which could be part of these statistics.

2. The offered statistics do not indicate the number of fatal falls attributed to spiral stairs (I am guessing this number would be minor, in part due to the limited number of spiral stairs compared to straight runs, and further due to the geometry where the victim is apt to fall into the spiral railing, which may tend to limit the falling person's velocity or distance, whereas the only thing to break your fall in a straight run is the bottom landing.)

3. It is not stated how many of the incidents occurred where an alternative stair was present. If I visit the subject project, I have the choice of going down the spiral stair or the compliant MOE. If I feel uncomfortable about traversing the spiral stairs, the MOE stairs are available to me, posing no greater risk than compliant MOE stairs in another home.

Therefore, with the addition of the spiral staircase, the minimum requirements for MOE stairs are still met such that the provisions of the code are satisfied.


----------



## ICE (Mar 30, 2012)

I had a case years ago where the step rise was near 16" on an exterior staircase to a second floor balcony attached to a residence.  The lady that lived there explained that she has a daycare business for toddlers and didn't want them to climb the stairs.  I had to back my way down but I didn't back down.

You guys are too much with an open season approach.  It's almost like a battle between code enforcement and stay out of my business.  This is also the first time in ages that brudgers has had a posse.


----------



## KZQuixote (Mar 30, 2012)

texasbo said:
			
		

> I see a framing hammer in your future. Or jail.


Dude! While I've never met Ben, I'm sure he has not a clue about the difference between a framing hammer and a finish hammer.

Ted


----------



## KZQuixote (Mar 30, 2012)

ICE said:
			
		

> Sometimes I wonder how on Earth I managed to buy into a group that included you two.  Then I read some of my own stuff and I understand.Quote Originally Posted by KZQuixote View Post
> 
> I say now, I mean, I say now!
> 
> ...


Hey Ice,

I testify at depositions and trials. I'd love to get the chance to call on you to expound on the Intergalactic Ice Code in front of a jury.

 Foggy


----------



## ICE (Mar 30, 2012)

KZQuixote said:
			
		

> Hey Ice,I testify at depositions and trials. I'd love to get the chance to call on you to expound on the Intergalactic Ice Code in front of a jury.
> 
> Foggy


Been sued a lot huh.  It sounds like you act as your own attorney.  That's predictable.


----------



## texasbo (Mar 31, 2012)

ICE said:
			
		

> Sometimes I wonder how on Earth I managed to buy into a group that included you two.  Then I read some of my own stuff and I understand.Quote Originally Posted by KZQuixote View Post
> 
> I say now, I mean, I say now!
> 
> ...


Wow. Although you have a history of posting some strange stuff after happy hour, I'm working my way backwards, and pardon me if I'm wrong, but this was posted 5 hours ago, and it's currently 11:21 here in the Lone Star State. That means it was posted at 4:21 Cali time. No problem, I guess; it's Friday after all. But typically I would expect at least half a day's drinkin' to work up a post that incoherent.  So I'm assuming you just put in four today?

And no, I didn't think your name was Dick, but I did always assume, you know, given your fascination with sexual metaphors (as evidenced above), that your avatar was actually a Freudian projection of yourself. Well, you know what I mean. Don't feel humiliated though; the girls are laughing because it's dancing...


----------



## texasbo (Mar 31, 2012)

ICE said:
			
		

> Sometimes I wonder how on Earth I managed to buy into a group that included you two.  Then I read some of my own stuff and I understand.


You're flattering yourself again.


----------



## texasbo (Mar 31, 2012)

ICE said:
			
		

> This is also the first time in ages that brudgers has had a posse.


Get out of here! Brudgers has had a posse for ages; you've been sniffing it as long as you've been on this forum.


----------



## ICE (Mar 31, 2012)

That's the first comment I've gotten about the pencil.  Even I think it's a bit annoying but gosh you've overreacted.


----------



## brudgers (Mar 31, 2012)

KZQuixote said:
			
		

> I testify at depositions and trials.


  That's hardly a surprise.


----------



## permitguy (Mar 31, 2012)

> That statistic is misleading for the subject case for multiple reasons


Respectfully, I think you're obscuring the larger point.  Regardless of the idiosyncracies of the stat, it certainly establishes the need to regulate stairways for occupant safety.  As long as we have had such regulations being enforced in this country, and as rare as spiral stairways are compared to traditional stairways, I'm willing to bet that the majority of these injuries occurred on non-spiral stairways that were compliant to some standard when they were built (anecdotal, I admit).  What does that tell you about the spiral stair in the OP?

As an FPE, you're aware that we go to much greater lengths at much greater expense to protect people from the ravages of fire, even with much fewer deaths recorded each year.  On that note, allowing a non-compliant stairway is akin to saying I don't need to extend sprinklers to the east wing of the building because the west wing already has them.  Maybe there will never be a fire in the east wing, and maybe nobody will ever be injured on this non-compliant spiral stairway.  That isn't really the point.

I keep hoping that this whole thread is a very elaborate joke, and tomorrow someone is going to post "April Fool's!" . . . **door opens for someone to quote this and criticize my level of knowledge as a joke**


----------



## ICE (Mar 31, 2012)

permitguy said:
			
		

> I keep hoping that this whole thread is a very elaborate joke, and tomorrow someone is going to post "April Fool's!"


That someone would be brudgers.


----------



## brudgers (Mar 31, 2012)

permitguy said:
			
		

> Respectfully, I think you're obscuring the larger point.  Regardless of the idiosyncracies of the stat, it certainly establishes the need to regulate stairways for occupant safety.  As long as we have had such regulations being enforced in this country, and as rare as spiral stairways are compared to traditional stairways, I'm willing to bet that the majority of these injuries occurred on non-spiral stairways that were compliant to some standard when they were built (anecdotal, I admit).  What does that tell you about the spiral stair in the OP?


  Nothing really relevant.  What this thread shows is the inability of people to think about why the particular code requirements that are creating heartburn about THIS SET OF STAIRS, exist.

  4" sphere - to keep children's heads from getting stuck - ears are like the barb on a fish hook.

  Minimum width - to allow EMT evacuation.

  Stairs are inherently dangerous.

  Strict code compliance mitigates some of the danger, but not the most significant one,

  the physical decline which accompanies old age.

  It's mostly old people who die in falls.

  Any change of level becomes an increasing hazard as we age.

  And we are an increasingly aging population.

  The proposed construction is not good design.

  Not because of the particular configuration of the vertical access elements.

  But because it is two stories.

  Once you go there, you cannot make the dwelling very safe.

  Short of an elevator.

  Which is even more of a problematic as a "stairway" than what is under consideration.


----------



## ICE (Mar 31, 2012)

texasbo said:
			
		

> Get out of here! Brudgers has had a posse for ages; you've been sniffing it as long as you've been on this forum.


Your lack of wit is exceeded only by your lack of class.  I suppose it's time that I left you alone in order to spare the rest from further embarrassment.  Yes I'll do that and include your brother too.  Well.....maybe not right away.

Ya know, it's not too late for you two characters





 Pay attention to the tricks in the video and see if you can't figure a way to imitate a normal psyche.  Watch for subtle signs of success like not having to eat your lunch alone every day and remember that it's a long process with a lot of small steps so don't expect immediate results but rather, wait a few months and then ask the people that mean the most to you if they still find you boorish.  You  may have to expand the circle 'cause palm readers, prostitutes and parole officers are known to lie.


----------



## KZQuixote (Mar 31, 2012)

Ice,

Your taunt to TBO "Your lack of wit is exceeded only by your lack of class..."

I would have sent this to you by Personal Message but you have forbidden them.

You are lacking in any measure of class!, you are are the *** boasting about the size of your head/dick!

Jeff, will you please reign this character in?

Bill


----------



## ICE (Mar 31, 2012)

> Ice,Your taunt to TBO "Your lack of wit is exceeded only by your lack of class..."
> 
> I would have sent this to you by Personal Message but you have forbidden them.
> 
> ...


Well Ted, as usual, you've blundered.  My mention of the "big head" was a reference to your sister Yosemite Samantha's huge melon.  It's nearly as big as the rest of her body.

While it's admirable that you would stick up for a sibling, a plaintive cry for Jeff's help could be taken as a sign of surrender.  I don't take prisoners and Jeff will tell you that boys will be boys....well except for Scooter...that's a case of gender reassignment gone awry.

I thought about sending this next part by PM but I just don't do that.

I'll forgive you Ted, if you will say that you are sorry.  You really should try that.  You'd be surprised how much better that can make you feel.

Take a deep breath....think of your happy place (If you are still welcome there).....and write it....."I'm sorry Tiger, please forgive me."

And Theodore, a cut and paste isn't from the heart.

Oh I almost forgot, I turned off the PM because of you.  The last bomb you sent there was enough for me.  Now that I've mentioned it, What's for lunch?


----------



## texasbo (Apr 2, 2012)

ICE said:
			
		

> Your lack of wit is exceeded only by your lack of class.  Then a bunch of other rambling, and some reference to a Youtube video that nobody cares about.


Help me here; is this the kind of class I should aspire to, or some other kind of class?

http://www.inspectpa.com/forum/showthread.php?7949-Gas-logs&p=76802&viewfull=1#post76802

The example above was just the first one that came to mind, but I could post others (the ones you haven't deleted yet).Thanks in advance for your help.


----------



## texasbo (Apr 2, 2012)

ICE said:
			
		

> More classy insight, then:While it's admirable that you would stick up for a sibling, a plaintive cry for Jeff's help could be taken as a sign of surrender.  I don't take prisoners and Jeff will tell you that boys will be boys....


You would know, I suppose. It wasn't that long ago that you went crying for Mommy like a little schoolgirl, only to be told to put your big girl panties on. It was pathetic, but it was funny too.


----------



## ICE (Apr 2, 2012)

texasbo said:
			
		

> You would know, I suppose. It wasn't that long ago that you went crying for Mommy like a little schoolgirl, only to be told to put your big girl panties on. It was pathetic, but it was funny too.


I'd love to revisit that one so be a doll and take us back in time.


----------

