# Egress Courts



## EPrice (Feb 9, 2011)

I have a two part question regarding egress courts.  I'll start with the first part of my question.  Then, depending on how the responses go, I'll continue with the second part of my question.

Suppose an exit door leads from a building into the side yard of the building.  To travel from the exit, to the public way, one would travel between, and parallel to, the wall of the building and the side property line until one reaches the public way.  I believe this yard is an egress court as regulated by IBC 1027.5.  It is not intuitive that a yard is a court, but I believe the definition of "Egress Court" in chapter 10 makes this yard an egress court.  Do you all agree with me so far, or no?


----------



## AegisFPE (Feb 9, 2011)

From chapter 2, a court must be bounded on 3 sides.  If you are only bounded on 2 sides (your building and the future wall of some building on the adjacent property line) then it may not meet the definition of a court.


----------



## RLGA (Feb 9, 2011)

EPrice: I would agree with you that, per the definition in the IBC, what you've described is an egress court.


----------



## texasbo (Feb 9, 2011)

Strangely, the code defines egress court as a yard or court..., so I agree.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Feb 9, 2011)

YARD. An open space, other than a court , unobstructed from the ground to the sky, except where specifically provided by this code, on the lot on which a building is situated.

COURT. An open, uncovered space, unobstructed to the sky, bounded on three or more sides by exterior building walls or other enclosing devices

Unless you have a fence or other enclosing device what you describe is not a court


----------



## texasbo (Feb 9, 2011)

1002 Egress Court has a different definition.


----------



## EPrice (Feb 9, 2011)

AegisFPE said:
			
		

> From chapter 2, a court must be bounded on 3 sides.  If you are only bounded on 2 sides (your building and the future wall of some building on the adjacent property line) then it may not meet the definition of a court.





			
				mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> YARD. An open space, other than a court , unobstructed from the ground to the sky, except where specifically provided by this code, on the lot on which a building is situated.COURT. An open, uncovered space, unobstructed to the sky, bounded on three or more sides by exterior building walls or other enclosing devices
> 
> Unless you have a fence or other enclosing device what you describe is not a court


I agree, what I described in my opening post does not meet the chapter 2 definition of a "Court".  It is a "Yard".  However, the Chapter 10 definition of an "Egress Court" defines something that can be a yard or a court.  IMO what I described in my opening post does meet the chapter 10 definition of an "Egress Court".



> *EGRESS COURT* A court or yard which provides access to a public way for one or more exits.


This discussion illustrates why I wanted to discuss the first part of my question before moving on to the second part


----------



## texasbo (Feb 9, 2011)

Well, I think I can speak for all of us in saying the suspense is unbearable.

What can we offer you to move on to the second question, EPrice?


----------



## EPrice (Feb 9, 2011)

Very well, assuming that this yard is an egress court, how do we apply the requirements of 1027.5.2 if the yard is less than 10' wide?  The wall of the building will need to be 1-hour rated, but do we need to worry about the property line side of this egress court if the adjoining property is currently vacant?  Does 1027.5.2 say that, because the property owner has no control over what happens on the other side of the property line, the yard needs to be at least 10' wide if it is to be used as an egress court?  Or, can we rely on the fact that if, in the future, a building is built on the other side, close to the property line, Table 602 will require that wall to be 1-hour rated as well?


----------



## mtlogcabin (Feb 9, 2011)

do we need to worry about the property line side of this egress court if the adjoining property is currently vacant? No

can we rely on the fact that if, in the future, a building is built on the other side, close to the property line, Table 602 will require that wall to be 1-hour rated as well? Yes all occupancies and construction types less than 10 ft from a property line require a minimum one hour protection


----------



## AegisFPE (Feb 9, 2011)

> ...the Chapter 10 definition of an "Egress Court" defines something that can be a yard or a court. IMO what I described in my opening post does meet the chapter 10 definition of an "Egress Court".


If this were the case, then seemingly any exit from a building is likely into an "Egress Court."  I do not think this is the intent of the code.  However, it is interesting that in the Egress Court definition "yard" is italicized, but "court" is not!


----------



## JBI (Feb 9, 2011)

Currently the code requires the rating for less than 10' from the property line or adjacent building, true. Code provisions have been known to change, however this particular provision will likely get more restrictive before it gets less restrictive (it's survived many code cycles in many legacy codes).  One of the reasons for the provision is _because_ you don't know what will happen on the adjacent lot. As a vacant lot, the building next door poses little risk of life or property loss (clean up and re-seed after a fire maybe?).


----------



## texasbo (Feb 10, 2011)

EPrice: I suspected that was where you were going.

1024.5.2 requires 1 hour construction, 3/4 hour openings, if the egress court is less than 10' wide. As you and others have said, the walls/openings of the subject building will be taken care of at plan review. Similarly, exterior walls in future structures will also take care of themselves,  but openings in exterior walls of a future structure could be an issue, depending on it's location to PL, if the designer/plans examiner was not aware of the egress court.

Your point is well made.


----------



## Yikes (Feb 10, 2011)

EPrice  - as a practical matter, if you are having problems with the "protected opening" issue, you may find this link interesting as an alternate means of compliance that is allowed by th Los Angeles Building Department:

http://ladbs.org/LADBSWeb/LADBS_Forms/InformationBulletins/IB-P-BC2002-106WaterCurtain.pdf

(note that their code reference is obsolete but the concept is still valid and approvable)


----------



## AegisFPE (Feb 10, 2011)

I was involved with a project in San Diego that used exterior deluge systems for exposure protection.  It can be a significant cost to the common building in order to achieve near the system reliability that passive protection would provide.


----------



## Yikes (Feb 10, 2011)

Yeah, this curtain system woul drequire 15 GPM for a head that would cover one 6' wide window.  I'm using this now on a project in LA where there are bedroom emergency escape windows which MUST remain openable, at the same time that I need 45 minute protection.  It affects 4 ground floor bedroom windows, for a total increase of 60 GPM on my sprinkler load.

In that instance, not too heavy a premium.


----------

