# Fire wall to protect exterior stair parallel and close to property line



## Yikes (Feb 2, 2011)

See attached image.CBC/ IBC 1027.3 says that exterior stairs must be at least 10’ from adjacent property lines.I have a development on a very tight site, and my exterior stair is only 5’ from property line.  I would like to propose too add a fire wall parallel to the stair that protects it from the neighbor, but still leaves it open on the end (not facing the neighbor) and without a roof.The CBO is telling me that such an arrangement is impossible since it is (a) an exterior stair by definition, and (b) it is less than 10’ from property line.  She says her hands are tied in this matter.Isn’t there another way to look at this?

View attachment 1486


View attachment 1486


/monthly_2011_02/1.jpg_0001.jpg.70ba76f854023e60515d095f7a5e83d2.jpg


----------



## AegisFPE (Feb 2, 2011)

Your design appears to seek to apply the part of the provision that you omitted:



> ...unless the adjacent building exterior walls and openings are protected in accordance with Section 705 based on fire separation distance. (CBC 1027.3)


  Your wall appears to address this requirement.It may be necessary to continue the wall beyond the face of the building for the lesser distance of either:


The edge of the public way
A sufficient distance where occupants could turn and discharge across the face of the building away from the property line
Also, the height of the wall may be able to be limited based on Sections 1026.6 and 1027.5.2.

Has the door from the floor on the level of exit discharge beneath the stair landing been included in this discussion?  Moving the wall to the property line could address both exit discharge locations.


----------



## FyrBldgGuy (Feb 3, 2011)

Put a roof over it, and sprinkler coverage in the space.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Feb 3, 2011)

Ditto AegisFPE


----------



## Gene Boecker (Feb 3, 2011)

The problem with the added wall is that the stair would no longer meet the definition for an exterior stair. Exterior stairs require (1026.3 - 2009 IBC is the base code for the CBC).

However, THAT is a minor point and worth pursuing as noted by both my colleagues.  The purpose for the side opening is to allow any smoke entering the balcony or stair to vent freely to the atmosphere.  Without a roof, that purpose is accomplished.  It may require a code modification, but the proposal will work.


----------



## brudgers (Feb 3, 2011)

If it doesn't meet the requirements of an open stair it must meet the requirements of a shaft enclosure.


----------



## High Desert (Feb 3, 2011)

Your other option is to construct it as an exit enclosure.


----------



## Gene Boecker (Feb 3, 2011)

brudgers said:
			
		

> If it doesn't meet the requirements of an open stair it must meet the requirements of a shaft enclosure.


Ben, why do your comments never align with Milton's Rule?


----------



## Yikes (Feb 3, 2011)

I think what is going on is that the building official needs clarification on the definition of Stairway, Exterior:

_"A stairway that is open on at least one side, except for required structural columns, beams, handrails and guards. The adjoining open areas shall be either yards, courts or "public ways. The other sides of the exterior stairway need not be open."_

The problem is what is meant by the word "*side*".  Even if we put a south wall in as per the sketch, she is looking at the bottom landing of the stair and considering it one of the "sides" of the stair... therefore the stair is still exterior... therefore it must be 10' from any property line.

I would be just as happy to define it as an interior stairway, but she says this is impossible unless it has walls completely surrounding, e.g. a *four-sided *box.

Is there any code commentary that would define the "side" of the stair as the part that is parallel to the run and stringers - -the part that has handrail - not the top or bottom landing?

(I don't have a copy of the code commentary.)


----------



## brudgers (Feb 3, 2011)

Gene Boecker said:
			
		

> Ben, why do your comments never align with Milton's Rule?


Milton didn't expect every plan to be approved.

He only wanted me to be disappointed when I couldn't.

For example, Milton would have expected a death trap of a stair to be rejected because there's no reasonable interpretation of the code which can be applied.

On the other hand, if the only thing missing from a tenant improvement is a single exit sign, Milton's rule means writing "exit sign required" on the plan in red ink at the door location and issuing the damn permit.


----------



## brudgers (Feb 3, 2011)

Yikes said:
			
		

> I think what is going on is that the building official needs clarification on the definition of Stairway, Exterior:_"A stairway that is open on at least one side, except for required structural columns, beams, handrails and guards. The adjoining open areas shall be either yards, courts or "public ways. The other sides of the exterior stairway need not be open."_
> 
> The problem is what is meant by the word "*side*".  Even if we put a south wall in as per the sketch, she is looking at the bottom landing of the stair and considering it one of the "sides" of the stair... therefore the stair is still exterior... therefore it must be 10' from any property line.
> 
> ...


Side means side, not end. Even if you get a permit it's still wrong.


----------



## Yikes (Feb 4, 2011)

brudgers, I agree, but my problem is I need something more than "my code forum friends say that side = side"...

Does anyone have a code commentary / illustration that would explain this more fully?


----------



## texasbo (Feb 4, 2011)

Brudgers is making up codes again. Definition of Stairway, Exterior: A stairway that is open on at least one side, except for structural columns, beams, handrails and guards. The adjoining open areas shall either be yards, courts or public ways. The other sideS of the exterior stairway need not be open.

Notice it says the other sideS. It says that because a rectangle doesn't have two sides and two ends, it has 4 sides. An exterior stair needs one side open, and the code doesn't specify which of the four sides it has to be.

The UBC used to require 2 adjacent sideS to be open. Maybe the SBCCI had similar language and he's just confused.

At any rate, I tend to "side" with Aegis and Gene on this one.


----------



## brudgers (Feb 4, 2011)

It's a Florida thing.


----------



## texasbo (Feb 4, 2011)

Edit: Acerbic response rendered unnecessary by brudgers' edit.


----------



## Yikes (Feb 4, 2011)

texasbo said:
			
		

> Brudgers is making up codes again. Definition of Stairway, Exterior: A stairway that is open on at least one side, except for structural columns, beams, handrails and guards. The adjoining open areas shall either be yards, courts or public ways. The other sideS of the exterior stairway need not be open.Notice it says the other sideS. It says that because a rectangle doesn't have two sides and two ends, it has 4 sides. An exterior stair needs one side open, and the code doesn't specify which of the four sides it has to be.
> 
> The UBC used to require 2 adjacent sideS to be open. Maybe the SBCCI had similar language and he's just confused.
> 
> At any rate, I tend to "side" with Aegis and Gene on this one.


texasbo - to play devil's advocate here - I once had an exterior stair that wrapped around the corner of a building in an "L" shape (with an intermediate landing at the corner).

Using brudgers definition, it had a "top", a "bottom", 2 closed sides (against the building), and 2 open sides.... total of 6 surface planes.

So there's a scenario you could still have plural open "sides" as well as a top and bottom.

So i'm not sure if the plural word "sides"  settles the issue of whether "top" and "bottom" do/don't also exist as a legitimate definition in discussing stairs.

Take it a step further, using my plan shown in the attachment.  I could put a wall in as shown, put on a roof, and put a wall and door at the bottom landing, and call it an exit enclosure.  What is the fire rating of the exterior exit door - -zero minutes?  Is a door even needed?  Can I have unlimited openings on this wall face?  If so, what's the physical difference between a "wall with unlimited openings" (an interior stair) and "no wall at all" (an exterior stair) at the bottom landing?


----------



## texasbo (Feb 4, 2011)

My answer was based solely on your drawing. As shown on your drawing, it is, by code, an exterior stair. And it is legal, except for distance to property line.

The acceptance of "fire wall" type protection would be up to the jurisdiction.

1023.3, 2006 IBC says you must have a minimum 35 square feet open area adjacent to each floor level and the area of the intermediate landing.

Your last paragraph asks if it were an interior stair what would the exterior wall and opening protection have to be? In this case, it would be based on Tables 601 and 602, right?


----------



## Yikes (Feb 4, 2011)

got it, thanks.


----------



## brudgers (Feb 4, 2011)

Yikes said:
			
		

> got it, thanks.


Based on the image, the proper classification of the stairway from the second floor is as an exit discharge, and it should be separated and protected as such.

It is not clear if there needs to be a separation from the exit discharge from the floor below which passes under the stair...that's why we get the big bucks.

Give the plan reviewer his props about open stair requirements, and out flank him with a proper code classification.


----------



## Builder Bob (Feb 7, 2011)

I would just like to clarify that the proposed protection of the stairway would have to extend the full lenght of the exterior wall...... The path of egress has to be protected to the public way (more than 10 feet from the property line). The stairway stops short of the exterior face of the building.

The roof or lack of roof is not important (in the sunny south - what is snow and ice). Protection of the means of egress to the public way is.... (MOE is made of three distinct and seperate parts, exit access, exit, and exit discharge) Be sure to review the code section about exit discharge.


----------



## Yikes (Feb 7, 2011)

BB - once you reach the bottom of the stairway, isn't it just a typical exit court/yard situation?


----------



## High Desert (Feb 7, 2011)

brudgers said:
			
		

> Based on the image, the proper classification of the stairway from the second floor is as an exit discharge, and it should be separated and protected as such.It is not clear if there needs to be a separation from the exit discharge from the floor below which passes under the stair...that's why we get the big bucks.
> 
> Give the plan reviewer his props about open stair requirements, and out flank him with a proper code classification.


No, the stairway is still the exit. You don't get to the exit discharge until the termination of the exit.

EXIT. That portion of a means of egress system which is separated

from other interior spaces of a building or structure by

fire-resistance-rated construction and opening protectives as

required to provide a protected path of egress travel between

the exit access and the exit discharge. Exits include exterior exit

doors at the level of exit discharge, vertical exit enclosures, exit

passageways, *exterior exit stairways*, exterior exit ramps and

horizontal exits.

EXIT DISCHARGE. That portion of a means of egress system

between the termination of an exit and a public way.


----------



## Yikes (Feb 7, 2011)

Right, once your reach the bottom of the stairway, you are now at "exit discharge".

You said: <>

So once the stairway "stops" at the bottom, I am now in the exit discharge, and it]s a typical exit court situation:  first story openings on my building must be protected if less than 10' from PL.

I will probably have to get rid of the window that is near the bottom stair landing, but other than that, I wouldn't need to further extend the fin wall "fire wall", would I?


----------



## AegisFPE (Feb 7, 2011)

Yikes said:
			
		

> I wouldn't need to further extend the fin wall "fire wall", would I?


Guess it depends on the interpretation - is the intent of 1023.7 to protect the building and exit elements, or the occupants entering the exit discharge?In either case, it would seem that the wall should at least extend for the length of a landing at the base of the stairs (1009.5).


----------



## brudgers (Feb 7, 2011)

High Desert said:
			
		

> No, the stairway is still the exit. You don't get to the exit discharge until the termination of the exit.EXIT. That portion of a means of egress system which is separated
> 
> from other interior spaces of a building or structure by
> 
> ...


The stairway cannot meet the definition of an exterior exit stairway because it is too close to the property line.

Because the stairway does not meet the requirements of an exterior exit stairway, it is by definition the exit discharge.

The wall provides the required protection for the exit discharge.

If the stairway met the definition of an exterior exit stairway, this thread would not exist.

BTW, you forgot to quote the part of the exit discharge definition where it discusses ramps and stairways.


----------



## brudgers (Feb 7, 2011)

Yikes said:
			
		

> Right, once your reach the bottom of the stairway, you are now at "exit discharge".You said: <>
> 
> So once the stairway "stops" at the bottom, I am now in the exit discharge, and it]s a typical exit court situation:  first story openings on my building must be protected if less than 10' from PL.
> 
> I will probably have to get rid of the window that is near the bottom stair landing, but other than that, I wouldn't need to further extend the fin wall "fire wall", would I?


It's not 10' from the line.

How can it be an exterior exit stairway?


----------



## High Desert (Feb 7, 2011)

because of the property line issue, you may not be able to call it an exit, but it is definitely not the exit discharge either. It is nothing until it is approved as something. I was just pointing out that the exit discharge starts where the exit terminates.


----------



## Glennman CBO (Feb 7, 2011)

I'm not an egress guru, but it appears to me that the section quoted (1027.3) has a built in exception. If the "adjacent wall" (which I would take is the building the stairs are serving) is protected according to section 704 based on fire separation distance (which it should be according to 601, 602), then it is a non issue.

Am I looking at this correctly?


----------



## High Desert (Feb 7, 2011)

I think that section is referring to the wall of another building on the same lot.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Feb 7, 2011)

> If the "adjacent wall" (which I would take is the building the stairs are serving)


Its the adjacent buildings wall

"from adjacent lot lines and from other buildings on the same lot unless the adjacent building exterior walls "

The propsed drawing would make the stair compliant with 1027.4 Exit discharge components.

Exit discharge components shall be sufficiently open to the exterior so as to minimize the accumulation of smoke and toxic gases.

How about calling it.

1007.7 Exterior area for assisted rescue.

The exterior area for assisted rescue must be open to the outside air and meet the requirements of Section 1007.6.1. Separation walls shall comply with the requirements of Section 705 for exterior walls . Where walls or openings are between the area for assisted rescue and the interior of the building, the building exterior walls within 10 feet (3048 mm) horizontally of a nonrated wall or unprotected opening shall have a fire-resistance rating of not less than 1 hour. Openings within such exterior walls shall be protected by opening protectives having a fire protection rating of not less than 3/4 hour. This construction shall extend vertically from the ground to a point 10 feet (3048 mm) above the floor level of the area for assisted rescue or to the roof line, whichever is lower.

Would Milton agree?


----------



## brudgers (Feb 7, 2011)

High Desert said:
			
		

> because of the property line issue, you may not be able to call it an exit, but it is definitely not the exit discharge either. It is nothing until it is approved as something. I was just pointing out that the exit discharge starts where the exit terminates.


A door can be an exit.

If it is a means of egress component, and is not an exit access and is not an exit stair and leads to the public right of way then it is an exit discharge.

An exit discharge can include stairs and ramps.

It's in the code.


----------



## Glennman CBO (Feb 7, 2011)

I did a little research on it, and yes it would be buildings on the same lot.

If it was that simple, you guys would have already been there.

In the case of the OP, it appears that the adjacent building is not the issue due to it being on an adjacent lot. I'm not sure what the extra wall would accomplish if the adjacent building is not the issue.


----------



## brudgers (Feb 7, 2011)

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> Would Milton agree?


If it complies with the exit discharge requirements, it meets the code and the plans can be approved and everyone goes home happy.

Milton was not a big fan of making stuff up.

Again, the goal was to try to approve the plans and to be disappointed when you could not.

It was not to rubber stamp something which did not comply.


----------



## Builder Bob (Feb 8, 2011)

The point is, until the occupant can leave the "exit" at a point that is 10 feet open from the property line, the exit discharge has not made it to the public way.

1018.1 General. Exits shall comply with Sections 1018

through 1023 and the applicable requirements of Sections 1003

through 1013. An exit shall not be used for any purpose that

interferes with its function as a means of egress. Once a given

level of exit protection is achieved, such level of protection

shall not be reduced until arrival at the exit discharge.

1024.3 Exit discharge location. Exterior balconies, stairways

and ramps shall be located at least 10 feet (3048 mm) from

adjacent lot lines and from other buildings on the same lot

unless the adjacent building exterior walls and openings are

protected in accordance with Section 704 based on fire separation

distance.


----------



## texasbo (Feb 8, 2011)

brudgers said:
			
		

> Based on the image, the proper classification of the stairway from the second floor is as an exit discharge, and it should be separated and protected as such.It is not clear if there needs to be a separation from the exit discharge from the floor below which passes under the stair...that's why we get the big bucks.
> 
> Give the plan reviewer his props about open stair requirements, and out flank him with a proper code classification.


No, you're still making things up; I don't believe you're earning those "big bucks" yet...

In this case, it most certainly is NOT an exit discharge, unless the corridor shown in the drawing was constructed as an exit passageway.

Even if it was constructed as an exit passageway, this stair would no more comply as exit discharge as it does an exit, as it does not meet 1024.3, 2006 IBC or 1027.3, 2009 IBC. 10' to property line is required in either case.


----------



## texasbo (Feb 8, 2011)

brudgers said:
			
		

> If it is a means of egress component, and is not an exit access and is not an exit stair and leads to the public right of way then it is an exit discharge.
> 
> It's in the code.


It's not a means of egress component; that's the whole purpose of this thread, and a fact that you've made abundently clear with your comment that if it were a means of egress component, this thread wouldn't exist. You just forgot one little thing: it doesn't comply as exit discharge for the same reason it doesn't comply as an exit.

By the way Yikes, if you can get approval of the fire wall, you don't need to protect the openings in the building due to proximity to the stair. See 1026.6, Exceptions 3 and 4, 2009 IBC.


----------



## Glennman CBO (Feb 8, 2011)

texasbo,  How is it not a means of egress component?


----------



## texasbo (Feb 8, 2011)

Glennman - it doesn't work as an exterior exit stair or exit discharge because it's less than 10' from the property line.

The whole point of the thread was Yikes asking if we would approve a "fire wall" in lieu of proper separation from property lines.

There were those who went to great lengths saying it couldn't be an exterior exit stair because it was too close to the PL, while being completely ignorant of the fact that the same scenario kills it as exit discharge as well. I was just echoing their sentiment, although I don't make the "Big Bucks"...


----------



## brudgers (Feb 8, 2011)

texasbo said:
			
		

> It's not a means of egress component;


Really?

Holy fk.


----------



## texasbo (Feb 8, 2011)

brudgers said:
			
		

> Based on the image, the proper classification of the stairway from the second floor is as an exit discharge.


Yes, really.

And I'm gonna throw some "thanks" your way; anybody who is so wrong in so many posts in the same thread deserves, well, something.

And I can't send you an e-sugartiddy.


----------



## AegisFPE (Feb 8, 2011)

Glennman CBO said:
			
		

> I'm not sure what the extra wall would accomplish if the adjacent building is not the issue.


Think of the extra wall as an adjacent building on the same lot; it just happens to be 0 square feet.


----------



## Glennman CBO (Feb 8, 2011)

AegisFPE, Good way of thinking outside the box!

texasbo, What your saying is that since it does not comply, it cannot be called an egress component, even though it is in the stage of attempting to make it one, right?


----------



## brudgers (Feb 8, 2011)

texasbo said:
			
		

> Glennman - it doesn't work as an exterior exit stair or exit discharge because it's less than 10' from the property line.


If it was unprotected, you would be correct.

Of course it is protected.


----------



## texasbo (Feb 9, 2011)

Glennman CBO said:
			
		

> AegisFPE, Good way of thinking outside the box!texasbo, What your saying is that since it does not comply, it cannot be called an egress component, even though it is in the stage of attempting to make it one, right?


Yes, sir. If the firewall is accepted, then it would be an exterior exit stair. I was just parroting the phrases that were being fashionably but recklessly bandied about.

And based on the previous post, it looks like all one of the skeptics are on board now.

You would have thought I would have received a friendly reciprocal "thanks" wouldn't you?


----------

