# Dwelling unit separation at balcony



## Harrison Staab (Aug 13, 2020)

Five story multi-family R-2 Type VA sprinklered building.
[edit: 4 stories VA over 1 story IA, IBC 2015, Colorado, with no relevant local amendments]

Some units have "shared" balconies, designed with a non-rated privacy wall provided between them. This privacy wall stops short of the edge of the balcony to allow the railing to run past.

Plan reviewer comment:

_"Separation between dwelling units per IBC 420.2 must include roofed outdoor spaces such as the balconies. As such, the separation between units must extend to the exterior of the roofed area, i.e. the edge of the balcony, not 8" shy of the edge of the balcony as shown"
_
Condition in screenshot below showing the dwelling unit separation wall (1-hr fire partition) terminating at the exterior wall of the balcony:
_





https://drive.google.com/file/d/16unkQFeKLl6tPGWH58DaPdQ-VOYcRMXg/view_

It is unclear to us if there is any code which precludes shared balconies and have not run into this interpretation before. We've had Fire Walls required (correctly, we think) to extend this way, but not Fire Partitions. Could not several dwelling units share a covered patio or balcony without a separation wall extending to the edge of the roof?

*Does a "Dwelling Unit" include covered balconies/patio associated with them? Do such covered spaces require separation extended to the edge of the roof?*


----------



## cda (Aug 13, 2020)

Ok a little help

What planet or state is this in??

What year IBC


----------



## cda (Aug 13, 2020)

Does your 420 read the same


*420.2 Separation Walls*

Walls separating _dwelling units _in the same building, walls separating_ sleeping units _in the same building and walls separating _dwelling _or _sleeping units _from other occupancies contiguous to them in the same building shall be constructed as _fire partitions _in accordance with Section 708.


----------



## cda (Aug 13, 2020)

Well after reading the section

Being a non IBC person

The requirement makes no sense to me.

Let others chime in and see what they have to say


----------



## steveray (Aug 13, 2020)

5 story VA?


----------



## steveray (Aug 13, 2020)

In theory you would have to separate the units from the "common" balcony....Like the corridor or other common rooms...

420.2 Separation walls. Walls separating dwelling units in
the same building, walls separating sleeping units in the same
building and walls separating dwelling or sleeping units from
other occupancies contiguous to them in the same building
shall be constructed as fire partitions in accordance with Section
708.


----------



## steveray (Aug 13, 2020)

I'm not saying the plan reviewer is correct, I would have to do some more digging....


----------



## Harrison Staab (Aug 13, 2020)

Apologies for the missing information:

IBC 2015. Colorado, Earth (no local amendments to this section I'm aware of). Building is podium construction. 4 stories of VA over 1 story IA using Horizontal Building Separation of 510.2.


----------



## cda (Aug 13, 2020)

I wonder what would be said if you revised and took out the patio party wall ???

Just to play with their mind


----------



## Harrison Staab (Aug 13, 2020)

steveray said:


> In theory you would have to separate the units from the "common" balcony....Like the corridor or other common rooms...
> 
> 420.2 Separation walls. Walls separating dwelling units in
> the same building, walls separating sleeping units in the same
> ...



The 1-hr exterior walls provide separation between the dwelling unit and the balconies, or so we think. The 1-hr exterior wall is provided as required by Table 601 for Exterior Bearing Walls of Type VA construction. FSD > 30'. Not convincing to me that if the exterior wall were allowed to be non-rated, that separation would need to be provided at the exterior wall separating the dwelling unit from a covered balcony, but this seems more reasonable to me than a wall separating the balconies as per my original post.


----------



## cda (Aug 13, 2020)

Harrison Staab said:


> Apologies for the missing information:
> 
> IBC 2015. Colorado, Earth (no local amendments to this section I'm aware of). Building is podium construction. 4 stories of VA over 1 story IA using Horizontal Building Separation of 510.2.




Not Steve Thomas’ group doing the review ???


----------



## Harrison Staab (Aug 13, 2020)

cda said:


> Not Steve Thomas’ group doing the review ???


A suburb of Denver. We haven't run into a Steve Thomas in the course of our submission.


----------



## gmcalifornia (Aug 14, 2020)

We have had the same question come up recently. 

California Building Code, Type V-A, three story R-2, 2 apartment units per floor. The design currently shows a half wall separating adjacent unit balconies. Same concept as Harrison's question. It's my thinking that it needs to be separated with a fire partition since it is considered part of the unit. 

Would love some outside insight on this! Thank you. 









						Screen Shot 2020-08-14 at 2.44.39 PM.png
					






					drive.google.com


----------



## steveray (Aug 17, 2020)

I don't have a good argument, so I am going to go with you are not "in" the building so not required....The intent of the tenant separations are to keep a fire from spreading from unit to unit or from building in a unit and then blowing through to the next....The termination requirements for fire partitions typically allow them to stop at the exterior walls....

420.2 Separation walls. Walls separating dwelling units in
the same building, walls separating sleeping units in the same
building and walls separating dwelling or sleeping units from
other occupancies contiguous to them in the same building
shall be constructed as fire partitions in accordance with Section
708.

708.4 Continuity. Fire partitions shall extend from the top of
the foundation or floor/ceiling assembly below to the underside
of the floor or roof sheathing, slab or deck above or to
the fire-resistance-rated floor/ceiling or roof/ceiling assembly
above, and shall be securely attached thereto. In combustible
construction where the fire partitions are not required to be
continuous to the sheathing, deck or slab, the space between
the ceiling and the sheathing, deck or slab above shall be fireblocked
or draftstopped in accordance with Sections 718.2
and 718.3 at the partition line. The supporting construction
shall be protected to afford the required fire-resistance rating
of the wall supported, except for walls separating tenant
spaces in covered and open mall buildings, walls separating
dwelling units, walls separating sleeping units and corridor
walls, in buildings of Type IIB, IIIB and VB construction.


----------



## cda (Aug 17, 2020)

Yeh I think a one hour ceiling is required also!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## khsmith55 (Aug 17, 2020)

On CDA's note...........if you "need" a fire separation between the decks, then along the same rational all decks over decks would require a a one-hour floor ceiling assembly for the decks......just food for thought.

Ken


----------



## Chrisjoneill (Aug 17, 2020)

interesting discussion, just started a design that will incorporate the same type of detail...if its required to be rated like Khsmith says the decks should then enter the equation...without any further reading than what has been posted it seems like there is no code requirement if your fire partition goes to the exterior wall...ive seen these type of walls in so many places either full height half height etc...i can't imagine theres any benefit to a rating here.


----------



## Harrison Staab (Aug 18, 2020)

Yes, Combustible balcony projections are required to be fire-resistance rated as required by Table 601. It's worth noting that there are several exceptions in 1406.3 to avoid this - Type IV constructed balconies, sprinkler protection, FRTW constructed.. or be of non-combustible construction.

Our office doesn't think (for whatever an opinion's worth) the separation wall is required to extend to the edge of the balcony/roof. This sort of requirement is explicitly required of Fire Walls:

*IBC 706.5.2 Horizontal projecting elements.*_ Fire walls shall extend to the outer edge of horizontal projecting elements such as balconies, roof overhangs, canopies, marquees, and similar projections that are within 4 feet of the fire wall._

Such a description is not provided for fire partitions, which indicates to me that such a requirement is not applicable to the fire partitions that provide separation for dwelling units.

Furthermore, once a fire partition runs into an exterior wall, the exterior wall rules go into effect:

*IBC 708.5 Exterior walls.*_ Where exterior walls serve as a part of a required fire-resistance-rated separation, such walls shall comply with the requirements of Section 705 for exterior walls, and the fire-resistance-rated separation requirements shall not apply._

The walls at the balcony are clearly exterior walls (a defined code term). As such, they are required to be fire-resistance rated per Tables 601 and 602. As these are nonbearing exterior walls > 30' FSD, there is no fire-resistance-rating requirement.


----------



## cda (Aug 18, 2020)

Harrison Staab said:


> Yes, Combustible balcony projections are required to be fire-resistance rated as required by Table 601. It's worth noting that there are several exceptions in 1406.3 to avoid this - Type IV constructed balconies, sprinkler protection, FRTW constructed.. or be of non-combustible construction.
> 
> Our office doesn't think (for whatever an opinion's worth) the separation wall is required to extend to the edge of the balcony/roof. This sort of requirement is explicitly required of Fire Walls:
> 
> ...



So the wood deck at the separation has to be one hour rated???


What does it matter 

It is what it is


----------



## Harrison Staab (Aug 19, 2020)

Having a correct understanding of the code requirement does matter. There are design, constructability, and cost implications that as an architect I must consider. Per the OP, a fire-rated exterior wall extended to the balcony edge results in an undesirable appearance, additional material to provide fire-rating, more awkward flashing details - all which come at some cost to the project and/or owner. This may ultimately be required by the BCO, but I hope to convince him otherwise.


----------



## ADAguy (Aug 19, 2020)

steveray said:


> I don't have a good argument, so I am going to go with you are not "in" the building so not required....The intent of the tenant separations are to keep a fire from spreading from unit to unit or from building in a unit and then blowing through to the next....The termination requirements for fire partitions typically allow them to stop at the exterior walls....
> 
> 420.2 Separation walls. Walls separating dwelling units in
> the same building, walls separating sleeping units in the same
> ...



 Consider a BBQ fire on one side with the wind blowing?


----------



## steveray (Aug 19, 2020)

ADAguy said:


> Consider a BBQ fire on one side with the wind blowing?




Fire code does not allow


----------



## Glenn (Aug 20, 2020)

steveray said:


> I don't have a good argument, so I am going to go with you are not "in" the building so not required....The intent of the tenant separations are to keep a fire from spreading from unit to unit or from building in a unit and then blowing through to the next....The termination requirements for fire partitions typically allow them to stop at the exterior walls....



I believe your train of thought is correct.

Here it is again, fire separation for decks.  Whether FSD or occupancy separation, the code is simply not equipped to handle this or provide for consistent interpretations.  I will likely be working on proposals for IBC 2024 to begin this discussion at the ICC code development level.  With support from the North American Deck and Railing Association, I have been able to assist in deck code development since the 2015 editions.  WE WELCOME discussion, ideas, disagreement, and collaboration PRIOR to submitting our proposals.  Please feel free to reach out to me if you have an interest in seeing this addressed more clearly in the IBC and IRC.

To the original poster, I am in the Denver area. These are my code peers. I appreciate you not naming (shaming) the jurisdiction, but if you would let me know which it was in a private message, I would be able to reach out to them in a positive manner to better understand their position on this interpretation. Heck, I may know the reviewer! This is simply to help better craft proposals for the future codes.


----------



## Sifu (Aug 20, 2020)

Glenn,  I watching a fire resistive class as I type this.  I may try to get this brought up as a topic.  You are speaking on decks tomorrow, I am hopefully going to be able to join in on that as well.  I will be interested to hear your take on this as well.  I am still amazed that clearer code has not been made on this.  I read a Seattle interpretation and an Atlanta interpretation on it yesterday, each with a little different take on it.


----------



## cda (Aug 20, 2020)

steveray said:


> Fire code does not allow



Or smoking

or candles

or patio lights

or Christmas lights year round

or a place to put fire place ashes

or


----------



## Sifu (Aug 20, 2020)

An expert just answered my question by confirming this is a highly controversial topic that a bunch of very well respected authorities in the field can't agree on.  I don't feel so bad now.


----------



## tmurray (Aug 20, 2020)

I am in the camp of "it's not in the building, so there is no requirement to separate". Firewalls are a good example of where this is explicitly addressed by the code. One could conclude that by not including similar language in the requirements for separations between dwelling units, the same level of protection is not required by the code.


----------



## ADAguy (Aug 21, 2020)

Touchy subject, wonder what fire insurers say?


----------



## Rick18071 (Aug 21, 2020)

Glenn said:


> I will likely be working on proposals for IBC 2024 to begin this discussion at the ICC code development level.



How about starting with a definition of a "deck"


----------



## Harrison Staab (Sep 2, 2020)

For what it's worth the AHJ did not budge on the requirement that the dwelling unit separation continue via the exterior wall dividing the balconies. He did allow that wall to stop short of the edge of the balcony slightly to maintain the visual appearance we had designed with the railings running past the divider wall. His rationalization for this was that the separation wall just extend to or beyond the main roof line (not the balcony projection beyond). Thanks all for the discussion.


----------



## cda (Sep 2, 2020)

Harrison Staab said:


> For what it's worth the AHJ did not budge on the requirement that the dwelling unit separation continue via the exterior wall dividing the balconies. He did allow that wall to stop short of the edge of the balcony slightly to maintain the visual appearance we had designed with the railings running past the divider wall. His rationalization for this was that the separation wall just extend to or beyond the main roof line (not the balcony projection beyond). Thanks all for the discussion.



Ok, boy now the next guy is going to get the business.


----------



## Buildrightson (Sep 24, 2020)

Hi all, 
I'm looking at a similar issue regarding the balcony projections, and unprotected openings between suites.
I just posted it in this thread, not to hijack the post, maybe they can be merged somehow.
unprotected openings between suites - balcony (scroll to ~ post 8 or so)


----------



## khsmith55 (Sep 24, 2020)

Glenn said:


> I believe your train of thought is correct.
> 
> Here it is again, fire separation for decks.  Whether FSD or occupancy separation, the code is simply not equipped to handle this or provide for consistent interpretations.  I will likely be working on proposals for IBC 2024 to begin this discussion at the ICC code development level.  With support from the North American Deck and Railing Association, I have been able to assist in deck code development since the 2015 editions.  WE WELCOME discussion, ideas, disagreement, and collaboration PRIOR to submitting our proposals.  Please feel free to reach out to me if you have an interest in seeing this addressed more clearly in the IBC and IRC.
> 
> To the original poster, I am in the Denver area. These are my code peers. I appreciate you not naming (shaming) the jurisdiction, but if you would let me know which it was in a private message, I would be able to reach out to them in a positive manner to better understand their position on this interpretation. Heck, I may know the reviewer! This is simply to help better craft proposals for the future codes.


Let's look at this in a different way. I agree with other posters that separation is not required at the decks because the fire most likely won't "jump" around the corner and breach the other unit but will dissipate to the exterior. An analogy might be a covered exit balcony open on one side with stairs at each end. The exterior wall in this case is not even required to be rated because the fire will most likely dissipate out. In my simple mind, there is really no difference between the exit balcony and the unit deck as far as dwelling unit separation. Thoughts?

Ken


----------



## jar546 (Sep 24, 2020)

Harrison Staab said:


> For what it's worth the AHJ did not budge on the requirement that the dwelling unit separation continue via the exterior wall dividing the balconies. He did allow that wall to stop short of the edge of the balcony slightly to maintain the visual appearance we had designed with the railings running past the divider wall. His rationalization for this was that the separation wall just extend to or beyond the main roof line (not the balcony projection beyond). Thanks all for the discussion.



Thank you for bringing this controversial subject to the forum for discussion.  This shows an area that needs to be revisited for clarification purposes when it comes to a new code cycle.


----------

