Can an exit serve two buildings and be a separate building in and of itself?

[mtlogcabin]

For illumination: this is the sort of clusterflop you get when an engineer tries to play architect...or when a jurisdiction looks the other way on plan stamping.

From the OP

A developer and his engineer and architect

walk into bar....

 

[ewenme]

Brudgers: There is no cluster here. Only a valid code question. The architect and engineer are working together, as MT noted from my original post. And the AHJ is not ignoring any plans, as we don't have any plans as yet. We had ideas that are being considered, with the question: "would you allow...?" Hence my posing the issue on this forum so I could see what others are thinking, and tap into the vast resources available on this forum. You assume too much.

Carol

 

[alora]

From the OPwalk into bar....

From the OP

... The engineer comes back with a new proposal: what if ...

... and say "ouch".

 

[brudgers]

Brudgers: There is no cluster here. Only a valid code question. The architect and engineer are working together, as MT noted from my original post. And the AHJ is not ignoring any plans, as we don't have any plans as yet. We had ideas that are being considered, with the question: "would you allow...?" Hence my posing the issue on this forum so I could see what others are thinking, and tap into the vast resources available on this forum. You assume too much. Carol

In that case, the architect should be reported to the board for taking on a project outside their range of competence.

 

[ewenme]

texasbo: I was hoping my 'picture this' visualization would help to understand that each separate apartment building would have only 3 units per floor [hence qualifying for one exit] and that the two apartment buildings would zero-lot-line with the vertical exit [building #3] which would be accessed from the balconies of the two separate dwelling buildings. The two-hour verticle exit would be under a common roof with the 2-hour walls from footings through roof providing the separation between the buildings. Does this make sense? Does it change your opinion? Thanks, Carol

 

[JustReid]

View attachment 1080I picture it like the attached. It sounds like there is an agreement that the overall concept is doable. However, in your case ewenme, they do not comply with the 50' travel required by 1021.2 so they have to revise their concept (or footprint layout) or I don't see how you can approve it.

View attachment 481

View attachment 481

/monthly_2011_09/building.jpg.bb4a6c62d8465bb52c14d8e78ce55bcc.jpg

 

[Builder Bob]

I still do not think this would meet code, as a hortizontal exit cannot be the only exit........it can only make up 50% of the required exit.

[

Is this the concept you are posing ewenme?

Numbers above buildings indicate building number..... as in bldg. 1, bldg 2. bldg.3

 

[gbhammer]

View attachment 1080I picture it like the attached. It sounds like there is an agreement that the overall concept is doable. However, in your case ewenme, they do not comply with the 50' travel required by 1021.2 so they have to revise their concept (or footprint layout) or I don't see how you can approve it.

If thats it then I agree that it would not work.

 

[mtlogcabin]

View attachment 1080I picture it like the attached. It sounds like there is an agreement that the overall concept is doable. However, in your case ewenme, they do not comply with the 50' travel required by 1021.2 so they have to revise their concept (or footprint layout) or I don't see how you can approve it.

That is the way I pictured it and it would be a verticle exit enclosure not a horizontal exit and it could work except for the travel distances

 

[texasbo]

texasbo: I was hoping my 'picture this' visualization would help to understand that each separate apartment building would have only 3 units per floor [hence qualifying for one exit] and that the two apartment buildings would zero-lot-line with the vertical exit [building #3] which would be accessed from the balconies of the two separate dwelling buildings. The two-hour verticle exit would be under a common roof with the 2-hour walls from footings through roof providing the separation between the buildings. Does this make sense? Does it change your opinion? Thanks, Carol

Yes, if you'll wade through my ramblings, I came around to agree with the concept. I just stepped on myself thinking about a lot line at the wall, and you clarified the lot line isn't there.

Lots of if's though. Fire walls must be constructed correctly in terms of structural independence, and dealing with termination at projections. Travel distance and dead-ends still in play. All things brought up by different members.

BB: you are right that if only one exit is provided, it can't be through a HE, but this isn't a horizontal exit; it's a case of separate buildings, that if properly separated, each have one exit - not through a HE, but into an exit enclosure. The two hour fire wall doesn't serve as an HE, it's just there to make 2 separate buildings. Or three...

But as others have said, travel distance and proper arrangement of exterior exit balconies look like the biggest obstacles.

 

[imhotep]

That is the way I pictured it and it would be a verticle exit enclosure not a horizontal exit and it could work except for the travel distances

I concur. 50' travel distance is a big hurdle.

 

[ewenme]

Builder Bob:

Your drawing isn't quite the same as the proposal: if you were to look at it in plan view, your three apartments would be drawn perpendicular to the stairs, and then in the face elevation you would see 9 apartments on each side of the verticle exit. I hope that clarifies one point. The balconies would start from the fartherest apartment on each side, but are not planned to extend to the end of the building, only to the door of the end apartment.

In a sprinkled building, according to Table 1016.1, travel distance can be 250 feet. As noted in 1016.1, travel distance is to ... a vertical exit enclosure, so the Table at 1021.2 would no longer apply IF it would be acceptable to have an exit as a building, serving two buildings. [all citations from the 2009 IBC]

Carol

 

[imhotep]

Builder Bob:Your drawing isn't quite the same as the proposal: if you were to look at it in plan view, your three apartments would be drawn perpendicular to the stairs, and then in the face elevation you would see 9 apartments on each side of the verticle exit. I hope that clarifies one point. The balconies would start from the fartherest apartment on each side, but are not planned to extend to the end of the building, only to the door of the end apartment.

In a sprinkled building, according to Table 1016.1, travel distance can be 250 feet. As noted in 1016.1, travel distance is to ... a vertical exit enclosure, so the Table at 1021.2 would no longer apply IF it would be acceptable to have an exit as a building, serving two buildings. [all citations from the 2009 IBC]

Carol

I don't agree. Footnote a under Table 1016.1 refers us to Section 1021.2 For buildings with one exit. (4 dwellings) 50 feet travel distance.

 

[globe trekker]

Two separate exits sure seems a lot easier and [ code ] compliant.

.

 

[alora]

Shirley, someone in Moscow, ID has to have a scanner.

 

[Paul Sweet]

IBC 1002 definition: "EXIT, HORIZONTAL. A path of egress travel from one building to an area in another building on approximately the same level, or a path of egress travel through or around a wall or partition to an area on approximately the same level in the same building, which affords safety from fire and smoke from the area of incidence and areas communicating therewith."

If you are going from one building to another you are creating a horizontal exit. As several people have pointed out, IBC 1025.1 prohibits a horizontal exit from being the only exit from a portion of a building.

Nice try, but they can't do it without a code modification. I don't know how they could show that this provides equivalent safety.

 

[JustReid]

"EXIT, HORIZONTAL. A path of egress travel from one building to an area in another building on approximately the same level, or a path of egress travel through or around a wall or partition to an area on approximately the same level in the same building, which affords safety from fire and smoke from the area of incidence and areas communicating therewith." If you are going from one building to another you are creating a horizontal exit. As several people have pointed out, IBC 1025.1 prohibits a horizontal exit from being the only exit from a portion of a building.

Respectfully disagree. This would mean that any fire wall utilized by 503.1 with a passageway through it is automatically a horizontal exit. I interpret the quoted IBC section 1002 to mean that it will allow the exiting from one building to another be through a horizontal exit. If the first is taken as an absolute then the second would have to also. That would mean that any "path of egress travel through or around a wall or partition to an area on ... the same level in the same building" is also a horizontal exit.

The designer has the ability to designate when a horizontal exit is going to be applicable.

 

[Builder Bob]

I still do not think this would meet code, as a hortizontal exit cannot be the only exit........it can only make up 50% of the required exit.[

Is this the concept you are posing ewenme?

Numbers above buildings indicate building number..... as in bldg. 1, bldg 2. bldg.3

In this concept, a firewall was used to create seperate buidlings. A firewall can be used as an hortizontal exit. However, in this concept, it would not be allowed as building 1 & 3 do not have any exits provided except for the hortizontal exit.

Section 1022.1 A horizontal exit shall not serve as the only exit from a portion of a building, and where two or more exits are

required, not more than one-half of the total number of exits or total exit width shall be horizontal exits.

 

[Builder Bob]

Second Try.... Not sure where the wall rating are located at ??

 

[mtlogcabin]

Respectfully disagree. This would mean that any fire wall utilized by 503.1 with a passageway through it is automatically a horizontal exit. I interpret the quoted IBC section 1002 to mean that it will allow the exiting from one building to another be through a horizontal exit. If the first is taken as an absolute then the second would have to also. That would mean that any "path of egress travel through or around a wall or partition to an area on ... the same level in the same building" is also a horizontal exit. The designer has the ability to designate when a horizontal exit is going to be applicable.

Exactly and well said

 

[Paul Sweet]

I should have said "If you are EXITING from one building to another you are creating a horizontal exit."

The buildings with apartments don't have any exits except into the separate stairway building. The path of egress travel goes from one building (the apartment building) to an area in another building (the stairway building) on approximately the same level. If that isn't a horizontal exit, what is it?

 

[cda]

Paul you may be walking horizontally, but in your set up dies not meet ibc definition of horizontal exit

Because the building you are walking out of has no other exits as required to be a compliant horizontal exit

 

[JustReid]

I should have said "If you are EXITING from one building to another you are creating a horizontal exit."The buildings with apartments don't have any exits except into the separate stairway building. The path of egress travel goes from one building (the apartment building) to an area in another building (the stairway building) on approximately the same level. If that isn't a horizontal exit, what is it?

I think in this case it would be an exit enclosure. The designer could simply state that they are not using it as a horizontal exit because they are not required to. They would only designate it as a horizontal exit if they needed to obtain the benefit of a horizontal exit. In this particular case they can not make it a horizontal exit because it is a single exit and horizontal exits can not serve that purpose. And they do not need to because it is an exit stair. So it is an exit by a different definition.

It would be nice to have a plan for the discussion because we could all be picturing something different.

 

[Papio Bldg Dept]

The designer has the ability to designate when a horizontal exit is going to be applicable.

To a degree...it's kind of like saying a designer has the ability to designate whatever, whenever it is going to be applicable. Granted the code is not written to withstand most discussions of semantics and semiotics, however, in this case, and by definition, it is what they said it is.

The only means of exit from these buildings is through a fire wall. Designers are not infallible...and occasionally they get things wrong too. In my opinion, respectfully agreeing to disagree, to not describe this as a horizontal exit through a fire wall would be an incorrect assessment. While it is true that not all openings in a fire wall/barrier are horizontal exits, all exits in fire walls/barriers are horizontal exits.

The term, horizontal exit, refers to a fire-resistance-rated wall (fire wall or barrier) that subdivides a building or buildings into multiple compartments and provides an effective barrier to protect occupants from a fire condition within one of the compartments. After occupants pass through a horizontal exit, they must be provided sufficient space to gather and must also be provided with another exit such as an exterior door or exit stairway, through which they can exit the building. A horizontal exit may be an element of a means of egress when in compliance with the requirements of this section. The actual horizontal exit is the protected door opening in a wall, open air balcony or bridge that separates two areas of a building (IBC 2006 Commentary).

Magritte would be proud of your logic. However, any exit through a fire wall, or in some cases fire barriers, is indeed a horizontal exit (by design or default), and shall be treated as such. If the designer does not want it to be a horizontal exit, then they should not put a fire wall/barrier there. Just because a designer says 'Ceci n'est pas une sortie horizontale' does not mean it is not horizontal exit.

I would not hinge my interpretation on an 'any' versus 'all,' or by omission, argument...and would start looking for another loop hole.