• Welcome to the new and improved Building Code Forum. We appreciate you being here and hope that you are getting the information that you need concerning all codes of the building trades. This is a free forum to the public due to the generosity of the Sawhorses, Corporate Supporters and Supporters who have upgraded their accounts. If you would like to have improved access to the forum please upgrade to Sawhorse by first logging in then clicking here: Upgrades

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

Y

Yikes

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 2, 2009
Messages
3,123
Location
Southern California
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
 
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)
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
If it doesn't meet the requirements of an open stair it must meet the requirements of a shaft enclosure.
 
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.)
 
Gene Boecker said:
Ben, why do your comments never align with Milton's Rule? ;)
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.

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.)
Click to expand...
Side means side, not end. Even if you get a permit it's still wrong.
 
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?
 
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Edit: Acerbic response rendered unnecessary by brudgers' edit.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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.
Click to expand...
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?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yikes said:
got it, thanks.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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?
 
Yikes said:
I wouldn't need to further extend the fin wall "fire wall", would I?
Click to expand...
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).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top