NFPA 101 just what is it?

[brudgers]

Does any portion of the building code explicitly allow a climbing wall?

 

[gbhammer]

Does any portion of the building code explicitly allow a climbing wall?

Would anyone unintentionally use a climbing wall as a stair?

The reason I have any issue with non-stair is that stairs are taken for granted because there is a certain amount of conformity that people have come to expect. Take away the conformity in an obvious way and people become aware of the difficulty they will have in navigating the obstacle, such as a climbing wall or ladder, and I have little or no problem with the whole not a stair premise.

That is not the case with this OP. Here you have a non conforming stairway. It is dangerous mainly because of its innocuous nature. The average person will be unaware that the structure is a non-stair and will in most cases unconsciously attempt to navigate down or up as they would any other stairway.

The only exception to the stair requirements is in cellar stairs and spiral stairs and those exceptions are due to their unique natures; even so they have requirements that make them conforming.

Again I would feel comfortable with a structure that was obviously designed in a nonconforming manor.

 

[Papio Bldg Dept]

Good morning!

Would anyone unintentionally use a climbing wall as a stair?

certain pharmaceuticals come to mind that would lead to that being an unintentional action.

The reason I have any issue with non-stair is that stairs are taken for granted because there is a certain amount of conformity that people have come to expect. Take away the conformity in an obvious way and people become aware of the difficulty they will have in navigating the obstacle, such as a climbing wall or ladder, and I have little or no problem with the whole not a stair premise.

So now we are back to regulating expected uses...we all know where that conversation gets us. [insert devil's advocate emoticon]

So many if, then what, questions to be asked...

If the local AHJ had amended the code to state that decorative stairs shall not be required to comply as long as a compliant MOE stair is also provided, would you have similar feelings of expectation?

If I buy a house built in 1970 with a spiral stair and it meets the specs of the OP, are my expectations different? Won't the balusters and treads be non-compliant with today's codes too? What of those death traps? Or are we just not that concerned to where we feel it necessary to enforce code minutia? Obviously, I don't see the domino effect that leads to the corruption of the life safety portions of the code the way others do.

 

[Alias]

I suppose you could also think of it as a fire-man's pole...albeit there might be a few things to encumber one's descent.

OUCH OUCH OUCH!

Not a pretty picture.................

 

[gbhammer]

just left another thread

http://www.inspectpa.com/forum/showthread.php?8148-Hotel-Electric-Room

and:

Not to hijack the thread, but if the corridor was not rated / not compliant so not by definition a corridor / could we not just call it a non-corridor, you know relabel it as an intervening space. Of course you would still need to meet travel distances but if you did why not save the cost on doors?

The whole a stair is not a stair thing has me looking at the book a bit differently.

 

[Alias]

BSSTG -

My conundrum is how would he apply for a variance? This is a building code/NFPA issue, not a planning & zoning issue. We grant variances here for planning & zoning issues i.e. - curb & gutter, sidewalk requirements, etc.; but not for building code issues.

And opening another can of worms, what does your city planning & zoning code require in reference to off-street covered parking? Every residential unit here is required to have a minimum of 1 covered parking space, be it a garage or a carport.

 

[brudgers]

Would anyone unintentionally use a climbing wall as a stair? The reason I have any issue with non-stair is that stairs are taken for granted because there is a certain amount of conformity that people have come to expect. Take away the conformity in an obvious way and people become aware of the difficulty they will have in navigating the obstacle, such as a climbing wall or ladder, and I have little or no problem with the whole not a stair premise. That is not the case with this OP. Here you have a non conforming stairway. It is dangerous mainly because of its innocuous nature. The average person will be unaware that the structure is a non-stair and will in most cases unconsciously attempt to navigate down or up as they would any other stairway. The only exception to the stair requirements is in cellar stairs and spiral stairs and those exceptions are due to their unique natures; even so they have requirements that make them conforming. Again I would feel comfortable with a structure that was obviously designed in a nonconforming manor.

tl;dr I didn't expect it, therefore it is wrong.

 

[BSSTG]

Greetings Alias,

Our ordinances specifically allows for variances to building codes and subdivision code when done by the variance committee. The ordinance is specific. Any other variance has to be granted by City Council with any appeals going to District Court. That was what prompted the orginal question "NFPA 101 What is it?" Since the variance committee can only grant a variance for a building or subdivision code, then a variance to NFPA 101 could only be granted by City Council I contend. I personally believe that the LIfe Safety Code is not a "building code" and the variance committee has no authority to grant a variance.

Bear in mind this is a "home rule city" with a "weak mayor/council system" To put another way, city council can do whatever they want as long as it does not conflict with any state or federal law. There is no zoning.

The reason for this line of questioning is that our variance committee consists of the mayor, mayor pro tem, director of public works, and the building inspector (me) as an ex officio member. Since we have no director of public works, there are only 2 voting members on the committee being the mayor and mayor pro tem. They would both be highly inclined approve the variance being politically motivated IMHO. However, if the variance request goes before city council, as I feel it should, it could be a different outcome plus I would be able to lay out the case for or against if need be.

We have formally adopted the 09 LIfe Safety Code. This stair is noncompliant with that code. If the noncompliant stair is allowed under IRC rules, then it may be disallowed under NFPA 101 I feel with the only recourse being a variance by city council.

I might add that I made a formal request for an interpretation of R311.7.9.1. My question is this.

Code Reference: International Residential Code

Code Edition: 2009

Code Section: R311.7.9.1

Questions: Should the requirements in this section apply to all spiral stairs even if the spirals are not required for a means of egress? To put it another way, a compliant stairway is provided for the required egress from a second story. Should an additional spiral stair, if installed, be required to meet the requirements of 311.7.9.1?

I did receive an email back from ICC awhile ago and the question is being reviewed. Of course it doesn't address NFPA 101, but it will be interesting to hear back from them especially hearing so many varied opinions on this board and among others with whom I talk with.

Have a great evening!

BSSTG

 

[texasbo]

"R311.1 General. Stairways...shall comply with this section." Period. Says nothing about additional non-required stairs.

The argument that "because it doesn't comply with stair requirements, it isn't a stair" is one of the most ridiculous ones I've seen in a while.

With that bizarre logic, tell me the specific IRC violation if someone used that same reasoning for the ONLY stair from the second floor.

 

[gbhammer]

texasbo I already tried the PERIOD statement.

R311.7.9 Special stairways. … shall comply with all requirements of section R311.7R311.7 Stairways. (yes stairways period)Not stairways that are a part of MOE.

If that were the case they would have said so seeing as how they did just that in R311.7.9.2 bulkhead stairs in basements that are not the required means of egress do not need to meet the requirements of R311.7It is a stair not a ladder just because Brudger thinks it should be called one. There is no definition for ladder because they are common items, and when you look at one you know what it is. Look at the spiral in the Ex-Mayor’s office and no one would call it a ladder, they would 99.9% of the time say spiral stair. The .01% would be a baby with no vocabulary yet.

 

[imhotep]

"R311.1 General. Stairways...shall comply with this section." Period. Says nothing about additional non-required stairs.The argument that "because it doesn't comply with stair requirements, it isn't a stair" is one of the most ridiculous ones I've seen in a while.

With that bizarre logic, tell me the specific IRC violation if someone used that same reasoning for the ONLY stair from the second floor.

SECTION R311 MEANS OF EGRESS

R311.1 Means of egress. All dwellings shall be provided with a means of egress as provided in this section. The means of egress shall provide a continuous and unobstructed path of vertical and horizontal egress travel from all portions of the dwelling to the exterior of the dwelling at the required egress door without requiring travel through a garage.

As an only stair it would be the means of egress and the point is moot. Your hypothetical does not pass muster. If the element in question is not part of the means of egress then where does the authority to regulate it come from? Perhaps turn to the intent section.

R101.3 Intent. The purpose of this code is to establish minimum requirements to safeguard the public safety, health and general welfare through affordability, structural strength, means of egress facilities, stability, sanitation, light and ventilation, energy conservation and safety to life and property from fire and other hazards attributed to the built environment and to provide safety to fire fighters and emergency responders during emergency operations.

Can I install an opening and a pole connecting two floors? R312.1 would require that a guard be placed on the upper level. So the designer comes back and proposes that a guard be installed that also acts as a gate. In this case what if the individual installed a guard at the floor opening?

 

[texasbo]

texasbo I already tried the PERIOD statement.

I know, and others posted similar things. Just wanted to go on record as agreeing.

 

[imhotep]

If it is not the required means of egress, and does not meet the requirements for spiral stairs... then, it's a ladder.

Or a duck. Call me a liar.

 

[texasbo]

SECTION R311 MEANS OF EGRESS R311.1 Means of egress. All dwellings shall be provided with a means of egress as provided in this section. The means of egress shall provide a continuous and unobstructed path of vertical and horizontal egress travel from all portions of the dwelling to the exterior of the dwelling at the required egress door without requiring travel through a garage.

As an only stair it would be the means of egress and the point is moot. Your hypothetical does not pass muster.

My response was using the 2006 edition, in response to a post using the 2006, so yes, it does pass muster.

However, I admit that some of us, myself included, need to quote the codes we're using, and use more recent editions.

 

[imhotep]

My response was using the 2006 edition, in response to a post using the 2006, so yes, it does pass muster.However, I admit that some of us, myself included, need to quote the codes we're using, and use more recent editions.

You say it passes muster and I respectfully disagree. The 2006 IRC provision you cite falls under SECTION R311 MEANS OF EGRESS. The case at hand unquestionably has a means of egress provided. The question arises from the fact that the element (ladder-duck-spiral stair looking thingy) does not comply with the requirements for a means of egress. Take away the means of egress provided and there is clearly no discussion. I'll stick with the requirement for a guard at the upper level and leave it at that. If a designer proposes the thingy in an open to the public building then I would go to the mattresses, but in a residence?

Is a guard required at a 2nd story operable window with a sill located at 18" off the floor? Hmmmm......

 

[brudgers]

Arguing with Texbo is like playing chess with a pigeon.

At some point, he'll knock over all the pieces,

strut around with his chest out,

and poop on everything.

 

[gbhammer]

You say it passes muster and I respectfully disagree. The 2006 IRC provision you cite falls under SECTION R311 MEANS OF EGRESS. The case at hand unquestionably has a means of egress provided. The question arises from the fact that the element (ladder-duck-spiral stair looking thingy) does not comply with the requirements for a means of egress. Take away the means of egress provided and there is clearly no discussion. I'll stick with the requirement for a guard at the upper level and leave it at that. If a designer proposes the thingy in an open to the public building then I would go to the mattresses, but in a residence? Is a guard required at a 2nd story operable window with a sill located at 18" off the floor? Hmmmm......

The argument that there is already a means of egress is a dodge. In walkout basements if you use the not-a-step supporters logic the stair to the first floor does not need to be code compliant.

 

[brudgers]

The argument that there is already a means of egress is a dodge. In walkout basements if you use the not-a-step supporters logic the stair to the first floor does not need to be code compliant.

What sort of tread and riser requirements do you choose to enforce on a laundry chute?

 

[gbhammer]

What sort of tread and riser requirements do you choose to enforce on a laundry chute?

"Ring Around the Rosie"

Would anyone unintentionally use a "laundry chute" as a stair?The reason I have any issue with non-stair is that stairs are taken for granted because there is a certain amount of conformity that people have come to expect. Take away the conformity in an obvious way and people become aware of the difficulty they will have in navigating the obstacle, such as a climbing wall or ladder or laundry chute, and I have little or no problem with the whole not a stair premise.

Again I would feel comfortable with a structure that was obviously designed in a nonconforming manor.

"Ashes to ashes we all fall down."

 

[Darren Emery]

What sort of tread and riser requirements do you choose to enforce on a laundry chute?

None. But if you build a spiral staircase, I would enforce the code requirements.

 

[permitguy]

If a designer proposes the thingy in an open to the public building then I would go to the mattresses, but in a residence?

Right, 'cause gravity is much less effective in a residence. I usually just jump from the top stair and float like a feather to the bottom.

 

[Alias]

BSSTG -

Well, all I can say is good luck. I feel your pain. I am dealing with a large commercial project, idiot owners, and a mayor who thinks he knows everything and is interfering every step of the way.

Sue, "Where the West Still Lives" (translation - Where the good ol' boy network is alive and well.)

 

[imhotep]

Right, 'cause gravity is much less effective in a residence. I usually just jump from the top stair and float like a feather to the bottom.

So do you require guards at upper level operable windows with sills below 36" above the floor? Is gravity less effective at that location?

 

[permitguy]

So do you require guards at upper level operable windows with sills below 36" above the floor?

Nope. I just enforce the code.

R312.2.1 Window sills.

In dwelling units, where the opening of an operable window is located more than 72 inches (1829 mm) above the finished grade or surface below, the lowest part of the clear opening of the window shall be a minimum of 24 inches (610 mm) above the fininshed floor of the room in which the window is located. Operable sections of windows shall not permit openings that allow passage of a 4-inch-diameter (102 mm) sphere where such openings are located within 24 inches (610 mm) of the finished floor.

Exceptions:

1. Windows whose openings will not allow a 4-inch-diameter (102 mm) sphere to pass through the opening when the opening is in its largest opened position.

2. Openings that are provided with window fall prevention devices that comply with ASTM F 2090.

3. Windows that are provided with window opening control devices that comply with Section R312.2.2.

Is gravity less effective at that location?

Nope, but I don't see people coming and going through windows with the frequency I see people descending and ascending stairways.