2006 IBC Area of Refuge required for Change of Occupancy

[paulbutts]

I have a project that is an existing, fully sprinklered, 4-story building. The second - fourth floors are being converted from a B to an R-2 occupancy and I was told an Area of Refuge is required due to a change of occupancy. I cannot find anything in the 2006 IBC that tells me this has to happen. IBC 1007.1 Exception #1 seems to say I don't have to have them, but I'm assuming the Codes Department was referring to Ch. 34. Can someone educate me a bit on this?

And I found an earlier thread on this same topic, but the applicable code in that thread was the 2009 IBC.

Thanks!

-Paul

 

[cda]

ask the nice plan reviewer to give you the section they are requireing it from, so you can research if right or wrong

what code edition is the city reviewing this under?

 

[mtlogcabin]

How did a 4 story building get built without an area of refuge? Check the code the building was built under and see if it was required at that time.

Areas of refuge are part of the accessible means of egress requirements and are not required in alterations but this is a change of use so let me check further when I get back in the office.

1007.1 Accessible means of egress required.

Accessible means of egress shall comply with this section. Accessible spaces shall be provided with not less than one accessible means of egress. Where more than one means of egress is required by Section 1015.1 or 1019.1 from any accessible space, each accessible portion of the space shall be served by not less than two accessible means of egress.

Exceptions:

1. Accessible means of egress are not required in alterations to existing buildings.

 

[paulbutts]

cda - Can you clarify what you mean by "code edition"? It's being reviewed under the 2006 IBC. Is that not what you're asking?

mtlogcabin - the original building is old...probably early 1920's, but its most recent occupancy (Business) began in 1985. I have existing drawings for that renovation (only MPE, no architectural, of course) and it appears as though 1 of the stairs, and an elevator, were added then...again, no architectural drawings to go by. Because I don't have the architectural drawings, I can't confirm what the applicable code was in 1985.

Thanks!

-Paul

 

[cda]

It's being reviewed under the 2006 IBC

that is it

not a chapter 34 person, but that is maybe where you want to start, if that chapter was adopted

 

[Mr. Inspector]

IBC 1007.1 exception 1 - Accessble means of egress not required in alterations to existing buildings

 

[paulbutts]

cda - I read through Ch. 34, but didn't see anything. And I have to admit, that may be the first time my code book has ever been opened to that Chapter!

Rick18071 - that's what I was thinking as well. However, I can only conclude that a change of occupancy is somehow different/more "extreme" than an "alteration".

 

[steveray]

AOR and all other accessible egress are never (in ICC) required in existing buildings that I am aware of....Although I would push for it under the 20% rule for alterations if all other needs were met....

 

[mtlogcabin]

2006 IEBC

SECTION 905

MEANS OF EGRESS

905.1 General.

Means of egress in portions of buildings undergoing a change of occupancy classification shall comply with Section 912.

SECTION 906

ACCESSIBILITY

906.1 General.

Accessibility in portions of buildings undergoing a change of occupancy classification shall comply with Section 912.8.

912.8 Accessibility.

Existing buildings or portions thereof that undergo a change of group or occupancy classification shall have all of the following accessible features:

1. At least one accessible building entrance.

2. At least one accessible route from an accessible building entrance to primary function areas.

3. Signage complying with Section 1110 of the International Building Code.

4. Accessible parking, where parking is provided.

5. At least one accessible passenger loading zone, where loading zones are provided.

6. At least one accessible route connecting accessible parking and accessible passenger loading zones to an accessible entrance.

Where it is technically infeasible to comply with the new construction standards for any of these requirements for a change of group or occupancy, the above items shall conform to the requirements to the maximum extent technically feasible. Changes of group or occupancy that incorporate any alterations or additions shall comply with this section and Sections 506.1 and 905.1 as applicable.

Exception: Type B dwelling or sleeping units required by Section 1107 of the International Building Code are not required to be provided in existing buildings and facilities.

Nothing requires an accessible means of egress which is where you find the area of refuge requirement. I do not believe it is required

FYI

2009 IBC there is an exception for an area of refuge under 1007.3

1007.3 Stairways.

In order to be considered part of an accessible means of egress , an exit access stairway as permitted by Section 1016.1 or exit stairway shall have a clear width of 48 inches (1219 mm) minimum between handrails and shall either incorporate an area of refuge within an enlarged floor-level landing or shall be accessed from either an area of refuge complying with Section 1007.6 or a horizontal exit .

Exceptions:

1. The area of refuge is not required at open exit access or exit stairways as permitted by Sections 1016.1 and 1022.1 in buildings that are equipped throughout with an automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1 or 903.3.1.2.

 

[steveray]

Good call MT....I knew that was there, but did not think of it at the time...We do very few AOR here for just that reason...I was focusing on the OP and COU requiring it, not other reasons it was not required in the first place....

"Exceptions:

1. The area of refuge is not required at open exit access or exit stairways as permitted by Sections 1016.1 and 1022.1 in buildings that are equipped throughout with an automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1 or 903.3.1.2."

 

[paulbutts]

Guys,

I really appreciate all the assistance. Being new to the forum, I wasn't sure what kind of response I would get. However, the information provided was prompt and beneficial. I've put the ball in the code reviewer's court and have asked for them to cite the section that will support their claim. If something comes back that's contrary to the expressed general opinion here, I'll be sure to update for all to know.

Again, thanks for the help!

-Paul

 

[steveray]

Glad to hear it Paul!...Please consider becoming a supporter and whatever you do, keep on posting. We all learn when we all share....