Apartment Egress?

[Arch22yrs]

I have a small apartment building with two apartments on the second floor, currently the units exit into a hallway with stairs on each end ... I would like to remove one of the stair stairs, what code section states the number the stairs required?

 

[Jay Smith]

1006.2 and 1006.3. 1006.3.3 in particular.

 

[Arch22yrs]

1006.2 and 1006.3. 1006.3.3 in particular.

Thanks ... I found it ... Table 1006.3.4(1), states 1 exist is acceptable , but it also requires the building to be sprinklered. This building is very old and is not sprinklered, is it still possible to have one means of egress?

 

[Yikes]

Your profile says you are in PA. Is that also where the building is located?
Please give us more info: when was the building permit first issued, and what is the current code, and how do the two compare to each other?

Current model codes such as the IBC typically will not allow buildings to be made less safe than they were at time of original construction, so that leaves you with perhaps 2 alternatives:
1. Demonstrate that at the time of original code, the second stair was unnecessary to meet minimum exiting requirements in that code.
2. Evaluate the entire building according to code for new buildings, and see if the new code allows you to eliminate the stair. And when I say the entire building, I mean in all aspects of the current code, such as any new requirements for structural loads, accessibility, energy, fire/life safety, sound ratings between apartments, etc.

Out of curiosity, why do you want to get rid of the second stair? What are you planning on doing with that space?

 

[Arch22yrs]

Your profile says you are in PA. Is that also where the building is located?
Please give us more info: when was the building permit first issued, and what is the current code, and how do the two compare to each other?

Current model codes such as the IBC typically will not allow buildings to be made less safe than they were at time of original construction, so that leaves you with perhaps 2 alternatives:
1. Demonstrate that at the time of original code, the second stair was unnecessary to meet minimum exiting requirements in that code.
2. Evaluate the entire building according to code for new buildings, and see if the new code allows you to eliminate the stair. And when I say the entire building, I mean in all aspects of the current code, such as any new requirements for structural loads, accessibility, energy, fire/life safety, sound ratings between apartments, etc.

Out of curiosity, why do you want to get rid of the second stair? What are you planning on doing with that space?

The Building is in NJ ... current code is NJIBC/IRC 2021
What does it matter if it meets or doesn't meet energy code or sound ratings? ... The existing Building is probably 60 or 70 years old, so probably not.
Want to remove the 2nd stair to free up space on the first floor
The code states it must be sprinklered, so its already existing non-conforming.

 

[Yikes]

The Building is in NJ ... current code is NJIBC/IRC 2021
What does it matter if it meets or doesn't meet energy code or sound ratings? ... The existing Building is probably 60 or 70 years old, so probably not.
Want to remove the 2nd stair to free up space on the first floor
The code states it must be sprinklered, so its already existing non-conforming.

View attachment 14084

What year was the building first constructed, and what was the applicable code at that time?
Perhaps I was being a dramatic about energy and sound ratings to make the larger point that in my option #2, the codes get applied as a package deal: you can’t cherry-pick a reduced life safety feature in a later code and then ignore the other increased minimum code requirements.
A few years ago I had an old apartment complex where we anted to add more units onto an existing building. The newer codes allowed greater building area than the codes at time of original construction. However, the old codes also didn’t require other safety features that now exist in the new code (for example, grounded electrical outlets, sprinklers, etc.). So, I needed to upgrade all of it.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

The ICC International Existing Building Code actually grew of the New Jersey Rehabilitation Code, many, many years ago. The whole purpose of the NJRC and of the IEBC is to allow existing buildings that can't be brought into full compliance with current codes for new construction to remain in use -- as long as they provide a minimum level of equivalent safety.

The underlying philosophy of the IEBC can be paraphrased as "Don't make it less safe than it already is." You want to remove one of two existing exit stairs serving the apartments. That's less safe than it is. Not allowed, unless you provide compensating improvements -- such as sprinklers.

 

[Yikes]

The ICC International Existing Building Code actually grew of the New Jersey Rehabilitation Code, many, many years ago. The whole purpose of the NJRC and of the IEBC is to allow existing buildings that can't be brought into full compliance with current codes for new construction to remain in use -- as long as they provide a minimum level of equivalent safety.

The underlying philosophy of the IEBC can be paraphrased as "Don't make it less safe than it already is." You want to remove one of two existing exit stairs serving the apartments. That's less safe than it is. Not allowed, unless you provide compensating improvements -- such as sprinklers.

YC, as a hypothetical: if at time of original construction, the applicable code did not require stair #2, and the original owner had it built for convenience rather safety, would its removal make the building “less safe” according to the IEBC?
Or would the IEBC consider that keeping only one stair today would still provide the minimum level of equivalent safety?

Put another way: is the general guiding principal in the IEBC: (a) “don’t make it less safe that it already is”, or (b) “don’t make it less safe than was required by applicable code at time of original occupancy”?

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

YC, as a hypothetical: if at time of original construction, the applicable code did not require stair #2, and the original owner had it built for convenience rather safety, would its removal make the building “less safe” according to the IEBC?
Or would the IEBC consider that keeping only one stair today would still provide the minimum level of equivalent safety?

Put another way: is the general guiding principal in the IEBC: (a) “don’t make it less safe that it already is”, or (b) “don’t make it less safe than was required by applicable code at time of original occupancy”?

The guiding principle, as I understand it, is "Don't make it less safe than it is." That said, in some of the compliance methods there are specific provisions that make reference to what the current code would allow as the being the baseline.

In your situation, I would suggest that you consider the Performance Method (the table with the point scores). The catch to that is that you have to really do a deep dive and be honest in assigning the points for each category. I have reviewed more than one of those that came in with a score that passed with flying colors -- but when I reviewed the individual points assigned in each category, there was no way to justify the points they claimed. On one of them the architect admitted that he had no idea what he was doing. He said he knew a building inspector in another town who told him to use that method and that he needed to submit a passing score -- so he picked numbers that added up to a passing score!

That's not how it works.

 

[Yikes]

The guiding principle, as I understand it, is "Don't make it less safe than it is." That said, in some of the compliance methods there are specific provisions that make reference to what the current code would allow as the being the baseline.

In your situation, I would suggest that you consider the Performance Method (the table with the point scores). The catch to that is that you have to really do a deep dive and be honest in assigning the points for each category. I have reviewed more than one of those that came in with a score that passed with flying colors -- but when I reviewed the individual points assigned in each category, there was no way to justify the points they claimed. On one of them the architect admitted that he had no idea what he was doing. He said he knew a building inspector in another town who told him to use that method and that he needed to submit a passing score -- so he picked numbers that added up to a passing score!

That's not how it works.

It seems possible to determine the passing score, and then reverse-engineer the project scope to achieve the score, but is sounds like the architect really flubbed that one. Honestly, there are days when I am depressed at the state of our profession, where all it takes to be considered a competent architect is just to screw up a little bit less than everyone else.

Anyway, out here in California, the CEBC was modified to state as follows for a Level 2 Alteration (I don't know if New Jersey has similar language), subject to final adoption by local agencies:

804.2 General
The means of egress shall comply with the requirements of this section.
Exceptions:

1. Where the work area and the means of egress serving it complies with NFPA 101.
2. Means of egress complying with the requirements of the building code under which the building was constructed shall be considered to be compliant means of egress if, in the opinion of the code official, they do not constitute a distinct hazard to life.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

The Building is in NJ ... current code is NJIBC/IRC 2021
What does it matter if it meets or doesn't meet energy code or sound ratings? ... The existing Building is probably 60 or 70 years old, so probably not.
Want to remove the 2nd stair to free up space on the first floor
The code states it must be sprinklered, so its already existing non-conforming.

The building is already non-conforming because it is not sprinklered, and to allow a single exit stair the building would have to be sprinklered. I think you have answered your own question.