• 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

Elevator Extension to Roof

RLGA

RLGA

SAWHORSE
Joined
Oct 18, 2009
Messages
3,315
Location
Phoenix, AZ
I have a project that I would like your collective thoughts on, because I think it is something that seems to have fallen through the cracks of the current code.

The situation is this, an existing 4-story hotel has an occupied roof. The occupied roof was added about six years ago. There are two exterior stairs that lead from the roof and have more than enough egress capacity. The problem is this, the elevator does not extend to the roof, so the owner obtained a permit to extend the elevator shaft to the roof (i.e. a fifth floor).

The elevator work is installed, but now the inspector is requiring that standby power be provided for the elevator per Section 1007.2.1 (2012 IBC), which requires that an elevator be one of the accessible means of egress (because there is now a "floor" that is more than 4 stories above the level of exit discharge), which, in turn, is required to have standby power per Section 1007.4. The cost of adding standby power far exceeds the cost of extending the elevator to the roof, which the owner did not anticipate and was not mentioned during the plan review. If the owner had known this during plan review, he may not have proceeded with the work.

Now I've been hired to draft a code modification that would justify why standby power is not necessary. The owner try to argue that they were altering an existing elevator and that the elevator would not be required to comply with all of the requirements for new construction, just the portion that was altered. The city countered that the shaft extension is actually an "addition," thus requiring full compliance with the IBC. The elevator shaft extension is the only enclosed structure on the roof.

What would you use as an argument, or do you agree with the city?
 
What is the occupancy of the roof/fifth story? If it is required to be accessible, then yes, the elevator is supposed to have emergency power. If the roof/fifth floor is not required to be accessible, then...
 
steveray said:
Exceptions: 1. Accessible means of egress are not required in alterations to existing buildings.
Click to expand...
That's the crux of the problem--the city does not recognize this as an "alteration." They're stating that the extension of the elevator to the roof is an "addition." The city has indicated they're willing to entertain a code modification if we can reasonably justify it.

One could possibly argue that extending an elevator hoistway does not add floor area and does not increase height.

I'm planning to argue that the hoistway extension is a rooftop structure per Section 1509. Section 1509.2 covers penthouses, which this hoistway seems to comply with. For example, Section 1509.2.3 indicates that a penthouse must be used for "shelter of mechanical or electrical equipment, tanks, or vertical shaft openings in the roof assembly." Section 1509.2.2 states the penthouse does not add to the building area or height.; thus it is not an addition.

Thoughts?
 
JPohling said:
change in use from roof to occupied roof deck. I believe the e-power would be required.
Click to expand...
The use as an occupied roof was already there. The owner had decided to extend the elevator to provide greater accessibility.
 
ADDITION. An extension or increase in floor area or height of a building or structure...... Don't think so.....But I know what you are saying...
 
Just a couple of thoughts that may or may not help. Unfortunately I do not have a 2012 IBC handy so I will refer to the 2009 IBC. Aha, the age old question, is a occupied roof a “story”? I believe there has been interpretations that it IS NOT A STORY, but egress requirements must be met. 2009 IBC Section 1007.2.1, exception #1 may help. There may not be a horizontal exit (I’m assuming it’s an “open” deck situation) but if there is direct “open air” access to the stair enclosures I would think this meets the intent . On another note, I think it is sad when a jurisdiction discourages improving accessibility to an already permitted/CO’d occupancy, this sets a BAD precedence for any other building owner thinking of improving accessible.
 
khsmith55 said:
Just a couple of thoughts that may or may not help. Unfortunately I do not have a 2012 IBC handy so I will refer to the 2009 IBC. Aha, the age old question, is a occupied roof a “story”? I believe there has been interpretations that it IS NOT A STORY, but egress requirements must be met. 2009 IBC Section 1007.2.1, exception #1 may help. There may not be a horizontal exit (I’m assuming it’s an “open” deck situation) but if there is direct “open air” access to the stair enclosures I would think this meets the intent . On another note, I think it is sad when a jurisdiction discourages improving accessibility to an already permitted/CO’d occupancy, this sets a BAD precedence for any other building owner thinking of improving accessible.
Click to expand...
On me:::

http://publicecodes.cyberregs.com/icod/index.htm
 
khsmith55 said:
Just a couple of thoughts that may or may not help. Unfortunately I do not have a 2012 IBC handy so I will refer to the 2009 IBC. Aha, the age old question, is a occupied roof a “story”? I believe there has been interpretations that it IS NOT A STORY, but egress requirements must be met. 2009 IBC Section 1007.2.1, exception #1 may help. There may not be a horizontal exit (I’m assuming it’s an “open” deck situation) but if there is direct “open air” access to the stair enclosures I would think this meets the intent . On another note, I think it is sad when a jurisdiction discourages improving accessibility to an already permitted/CO’d occupancy, this sets a BAD precedence for any other building owner thinking of improving accessible.
Click to expand...
The problem isn't whether it's a story or not (I believe the city agrees that it isn't), because the requirement for having an elevator as an accessible means of egress states when an accessible "floor" is four or more stories above the level of exit discharge. Since the roof can be accessed by the occupants of the building, the roof becomes a floor, but is still not a story.
 
Everybody completely ignored Mac when he mentioned the accessibility requirements in what the roof area is used for. If it has a separate function such as being used for parties, weddings, etc. that needs to be accessible to those with disabilities. If that's the case then emergency power is required for the elevator to ensure its availability as the only means of access to those with disabilities.
 
Emergency power (or standby power; there is a difference) is not a requirement for elevators used as part of the accessible route. Neither the 2010 ADA Standards nor ANSI A117.1 requires an elevator to have emergency or standby power.

The standby power requirement is part of the building code and is only applicable for elevators used as an accessible means of egress--not as a means of access. When an accessible floor is located on the fifth or higher floors, the elevator must be used as one of the two required accessible means of egress; thus requiring standby power. A building four stories or less is not required to make the elevator part of the accessible means of egress and, thereby, not requiring the elevator to have standby power.
 
Ron

Maybe you propose a secure area of rescue assistance. Fire rated secure room. .??

Alternate Means
 
If the penthouse idea doesn't fly on its own, I have been working on additional alternate means and methods. I don't think there's any better AORA than on the roof. The roof structure is 8" C.I.P. concrete in the area around the elevator and one of the stairs, which is more than a 4-hour rating. The rest of the roof structure is 8" hollowcore concrete panels. Using the most restrictive aggregate, the roof provides at least a 1.25-hour rating. I'm researching aggregates used in structural precast during that time period to see if a lightweight aggregate was commonly used in the mixed, which may push it to 1-1/2 to 2 hours.

I have not thought about an evacuation chair, but that might be a consideration. Since the building is not a high rise, but is located in the Phoenix downtown area where high rise buildings exist and the fire apparatussupporting that area can reach high levels, so evacuating off a 5th level floor by the fire department should not be a problem, either.
 
400 lb wheel chair user requires a lift mechanism to retrieve person from roof, assuming access to all 4 sides of building (given boom reach limitations).

Consider also from an owner's risk management perspective: wedding reception on roof, obese father of bride has a stroke during a power failure (yes, I'm reaching but "what if").

Will policy cover failure to provide emergency power?
 
+ + ( : ) + +

Regarding the "proposed" AORA, does the existing stairway have 48" of clearance

between the handrails, or is the bldg. sprinklered [ RE: Section 1007.7.6, `12

IBC ] ?

+ + ( : ) + +
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top