Elevator Lobbies Are They Required?

[FyrBldgGuy]

Here is the case, the building was built in 1958. It is 4 stories with a basement. It is located in California. The original design did not include any type of elevator lobby.

Restrooms on each floor are located near the elevators. In 1999 the owner did an ADA upgrade to the restrooms. The local jurisdiction required the installation of elevator lobbies at the same time as the ADA restroom upgrade. The lobbies are 1 hour rated with mag hold open doors and Smoke Guard curtains in front of each elevator door.

So, I can't see how the ADA restroom upgrade could trigger a requirement for rated elevator lobbies. The code in effect at the time was the 1994 UBC. I have looked through the code and there weren't any retroactive requirements.

This just looks like an over zealus building official. If the lobbies were never really required, do they have to be maintained?

 

[mtlogcabin]

It does not matter how or why they where installed they cannot be removed and must be maintained in accordance with the 1994 UBC under which they where installed. JMHO

2006IBC

3401.2 Maintenance.

Buildings and structures, and parts thereof, shall be maintained in a safe and sanitary condition. Devices or safeguards which are required by this code shall be maintained in conformance with the code edition under which installed. The owner or the owner’s designated agent shall be responsible for the maintenance of buildings and structures. To determine compliance with this subsection, the building official shall have the authority to require a building or structure to be reinspected. The requirements of this chapter shall not provide the basis for removal or abrogation of fire protection and safety systems and devices in existing structures.

 

[FyrBldgGuy]

If it was not required, then why can't it be removed. The 1994 UBC did not require the retroactive installation of elevator lobbies.

 

[mtlogcabin]

They are required by todays code,

They bigger question is why do you want to remove them/

 

[texasbo]

Fully sprinklered? If so, take a look at 707.14.1, exception 4, 2006 IBC.

 

[mtlogcabin]

I would have to disagree because the 2006 IBC references the 2002 edition of the NFPA which unless the building was sprinklered under that standard the installed system may not offer as much protection to allow the trade off.

Remember a lot of things went away in the I-Codes for sprinkler trade offs

 

[texasbo]

Absolutely. The section I referenced requires compliance with 903.3. No comply, no use of the exception.

 

[RJJ]

I agree with the section stated by Texasbo! I also, agree with MT. Both have good points, but if I understand the original question it is related to a bath room. If the bath room install does not effect any existing rating then I would feel no need for any changes.

 

[mtlogcabin]

Happens all the time some code official calls out something that is not required. I am going thru this right know trying to help a rural school. State Fire Marshal is telling them they have to sprinkle the 1200 sq ft basement where an 8th grade classroom is. The building was built prior to the state adopting building codes and has been used continously as a school, ( all well documented) The basement was offices and 2 classrooms, now there is one left.

If the school had the money to install it they would have already done it.

 

[RJJ]

I have done nothing but deal with wrong calls and political interference for the last two months. The job seems to be getting more complex. Just had a DP change an occupancy from an S1 to to an F for lack of reading the code. Now I can approve it, but it will cost the owner $ with fire walls, fire glass etc. Then with the next breath the politicans say something that needs to comply to the current code doesn't need to comply. Life is great!

 

[Yikes]

FyrBldgGuy - you did not yet explain why you are trying to get rid of them, but let's assume for the moment that they no longer serve your purposes.

California + 4 stories + 1999 = elevator "lobby" was required. There is NO size requirement for the lobby.

It is not a "high rise" lobby, where a firefighter would stage before going into the flames.

It is not an "area of evacuation assistance" or "refuge".

Most elevator doors are good for 90 minutes, but do not provide smoke containment.

The practical reality for the lobby is to provide smoke containment only.

The current "lobby" could be deleted and a new "lobby" provided by one of these methods:

1. Put a swinging door with smoke seals, closer, magnetic-hold-open, etc. in front of the existing elevator door. The new lobby is therefore about 6" x 42". *OR*

2. In 1999, "Smoke Guard" roll-down smoke seals had an ICBO report and were approved for this purpose. http://www.smokeguard.com/

 

[Gene Boecker]

If the building was in existence before 1991, then the requirement for any type of lobby wouldn't have existed for that type of building. It sounds like there are actually two lobbies - one to keep smoke and heat from entering adjacent floors and one as a area of refuge for the occupants of the upper floors. The accessible means of egress is not required in existing buildings. If the building was built after 1991, it should have had the accessible MOE since that was in the federal law at that time. I can't recall when it was put into the California Accessibility Regulations but that's worth checking into as well.

The reason to note this is that the physical enclosure isn't necessary if there is a smoke-guard solution. The smoke barrier is an acceptable method to achieve the "lobby" requirements of Chapter 7. Adding in something to create an area of refuge for an accessible means of egress isn't required. That being said, it would be hard to remove now since you would not only need to convince the building official but also every lawyer who thinks you're reducing the level of accessibility.