• 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

Exit requirements

I

Inspect72

GREENHORN
Joined
Jul 4, 2024
Messages
6
Location
Illinois
Hello! I have an architect who has asked a question related to an existing building. The building is currently having a reconstruction of the occupancy down to the studs, each level is 4000 square feet and there are two levels one below grade. Total 8000 for the building.

Proposed use is B-Business both levels.

There is a common stairwell in the center of the occupancy that runs from basement to the first floor which is where the exit is located. The architect posed the question. "Will I require sprinklers and will I require a second means of egress from the lower level". (He also told me in the same message that it doesn't need them, but still doesn't want to submit plans) He is refusing to submit plans until I answer these questions. I advised to submit plans referencing the adopted codes which are 2018 IBC,IFC and NFPA 101 and I would review.

My main question is would he need a second means of egress from the lower level which is below grade. NFPA 101 39.2.4.3 references the exit shall discharge directly to the outside at the level of exit discharge for the building. (for there being a single exit) Does entering the stairs at the lower level and going up one flight to then go outside meet that wording in your opinion or do you feel a secondary means of egress is required from the lower level.

Thanks for your thoughts and opinions.
 
Too much depends on where the single stair is located within the building, which affects exit access travel distance. It also matters whether the single stair is going to be properly enclosed in a 1-hour rated enclosure, or if it's open at either floor, or the enclosure doesn't provide a 1-hour rating. If the stair isn't properly enclosed in a 1-hour rated enclosure, then it becomes an exit access stair and the exit access travel distance doesn't end at the door into the stairway, it's measured all the way to the door leading you out of the building.

According to what UpCodes says is the Illinois Building Code, for a B occupancy the maximum exit access travel distance is 200 feet without sprinklers, 300 feet with sprinklers. At 4,000 square feet, the occupant load will be at least 27 occupants. The default in the IBC is that each story shall have at least two exits or access to two exits. So then you have to look at the specific conditions that allow you to have only a single means of egress from a story.

Section 1006.3.4 allows a story to have a single exit if all rooms, areas and spaces on the story comply with 1006.2.1, and if the exit discharges directly to the exterior.

Table 1006.2.1 says spaces can have access to a single exit if the maximum common path of travel doesn't exceed 75 feet for an occupant load of 30 or more, or 100 feet for an occupant load of 29 or fewer, and the total occupant load cannot exceed 49. With sprinklers, the common path of travel is 100 feet regardless of the occupant load.

An occupant load of 27 is less than 49, so that's one criterion met. The occupant load is under 30, so you can use the 100-foot common path of travel. BUT ... without a plan, and details of the stair enclosure, you have no way of evaluating the exit access travel distance, and you don't know if it ends at the door into the stair or if it includes travel up the stair all the way to the exterior door.

A 4,000 square foot space could be 63 feet by 63 feet if it's a square, or it could be 20 x 200. Will the office(s) on the lower level be open plan, or will there be corridors? (That may affect measurement of the exit access travel distance.)

I would tell the architect that his question cannot be answered without seeing the plan. Ultimately, HE is the architect and it's HIS job to determine what the code requires. Your job is to check his design to confirm that it meets code. It's not your job to play 20 questions and attempt to answer a question for which you don't have enough information to respond.
 
Inspect72 said:
"Will I require sprinklers and will I require a second means of egress from the lower level".
Click to expand...

[F] 903.2.11.1 Stories without openings.
An automatic sprinkler system shall be installed throughout all stories, including basements, of all buildings where the floor area exceeds 1,500 square feet (139.4 m2) and where the story does not comply with the following criteria for exterior wall openings:

1. Openings below grade that lead directly to ground level by an exterior stairway complying with Section 1011 or an outside ramp complying with Section 1012. Openings shall be located in each 50 linear feet (15 240 mm), or fraction thereof, of exterior wall in the story on not fewer than one side. The required openings shall be distributed such that the lineal distance between adjacent openings does not exceed 50 feet (15 240 mm).

2. Openings entirely above the adjoining ground level totaling not less than 20 square feet (1.86 m2) in each 50 linear feet (15 240 mm), or fraction thereof, of exterior wall in the story on not fewer than one side. The required openings shall be distributed such that the lineal distance between adjacent openings does not exceed 50 feet (15 240 mm). The height of the bottom of the clear opening shall not exceed 44 inches (1118 mm) measured from the floor.
 
The RDP should be telling us what the work needs to be done and how it meets the code requirements. I tell the RDP if they think there may be a question about it address it pro or con
 
Mr. Inspector said:
We need to start by knowing what method of the IEBC the architect is using.
Click to expand...

True. Even if the spaces are stripped down to the studs, if the walls and doors aren't being moved it's not even a Level 2 alteration under the Work Area Method, so the number of chapters of the IBC that the IEBC will send you to are limited.

You wrote that the "proposed" use/occupancy is B. What was it before? Is there a change of occupancy? If so, that opens another chapter in the IEBC.
 
Yankee Chronicler said:
True. Even if the spaces are stripped down to the studs, if the walls and doors aren't being moved it's not even a Level 2 alteration under the Work Area Method, so the number of chapters of the IBC that the IEBC will send you to are limited.

You wrote that the "proposed" use/occupancy is B. What was it before? Is there a change of occupancy? If so, that opens another chapter in the IEBC.
Click to expand...
They are classifying it a level 3 alteration. To my knowledge and from what I was told the occupancy has been a B occupancy from the beginning.
 
They may call it a Level 3 alteration, but is it?

1720233037128.png

1720233204942.png

1720233252307.png

Just my opinion, but our State Building Inspector's Office agrees -- unless doors, windows, or walls are actually being moved, sheetrock (or plaster) is considered to be "finish," so removing the wall finishes but leaving the studs and not removing, adding, or relocating any doors or windows is Level 1 alteration work, not Level 2. And Level 3 is when Level 2 work takes place in more than 50% of the building, so they can strip everything down to the studs and replace all the sheetrock throughout the entire building and it's still a Level 1 alteration.

But I would also consider such work to be "repair, as defined in the IEBC:

1720233647773.png

As a repair, the work is subject to Chapter 4, which has a section on means of egress.

1720233733805.png

Basically, then, unless the work includes something that would elevate it from a Level 1 alteration and Repair to a Level 3, the code path seems to be in keeping with the underlying premise of the IEBC: keep existing buildings in use, and just don't make therm worse. However, as soon as they add, delete, or move ONE door or window, it jumps from Level 1 to Level 3. Section 905 of the IEBC refers to section 804. Section 804 includes the following:

1720234097503.png

So now we're back to needing to look at occupant load and exit access travel distance -- but using tables in the IEBC rather than Chapter 10 of the IBC.

1720234216925.png

So they are limited to 35 occupants, which it appears they meet, and an exit access travel distance of 75 feet -- which cannot be evaluated without seeing the floor plan.
 
Yankee Chronicler said:
They may call it a Level 3 alteration, but is it?

View attachment 13779

View attachment 13780

View attachment 13781

Just my opinion, but our State Building Inspector's Office agrees -- unless doors, windows, or walls are actually being moved, sheetrock (or plaster) is considered to be "finish," so removing the wall finishes but leaving the studs and not removing, adding, or relocating any doors or windows is Level 1 alteration work, not Level 2. And Level 3 is when Level 2 work takes place in more than 50% of the building, so they can strip everything down to the studs and replace all the sheetrock throughout the entire building and it's still a Level 1 alteration.

But I would also consider such work to be "repair, as defined in the IEBC:

View attachment 13782

As a repair, the work is subject to Chapter 4, which has a section on means of egress.

View attachment 13783

Basically, then, unless the work includes something that would elevate it from a Level 1 alteration and Repair to a Level 3, the code path seems to be in keeping with the underlying premise of the IEBC: keep existing buildings in use, and just don't make therm worse. However, as soon as they add, delete, or move ONE door or window, it jumps from Level 1 to Level 3. Section 905 of the IEBC refers to section 804. Section 804 includes the following:

View attachment 13784

So now we're back to needing to look at occupant load and exit access travel distance -- but using tables in the IEBC rather than Chapter 10 of the IBC.

View attachment 13785

So they are limited to 35 occupants, which it appears they meet, and an exit access travel distance of 75 feet -- which cannot be evaluated without seeing the floor plan.
Click to expand...
Agreed, but also note that level 2 and level 3 only apply if the space is being reconfigured (see the definition of "work area"). Yu can remove drywall in 100% of the building, but that doesn't make it a level 3. I see architects get this wrong all of the time.
 
Inspect72 said:
He is refusing to submit plans until I answer these questions.
Click to expand...
Submit an egress plan and then you can provide a written answer if it is code compliant or not.
CYA: Copy the owner in writing on what you are requesting from the Architect so he is aware that the delay is because you have not been given sufficient information from his design professional.
 
Inspect72 said:
He is refusing to submit plans until I answer these questions.
Click to expand...

The architect doesn't know how this works, and he is not serving his client.

The answers to his questions are in the building code (the IEBC, and the IBC as appropriate). According to UpCodes, Illinois adopted the IEBC unamended.

[A] 106.1 General. Submittal documents consisting of construction documents, special inspection and structural observation programs, investigation and evaluation reports, and other data shall be submitted in two or more sets, or in a digital format where allowed by the code official, with each application for a permit. The construction documents shall be prepared by a registered design professional where required by the statutes of the jurisdiction in which the project is to be constructed. Where special conditions exist, the code official is authorized to require additional construction documents to be prepared by a registered design professional.

[A] 106.2.1 Construction Documents. Construction documents shall be dimensioned and drawn on suitable material. Electronic media documents are permitted to be submitted where approved by the code official. Construction documents shall be of sufficient clarity to indicate the location, nature and extent of the work proposed and show in detail that it will conform to the provisions of this code and relevant laws, ordinances, rules and regulations, as determined by the code official. The work areas shall be shown.

[A] 106.2.2 Fire Protection System(s) Shop Drawings. Shop drawings for the fire protection system(s) shall be submitted to indicate compliance with this code and the construction documents and shall be approved prior to the start of system installation. Shop drawings shall contain information as required by the referenced installation standards in Chapter 9 of the International Building Code.

[A] 106.2.3 Means of Egress. The construction documents for Alterations—Level 2, Alterations—Level 3, additions and changes of occupancy shall show in sufficient detail the location, construction, size and character of all portions of the means of egress in compliance with the provisions of this code. The construction documents shall designate the number of occupants to be accommodated in every work area of every floor and in all affected rooms and spaces.
Click to expand...

Bottom line: No plans = no application. You don't even have to talk to him. The process is that he (the architect) prepares construction documents (not sketches) and submits them to you for review. You then review the construction documents to determine whether or not the proposed work will comply with the codes.

He's trying to trap you into giving something away without knowing what you're giving away. Then, when his plans don't meet the code, he'll whine that "The Building Official told me it was okay, and now he's making me change my design."
 
mtlogcabin said:
CYA: Copy the owner in writing on what you are requesting from the Architect so he is aware that the delay is because you have not been given sufficient information from his design professional.
Click to expand...

Agreed. The owner is the applicant. If an architect or contractor submits the application they are doing so as an agent of the owner, so including the owner in the chain of communication isn't "going behind the applicant's back."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top