ETThompson
SAWHORSE
Hi
I’m working on a project (which some of you may have seen before, I posted about previously). We have not received a final ruling on these issues from the building department, but we want to proactively understand the impact if the decisions do not go our way. I'd really appreciate any help this group could give.
The project is a 3-story, 12-unit mixed use apartment project, about 12,000sf with a 1,500 sf restaurant space. Type VB Construction. We are under the 2017 Ohio Building Code, which is modeled on the 2015 IBC. We are fully Type 13 sprinklered. See the attached sketch of our current condition and options for resolving the issues if the building dept. doesn’t agree with our approach.
We have a condition where our two enclosed stair exits from above come out in a covered but open-air, unconditioned breezeway condition. They are covered by the circulation for the apartments above. We had considered this to be “exterior” and therefore permissible, and this conclusion was supported by some on this forum in previously posts. The code does not define “exterior”, but we’d relied on the language in 1028.1 stating that the Exit Discharge “shall be sufficiently open so as to prevent the accumulation of smoke and toxic gases”. We believe we meet this standard, the breezeway is 13’ tall, with open wood decking above, and is open in plan both at the north / top end, and also at the light well/space between the stairs. Furthermore, having a full NPFA 13 sprinkler would mean, I think, that the breezeway would be sprinklered.
However, initial plan review comments indicate the local officials may not agree with this concept. I’d certainly welcome any further supporting information to make our case, but we are exploring what to do if we can’t convince the local official.
The sketch on the right is the concept if we do have to provide something to get us to what they consider “exterior”, the alley along the west and north edges of the building.
It seems our main option would be to create a Section 1024 Exit Passageway, as I’ve shown in the second sketch to the right. As a related note, we also probably have an issue with the separation of the exit doors – I spoke to the ICC about this, and while they agreed the code language is misleading at best (it clearly states the “Exit Access” must be separated), the intent is that the exits out of these stairs would need to be separated (they are not in the current design). So we will likely need to rearrange our stairs, which would lead to omitting the opening between the stairs – and thus less “exterior”.
Question 1: First, am I correct that this concept (Exit Passageway) could work?
Question 2: Secondly, my preference would be for the entire level 01 circulation to be the Exit Passageway if we can preserve the functionality of this space. Is this possible? I know that per 1024.1 I’m allowed to use this passageway only for “exiting and circulation”, so that would seem to rule out the bike storage and some of the other functions, but not its use as the circulation for the apartments. My question is, per 1024.5, we’re only allowed to have openings for “exit access to the exit passageway from normally occupied spaces and for egress from the exit passageway”. I know that this would omit the windows in the back of the one apartment. Is it possible we could run the 1-hour rating around these spaces? I would think not for the Storage Room (except maybe under 402.8.7?), but it is conceivable for the storage lockers? These are for tenant use and built into the wall.
Question 3: If the answer to 2, above, is likely “no”, could I have just a very short exit passageway, and shown dashed in red? This way we could preserve the functionality of most of this space (lockers, storage room) and only impact the one apartment (no window). Does this approach work?
Question 4: The apartments have direct exits to the street, but either way I would be allowed to open the current (not required exit) apartment doors into the Exit Passageway, correct?
Would really appreciate any help you can give with this.
Thanks
I’m working on a project (which some of you may have seen before, I posted about previously). We have not received a final ruling on these issues from the building department, but we want to proactively understand the impact if the decisions do not go our way. I'd really appreciate any help this group could give.
The project is a 3-story, 12-unit mixed use apartment project, about 12,000sf with a 1,500 sf restaurant space. Type VB Construction. We are under the 2017 Ohio Building Code, which is modeled on the 2015 IBC. We are fully Type 13 sprinklered. See the attached sketch of our current condition and options for resolving the issues if the building dept. doesn’t agree with our approach.
We have a condition where our two enclosed stair exits from above come out in a covered but open-air, unconditioned breezeway condition. They are covered by the circulation for the apartments above. We had considered this to be “exterior” and therefore permissible, and this conclusion was supported by some on this forum in previously posts. The code does not define “exterior”, but we’d relied on the language in 1028.1 stating that the Exit Discharge “shall be sufficiently open so as to prevent the accumulation of smoke and toxic gases”. We believe we meet this standard, the breezeway is 13’ tall, with open wood decking above, and is open in plan both at the north / top end, and also at the light well/space between the stairs. Furthermore, having a full NPFA 13 sprinkler would mean, I think, that the breezeway would be sprinklered.
However, initial plan review comments indicate the local officials may not agree with this concept. I’d certainly welcome any further supporting information to make our case, but we are exploring what to do if we can’t convince the local official.
The sketch on the right is the concept if we do have to provide something to get us to what they consider “exterior”, the alley along the west and north edges of the building.
It seems our main option would be to create a Section 1024 Exit Passageway, as I’ve shown in the second sketch to the right. As a related note, we also probably have an issue with the separation of the exit doors – I spoke to the ICC about this, and while they agreed the code language is misleading at best (it clearly states the “Exit Access” must be separated), the intent is that the exits out of these stairs would need to be separated (they are not in the current design). So we will likely need to rearrange our stairs, which would lead to omitting the opening between the stairs – and thus less “exterior”.
Question 1: First, am I correct that this concept (Exit Passageway) could work?
Question 2: Secondly, my preference would be for the entire level 01 circulation to be the Exit Passageway if we can preserve the functionality of this space. Is this possible? I know that per 1024.1 I’m allowed to use this passageway only for “exiting and circulation”, so that would seem to rule out the bike storage and some of the other functions, but not its use as the circulation for the apartments. My question is, per 1024.5, we’re only allowed to have openings for “exit access to the exit passageway from normally occupied spaces and for egress from the exit passageway”. I know that this would omit the windows in the back of the one apartment. Is it possible we could run the 1-hour rating around these spaces? I would think not for the Storage Room (except maybe under 402.8.7?), but it is conceivable for the storage lockers? These are for tenant use and built into the wall.
Question 3: If the answer to 2, above, is likely “no”, could I have just a very short exit passageway, and shown dashed in red? This way we could preserve the functionality of most of this space (lockers, storage room) and only impact the one apartment (no window). Does this approach work?
Question 4: The apartments have direct exits to the street, but either way I would be allowed to open the current (not required exit) apartment doors into the Exit Passageway, correct?
Would really appreciate any help you can give with this.
Thanks
