Exterior Exit Stairs / Second Means of Egress

[cdstudio]

I have a question about a project being proposed in my neighborhood and I am wondering if I am correct in my interpretation.

Brief synopsis: 25' x 100' lot with an existing small 4 story historic brownstone. The proposal is for a significant rear addition and a 5th story. It will be a 4-family (R-2) building. For the new 2nd means of egress, the Architect has an exterior "fire stair" across the back of the building (he references 1011.2) It is 6'-4" deep and 20' wide and 2'-6" from each side property line. It is a steel structure with concrete pan landings and diamond plate treads. Besides the fact that it is accessed via casement windows, how can he consider this a legal exterior fire stair and means of egress? Section 1027 has requirements for the location of exterior egress stairs, one of them being 10 ft from adjacent property lines, which would make it impossible to locate on a 25' lot. Am I missing something? To me this is just a better built fire escape. 2 internal means of egress are required (same as other projects in the neighborhood)

And just for background, I am an Architect and I volunteer for the local neighborhood assoc. to review proposed projects. I have tried talking to the applicant's Architect about it, but he is insistent that he is correct. I find it annoying since it is at the historic/planning approval stage now and has probably been in the works with the owner for at least 2 years. By the time it gets to a building code review (and assuming they agree with my interpretation and are willing to enforce it) the planning approvals/variances are already granted so amendments and redesign have to be presented to the boards again. A lot of time and money wasted for a basic code interpretation.

On a separate note, I am aware that in the planning and affordable housing community, there are proposals to remove the second means of egress requirement for small buildings (6 stories or less) Pew Research Report Link. Wondering what this forum thinks about that? Is it just creating less safe "affordable" units or creating higher rental incomes for developers?

Thanks!

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

What you describe is not an exit stair, it is a fire escape. Fire escapes have not been allowed for new construction for decades.

 

[cdstudio]

What you describe is not an exit stair, it is a fire escape. Fire escapes have not been allowed for new construction for decades.

I agree. It is open on all sides, except where bolted to the building. Not sure why the architect thinks it is not a fire escape, even though the treads, risers and landings may conform to the requirements of a stair.

 

[TheCommish]

2012 IBC 1027.2

 

[RLGA]

You are forgetting that there is an existing building code. If it is adopted, refer to IEBC Section 504.1.3.

However, the fire escape cannot be accessed by windows, so the current design would need to be modified.

 

[cdstudio]

2012 IBC 1027.2

I assume you mean 2021 IBC 1027.2, which does say that you can use an exterior stair for buildings not exceeding 6 stories. However the exterior stair would still have to comply with 1027.5 correct? That says that stair requires a 10 ft fire separation distance from adjacent property lines (which is impossible for a 25ft wide lot)

 

[cdstudio]

You are forgetting that there is an existing building code. If it is adopted, refer to IEBC Section 504.1.3.

However, the fire escape cannot be accessed by windows, so the current design would need to be modified.

The IEBC doesn't apply here, as NJ adopted its own Rehabilitaion code for existing buildings. For this project the new addition more than doubles the footprint of the existing building and adds another story on top. Also I believe the floor joists in the existing portion of the building are being removed and replaced to match the heights of the new addition. So the whole project is evaluated under the IBC.

 

[TheCommish]

Correct the windows would have to doors, the 10 foot separation would be needed.

As to limit to IEBC allowance, I do not believe we are hemed in to what IEBC allows, it is a minimal requirement for working in an existing building. Why would I not be allowed to use new construction to make a building better?

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

As to limit to IEBC allowance, I do not believe we are hemed in to what IEBC allows, it is a minimal requirement for working in an existing building. Why would I not be allowed to use new construction to make a building better?

Owners are always allowed to exceed code requirements for safety. The codes say in Chapter 1 that they are the minimum standard for safe buildings. As one of our former State Building Inspectors used to say (back when we had live training), "The code is the least you can accept and the most you can require."

That said, the IEBC applies to existing buildings. New construction, including additions, has to follow the IBC (or IRC, if applicable).

 

[steveray]

Agree it needs doors, but believe it could be fire rated in lieu of the 10'....