• Welcome to The Building Code Forum

    Your premier resource for building code knowledge.

    This forum remains free to the public thanks to the generous support of our Sawhorse Members and Corporate Sponsors. Their contributions help keep this community thriving and accessible.

    Want enhanced access to expert discussions and exclusive features? Learn more about the benefits here.

    Ready to upgrade? Log in and upgrade now.

Exterior stair landing okay as "grade"?

N

nwarchitect

REGISTERED
Joined
Jun 18, 2018
Messages
14
Location
Portland, OR
Hi all - I did a quick search on this site for something like this, but didn't find quite the exact situation, though it must be fairly common. Anyway, getting some conflicting plans examiners feedback here and thought I'd toss it out to the broader community.

Previously permitted Children's Day Care. New TI for Children's Day Care - very few changes, a couple of removed partitions, etc. Mostly a bunch of new kid's plumbing fixtures in the classrooms (old day care chose not to do this). Not sprinklered before or now.

Plans examiner is saying we need 1 hour rated corridor and doors but did not mention this exception as applying or not - we think it applies. Checked with another examiner who said that "grade" was not where the exterior landing is, but where the sidewalk is (compliant landings are about 30" above - compliant stairs lead down to sidewalk). IBC and Oregon Structural Specialty seem to define grade as where earth meets wall, so it seems to me we meet the exemption.

I hope this image is visible - new to posting via URL....
SXdWKsx


Thanks for your thoughts. A bit confused about what to do.

Regards, John
 
So how many exits are there??

Do they all require stairs to get out?

Has the day care been closed for awhile.??
 
Hi - I think I got the plan in there, but it's cumbersome - you have to cut and paste into browser and it opens in my Drive. Perhaps if I upgrade I can post images.

Anyway, prior Day Care permitted in 2009/2010. Closed in Fall 2017.
Exiting from the corridor(s) is 2 doors into an egress court fully open on one side, level path to sidewalk. So 3 of those corridor-exits in total.

Other end is an exit door onto one of the concrete landings leading to small stairway down bank to sidewalk.
Exiting from 2 of 5 classrooms is directly into egress court so probably no argument there.
Existing from 3 of 5 classrooms is onto one of the concrete landings and then down the small stair, etc.



Thx
 
Reply a bit jumbled. 2 exits in front to egress/entry court. 1 at other end of corridor to landing. 3 corridor-type exits total.

Every classroom has an exit door to outside directly and to the corridor.

I forgot to include the exemption, Section 1018.1 Oregon Struct Sp. That's here (same Drive setup):

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1o3-E__LcBAexwEeDy_xg4leZz3Oq-s8E

Essentially saying in E buildings 1 hour not required if each classroom has an exit to grade (each also has 2nd exit to corridor)
 
I thinking the ahj should approve as is, since they approved it before,,,,


Unless the new one is adding more rooms, Sq ft??
 
Same SF, slightly different (greater) OL maybe....not sure. Previous Day Care kept a couple offices so slightly different. She also had physically fewer kids. Current plans examiner seems to be basically starting from scratch, not to mention is predicting it will take her 3 months to review this (!). Life Safety - all others signed off long ago.
 
nwarchitect said:
Same SF, slightly different (greater) OL maybe....not sure. Previous Day Care kept a couple offices so slightly different. She also had physically fewer kids. Current plans examiner seems to be basically starting from scratch, not to mention is predicting it will take her 3 months to review this (!). Life Safety - all others signed off long ago.
Click to expand...


No law that plan review in do many days or you automatically get a permit,,

They have it here, just not sure max days allowed, maybe 30?
 
Understood - there should be a limit perhaps - I was just griping b/c it's like a $75K TI, same Use, same Occupancy(s), nearly same layout, no structural to speak of, etc. And it's all passed except one person. 90 days seems a bit excessive. Has "real world" consequences since no one anticipated that (30 days was the norm and the stated review date on the site - and what all other reviewers held to). So tenant is paying thousands monthly on an empty building, and cannot enroll children when she said she could (late summer), so business plan is shot, contractor engaged for the job can't sit around for 90 days waiting, and so on.

Just griping.
 
nwarchitect said:
Understood - there should be a limit perhaps - I was just griping b/c it's like a $75K TI, same Use, same Occupancy(s), nearly same layout, no structural to speak of, etc. And it's all passed except one person. 90 days seems a bit excessive. Has "real world" consequences since no one anticipated that (30 days was the norm and the stated review date on the site - and what all other reviewers held to). So tenant is paying thousands monthly on an empty building, and cannot enroll children when she said she could (late summer), so business plan is shot, contractor engaged for the job can't sit around for 90 days waiting, and so on.

Just griping.
Click to expand...



Talk to higher ups, and city officials, to see why such a long turn around time??
 
Yeah - I have the Permit Expediters on it - they're being "good cop" - I'm furious myself! I believe it's because they consider this reviewer to be the "child care expert" and this is why they're (temporarily) refusing to re-assign it. (She went on a 2 week vacation on the day she was supposed to review it and emailed us she was 6 weeks behind after that!).

We have a plan that involves some serious going-over-heads, but giving it a day or two. Fact is, it doesn't need an "expert" since it's such a small simple TI. Portland (OR) has been having serious problems with the review process, for some reason - they're busy but it goes beyond that.

Anyway, was interested mostly in if anyone saw something I didn't regarding the E exemption and the "grade" definition. The codes can be confusing and sometimes vague, so I'm rarely 100% certain on anything!
 
My book (2009 IBC) says every classroom exit is to be at ground level if no sprinklers, not grade level. No definition. Your plan looks like ground level and grade level to me. The kids only need to get outside, not to the sidewalk.
 
nwarchitect said:
Yeah - I have the Permit Expediters on it - they're being "good cop" - I'm furious myself! I believe it's because they consider this reviewer to be the "child care expert" and this is why they're (temporarily) refusing to re-assign it. (She went on a 2 week vacation on the day she was supposed to review it and emailed us she was 6 weeks behind after that!).

We have a plan that involves some serious going-over-heads, but giving it a day or two. Fact is, it doesn't need an "expert" since it's such a small simple TI. Portland (OR) has been having serious problems with the review process, for some reason - they're busy but it goes beyond that.

Anyway, was interested mostly in if anyone saw something I didn't regarding the E exemption and the "grade" definition. The codes can be confusing and sometimes vague, so I'm rarely 100% certain on anything!
Click to expand...





Is I-4 occupancy enforced there??
 
Very helpful - much appreciated!

This turns out to be an E occupancy due to number and age of kids and being entirely at ground level (it's a single-story building). 308.6.1
 
Egress (exit discharge) is to a public way or one of the alternatives......Which would not be the landing unless EAAR....Not saying I agree with the plan reviewer as it seems to be an existing situation that should be allowed to remain, but I would need more info to determine compliance.
 
I do not see an issue under the Existing Building Code since the requirement for grade level does not exist except for fire escapes

SECTION 805
MEANS OF EGRESS

805.1 Scope.
The requirements of this section shall be limited to work areas that include exits or corridors shared by more than one tenant within the work area in which Level 2 alterations are being performed, and where specified they shall apply throughout the floor on which the work areas are located or otherwise beyond the work area.

805.2 General.
The means of egress shall comply with the requirements of this section.

Exceptions:

1. Where the work area and the means of egress serving it complies with NFPA 101.

2. Means of egress conforming to the requirements of the building code under which the building was constructed shall be considered compliant means of egress if, in the opinion of the code official, they do not constitute a distinct hazard to life.
 
Thanks for this! All very helpful - we'll see what happens after the checksheet revisions are responded to (sometime in this century I'm hoping!) - if any issues, I'll be back! John
 
Hate to be a damper but look at Steve's response again, "required" accessible exits must extend to public way.
 
The existing building code does not require an "accessible exit" your accessible entrance is your accessible exit and no more are required.
 
ADAguy said:
Hate to be a damper but look at Steve's response again, "required" accessible exits must extend to public way.
Click to expand...
I don't see anything in the IBC requiring the classroom exits to be Accessible. Does the CBC require it?
Anyway the IBC and I think the CBC also says accessible means of egress are not required to be provided in existing buildings.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top