• 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.

Is roof deck a "story"? CBC 1009.2.1 AMOE elevator

Y

Yikes

SAWHORSE
Joined
Nov 2, 2009
Messages
3,971
Location
Southern California
4 story apartment building, with open-to-the-sky roof deck at 5th level. First story is ground floor = level of exit discharge.
Only enclosed space at 4th level are the exit stairwells and the elevator.
1659656573834.png

CBC/IBC 1009.2.1 requires an elevator to be an accessible means of egress "in buildings where a required accessible floor is 4 or more STORIES ABOVE the level of exit discharge"; and CBC 1009.4.1 requires emergency power for operation, which triggers a very expensive generator for this project.

But does the roof deck meet the definition of a "story" if it is open to the sky, with no roof or ceiling or floor surface above it?

1659658064123.png
1659658079033.png

I contend our 4th level roof deck is not "4 stories above level of exit discharge (LOED)", because it stacks like this:

  • 5th level roof deck doesn't qualify as a CBC 202 definition of "story", because it has no roof above it (except at the unoccupied stairwells and elevator shaft); so I'm saying it is 3 "stories above LOED".
  • 4th level/story apartments = 3 stories above LOED.
  • 3rd level/story apartments = 2 stories above LOED
  • 2nd level apartments = 1 story above LOED
  • 1st/ground floor apartments = on-grade, AT LOED.
Thoughts?
 
Last edited:
I would agree. The building is not a 5-story building, and the elevator would not be required to be one of the accessible means of egress. An occupied roof is not a story, but it is a floor. So, if the code were to state "four or more floors above or below a level of exit discharge," it would be a different story.
 
Even if you did consider the roof a story the language of the code specifically says "where a required accessible floor..."
The roof is not an occupied roof so is not required to be accessible floor.
 
steveray said:
Yes it is....

Assuming that is a deck on the roof, not a "roof deck" anyway....
Click to expand...
Ah yes. You are correct. I hate multiple meaning words.
A "party deck" on the roof lets say. If this deck does not contain accessible elements or other spaces as determined by 1107 or 1108 then it is not required to be served by an accessible route (elevator) from an accessible level. (1104.4 item 2). No elevator required for accessible means of egress.
 
Blazer said:
Ah yes. You are correct. I hate multiple meaning words.
A "party deck" on the roof lets say. If this deck does not contain accessible elements or other spaces as determined by 1107 or 1108 then it is not required to be served by an accessible route (elevator) from an accessible level. (1104.4 item 2). No elevator required for accessible means of egress.
Click to expand...
Correct, they may be able to use the 3000 ft gimmie....
 
In the 2021 IBC, after “accessible floor” it says “or occupied roof”. Does that code intend to require standby power for the elevator of a 4-story building with an occupied roof? There are no more stories than before.
 
Yikes said:
I like to interpret the code by initially assuming that the ICC's choice of particular words is deliberate and intentional.
Click to expand...
Same here. That‘s why I wonder why “or occupied roof” was added after “accessible floor.” It has been established here in this thread that an occupied roof is a floor, although I have not been able to find how we learn that from the code. Did the requirement change when “or occupied roof” was added? Is “or occupied roof” only a clarification of the same requirement as in 2018?

I think the language of this requirement is unclear. The commentary says it is a requirement in buildings having four or more stories above or below the level of exit discharge. It would be clearer to say it that way in the code. The code makes it sound like a story is a unit of measurement. I would like to interpret the requirement based on the assumption of a deliberate and intentional choice of words, but it just doesn’t seem to hold up to that.
 
steveray said:
Because stupid people couldn't agree that an occupied roof was a floor.....
Click to expand...
Or maybe they're too clever by a half:
In the IBC 202 definitions, "floor area" is determined by the "surrounding exterior walls", or absent that, the" usable area under the floor or roof above".
But many roof decks have neither surrounding exterior walls nor a floor or roof above, such that when you ask "what is the floor area of the occupied roof?" the code-defined answer is "zero".
Thus adding the words "or occupied roof" saves everyone from stumbling on that conundrum.
 
201.4 Terms not defined. Where terms are not defined through the methods authorized by this section, such terms shall have ordinarily accepted meanings such as the context implies.


If you intend to walk on it, regularly, with lots of people.......it's a floor.....
 
Blazer said:
Ah yes. You are correct. I hate multiple meaning words.
A "party deck" on the roof lets say. If this deck does not contain accessible elements or other spaces as determined by 1107 or 1108 then it is not required to be served by an accessible route (elevator) from an accessible level. (1104.4 item 2). No elevator required for accessible means of egress.
Click to expand...
Maybe I have been interpreting 1104.4 wrong, little help please. Disclaimer, it's Fried-day, and I am fried.

This code section says if there are no accessible elements on a story or occupied roof (or any specific uses in 1107 0r 1108) then there is no requirement for an accessible route. What is an accessible element in this context? For example: a 2nd floor (>3,000sf²) of an office building has none of the elements listed in 1107 or 1108, but it has a toilet room, would that trigger an accessible route? Or no toilet room, but a door which is required to have accessible hardware, so does that trigger the accessible route? Are the toilets and doors accessible elements in this context? I guess I have assumed all floors > 3,000sf² had to be accessible and be connected by an accessible route. Have I been wrong?
 
To be clear regarding my original post, the roof deck in question did have an accessible route - -an elevator.
My original question had to do with whether that roof deck also had to have an "accessible means of egress" which is the same elevator, but with emergency power (generator) operation (1009.4.1)
 
Yikes said:
To be clear regarding my original post, the roof deck in question did have an accessible route - -an elevator.
My original question had to do with whether that roof deck also had to have an "accessible means of egress" which is the same elevator, but with emergency power (generator) operation (1009.4.1)
Click to expand...
Yep, I got it, my question just drifted a bit. I have a proposal right now for a 2nd story without an accessible route and I am trying to figure out why and I happened across this thread. I knew about the exception in 1104.4 but still assumed it didn't apply, until I read Blazars comment and decided I better reevaluate my assumption. This particular story has an accessible means of egress stair, just not an accessible route to the story, and since it's only two floors the AMOE elevator isn't required. I'm still trying to figure out exactly what and where an accessible element may or may not be.
 
Here in CA, our state code defines Accessible Element as: An element specified by the regulations adopted by the Division of the State Architect- Access Compliance.

So if it is not "specified by the regulations" it’s not an accessible element. For now, I am interpreting "specified" to mean "required".
 
I just noticed the break room for the tenant (occupies both stories) is on the second floor. So if nothing else, as this is required to be accessible, I would think that triggers an accessible route. The more I think about this the more confused I get. It seems the code requires all elements not specifically excepted to be accessible, and then exempts the stories less than 3,000sf², but still requires the elements to be accessible. I guess I just can't figure out when a story wouldn't have any accessible elements.
 
If there was also a break room on the accessible ground floor, then the second floor would not be the only floor with a break room amenity.
But if an amenity (meeting rooms, copiers, toilets, break room, etc.) exists only on a non-accessible floor, then you are in trouble with ADA, and probably the applicable code as well.
 
This is taken from the 1104.4 code commentary......

At least one accessible route is required between stories,
mezzanines or occupied roofs in a facility. Other
changes in level within a story are addressed in Section
1104.3. This requirement does not mandate an
elevator. The accessible route between levels can be
via ramps, platform lifts (where permitted), limited
use/limited access (LULA) elevators, passenger elevators,
etc. An occupied roof includes functional
spaces for occupants, such as decks, pools or dining.
A roof that, for example, merely offers stairway
access to a mechanical penthouse would not be considered
an occupied roof.
 
The second floor, including two occupied roof decks, is > 3,000sf². 2,370 interior tenant spaces (2), and two occupied roof decks, totaling 2,072sf². The two tenant spaces are completely separated, each with it's own stair, except there is an occupied roof that is shared by the two tenants, which has it's own issues, identified in another post concerning egress (posted just now).
 
Tim,

Exceptions:
1. An accessible route is not required to stories and
mezzanines that have an aggregate area of not more
than 3,000 square feet (278.7 m2) and are located
above and below accessible levels. This exception
shall not apply to:

The non-accessible level(s) is assumed to be above or below some number of accessible levels.....

So a 4 story building with a 4 story elevator could have a 2000 ft mezzanine and a 999 roof deck both not accessible....(strictly by this section)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top