Need acceessible stairs for alterations?

[Mr. Inspector]

IBC 2012

Building chancge of occupancy and alterations. M to B. Building a mezzanine where there was none before. High roof so there is room to do it. Mezzanine under 3,000 sq ft so no accessible route needed. Two set of open stairs will be 3'-6" wide. Code wants accessible eggress stairs to be 48" wide.

But 1007.1 says accessible egress is not required in existing buildings. So even though these will be new stairs for a new mezzanine they don't need to be an accessible means of egress (48" wide)?

 

[JBI]

Wondering why you're not using the IEBC (or Chapter 34 or Appendix K of the IBC) for alterations to an existing building?

 

[mtlogcabin]

Yes at least one accessible means of egress from the mezzanine has to comply

IEBC

1012.4.2 Means of egress for change of use to equal or lower hazard category.

When a change of occupancy classification is made to an equal or lesser hazard category (higher number) as shown in Table 1012.4, existing elements of the means of egress shall comply with the requirements of Section 905 for the new occupancy classification. Newly constructed or configured means of egress shall comply with the requirements of Chapter 10 of the International Building Code

The mezzanine is new construction

IBC

1007.1 Accessible means of egress required.

Accessible means of egress shall comply with this section. Accessible spaces shall be provided with not less than one accessible means of egress. Where more than one means of egress are required by Section 1015.1 or 1021.1 from any accessible space, each accessible portion of the space shall be served by not less than two accessible means of egress.

Exceptions:

1. Accessible means of egress are not required in alterations to existing buildings.

2. One accessible means of egress is required from an accessible mezzanine level in accordance with Section 1007.3, 1007.4 or 1007.5.

If the mezzanine was existing then 1012.4.2 would not be applicable.

I also believe the construction of the mezzanine is an addition and not an alteration as it is an increase in floor area and therefore Section 3403 of the IBC would require you construct the mezzanine to the code for new construction which will require an accessible means of egress.

 

[steveray]

I handle it the same way as MT, new egress complies...BUT, Rick is claiming the mezz is exempt as it is less than 3000ft....if that truly is the case, the narrower stairs should work...

 

[Mr. Inspector]

steveray, The mez is exempt for an accessible route but not for accessible egress.

More floor space is an addition, didn't think of that. Ok they will need the accessible egress. Thanks mtlogcabian.

 

[Mr. Inspector]

mtlogcabian, they wanted to use ch. 34 og IBC. Could not find anything like IEBC 1012.4.2 in ch. 34.

 

[steveray]

If there is no accessible route...it is not an accessible space....what am I missing.....?

"Accessible spaces shall be provided with not less than one accessible means of egress."

 

[mtlogcabin]

I concede that without an elevator, platform lift or ramp the mezzanine is not on an accessible route but that does not mean the space is not accessible to those with less severe mobility issues.

1101.2 Design.

Buildings and facilities shall be designed and constructed to be accessible in accordance with this code and ICC A117.1.

A117.1

504 Stairways

504.1 General.

Accessible stairs shall comply with Section 504.

Why do we require a restroom on a floor that is not on an accessible route to be wheelchair accessible?

Accessibility is the one portion of the code that seems to consider the "what if" or "in the future" questions that the rest of code ignores.

 

[steveray]

Because the small mezzanine is exempt (i don't know why)even in new construction vs. a floor or story may become accessible someday via 3409.6 or whatever it is in your code...

 

[ADAguy]

Great thread gang! I have a similar situation, a school district removes an existing mezzanine in a "B" occupancy and replaces it with a full second floor (classrooms located here). Use to be for adult school classes, floor access provided by a LULA. After completion they determine to make it available to 9-12th graders so an occupancy change to "E" is necessary and AHJ changes to DSA. As a "B" city fire did not review plans (which added square footage) and city allowed a 48" stair based on exemption for fire sprinklers.

Though classrooms are accessible, 11B differs to Ch 10 for stair width. Does your Ch 34 trump the exceptions for sprinklers or doesn't CH 10 requirements for accessible stairs to evacuate the safe refuge area provided also trump the exception?

Can local fire waive the min. 48" clear btwn handrails requirement?

Lastly, does a change of occupancy not mandate upgrades of noncode compliant items to current code if additional square footage was added as noted above?

 

[steveray]

SECTION 3408 CHANGE OF OCCUPANCY

3408.1 Conformance. No change shall be made in the use or occupancy of any building that would place the building in a different division of the same group of occupancies or in a different group of occupancies, *******unless such building is made to comply with the requirements of this code for such division or group of occupancies.

 

[ADAguy]

SECTION 3408 CHANGE OF OCCUPANCY 3408.1 Conformance. No change shall be made in the use or occupancy of any building that would place the building in a different division of the same group of occupancies or in a different group of occupancies, *******unless such building is made to comply with the requirements of this code for such division or group of occupancies.

Almost true, It goes on to say that an AHJ can make a determination that not all requirements for the new occupancy need to be met. Not what I wanted to hear.