• Welcome to the new and improved Building Code Forum. We appreciate you being here and hope that you are getting the information that you need concerning all codes of the building trades. This is a free forum to the public due to the generosity of the Sawhorses, Corporate Supporters and Supporters who have upgraded their accounts. If you would like to have improved access to the forum please upgrade to Sawhorse by first logging in then clicking here: Upgrades

R-2, fully sprinkled, single exit units, two exit building - bedroom windows?

Okay well our code guy reached out to his local state group of building officials and got strong support for his interpretation on 1029 applicability. So we went back to the Fire Guy today--wish us luck.

this might be helpful for anyone working on this issue. We were forwarded this IBC item regarding 1029 applicability.

IBC Code Correlation Committee Code Proposal

BC27–09 CCC 1029.1 (IFC 1029.1)

Proponent: Sarah A. Rice, C.B.O., representing self

Revise as follows: 1029.1 (IFC 1029.1)

General. In addition to the means of egress required by this chapter, provisions shall be made for emergency escape and rescue in Group R and I-1 R-3 occupancies.

Basements and sleeping rooms below the fourth story above grade plane shall have at least one exterior emergency escape and rescue opening in accordance with this section.

Where basements contain one or more sleeping rooms, emergency egress and rescue openings shall be required in each sleeping room, but shall not be required in adjoining areas of the basement.

Such openings shall open directly into a public way or to a yard or court that opens to a public way.

Exceptions:

1. In other than Group R-3 occupancies, buildings equipped throughout with an approved automatic sprinkler system in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1 or 903.3.1.2.

2. In other than Group R-3 occupancies, sleeping rooms provided with a door to a fire-resistance-rated corridor having access to two remote exits in opposite directions.

3. The emergency escape and rescue opening is permitted to open onto a balcony within an atrium in accordance with the requirements of Section 404, provided the balcony provides access to an exit and the dwelling unit or sleeping unit has a means of egress that is not open to the atrium.

4.1. Basements with a ceiling height of less than 80 inches (2032 mm) shall not be required to have emergency escape and rescue windows.

5. High-rise buildings in accordance with Section 403.

6.2. Emergency escape and rescue openings are not required from basements or sleeping rooms that have an exit door or exit access door that opens directly into a public way or to a yard, court or exterior exit balcony that opens to a public way.

7.3. Basements without habitable spaces and having no more than 200 square feet (18.6m2) in floor area shall not be required to have emergency escape windows.

Reason: The proposal is intended to revise and eliminate outdated material. Group I-1 and all R occupancies are required to protected by automatic sprinkler system per sections 903.2.5 and 903.2.7, respectively.

Existing exception #2 exempts all occupancies other than R-3 when protected by a sprinkler system.

Thus Section 1029 only applies to R-3 occupancies and the exceptions related to other occupancies can be deleted.

Specifically

Exception 1 is the sprinkler exception; it is not needed.

Exception 2 only applies to occupancies other than R-3; therefore it is not needed.

Exception 3 applies in atriums; atriums are unlikely to have R-3 occupancies.

Exception 5 applies to High-rise buildings which have to have a sprinkler system per section 403, thus they have been exempted twice.

These provisions are remnants from the time when the code did not require sprinkler protection in all R and I-1 occupancies and are no longer needed.

Arguments that these exceptions should not be eliminated because some jurisdictions do not require sprinklers for all R-occupancies, or that they use it for guidance of existing structures which are not sprinklered should not be a consideration.

If jurisdictions are amending the code to eliminate requirements, they should be balancing that with appropriate additions.

This section should not be used for existing buildings. Cost Impact: The code change proposal will not increase the cost of construction. ICCFILENAME:Rice-E3-1029.1
 
well, we sure didnt get very far with that approach! here is what we got back in response to our latest support of our interpretation.

From The Fire Guy

"There is no issue with the egress from each story, the concern is that the 2012 IBC removed the exception being referenced and the emergency escape window from sleeping rooms are required even if the building is sprinkled. I don’t think that what I being asked to do is to disregard the code change because research shows that, as written, it was a mistake.

It seems that the argument is that because the egress requirements for the floors are met, the need for the means of emergency escape from the sleeping rooms is voided. That conclusion is where I am still have a problem because there are two different issues being addressed. One has nothing to do with the other. I am not addressing the required exit(s) from a story, just the need for emergency escape from a bedroom where stipulated by the code. If the review was per the 2006 IBC there would be no issue per 1026.1 Ex.1

Regards."

we are going to try and put our guy and the fire guy on the phone for one last attempt for a meeting of the minds, but we have the backup plan under development.

my guy says we probably could go to the head building official and see if he has a different interpretation than his fire guy. We are a little reluctant to do that as we

still need a code modification for exit separation from him in the next couple of weeks.

thanks

j
 
Love the code world don't you.

As I stated before, just because two exits are given, I do not understand how the window goes away.

But I think you should try to get the city to accept the other code regions, that delete the window if the building is sprinkled
 
yeah, love is not the word that comes to mind in regard to code. Our guy is 40+ year pro, former head building official of a city bigger than the fire guy, and he knows he is right.

we wont even go to the point that we have two stair systems because we have no access to the public way on the rear of the building, but we need to have emergency escape windows on that side of the building where there is

no access for ladders???

I was never fond of fire folks, they get the dog, the truck, the ladies, and 3 days a week of work and full retirement at 50, but my design is crap, even though it is safer than 75% of the existing buildings in the city!

My point is the building has sprinklers and two stair egress systems and now they want to break my pick over less than 10 feet to egress an interior bedroom vs an exterior bedroom which they tell me I can not get ladders to since there is no public way access on half the building?? Is that really how screwed up this entire code area is? Not to mention that the only natural light in the building is now supposed to shine into bedrooms vs living rooms?

sorry cda, I appreciate the guidance and support.

if we were not needing a code modification letter from the fire guy I would be escalating the issue up the Building Official chain of command, but my partner does not want to rock the boat.

hopefully alt. Plan C will work.

j
 
Understand

The bedroom window in a way does not require ladder access

Just be able to get a firefighter through

Or for me to hang out the window and drop to the ground !!!

But in some editions they did give the option to not have a window,,,, if the building had a fire sprinkler system

Good luck, sounds like you might get your building
 
I never understand how the fire guys have input on issues like this. The building is built under the building code not the fire code unless a specific section is referenced from the building code. Nowhere does the building code reference the fire code with regards to EERO's2012 IFC[A] 102.4 Application of building code.The design and construction of new structures shall comply with the International Building Code, and any alterations, additions, changes in use or changes in structures required by this code, which are within the scope of the International Building Code, shall be made in accordance therewith.
attachment.php


View attachment 1257

View attachment 1257

/monthly_2015_12/572953d982bb8_fireref.JPG.216423952810262d982aff3158e613ff.JPG
 
mtlogcabin said:
I never understand how the fire guys have input on issues like this. The building is built under the building code not the fire code unless a specific section is referenced from the building code. Nowhere does the building code reference the fire code with regards to EERO's2012 IFC

[A] 102.4 Application of building code.

The design and construction of new structures shall comply with the International Building Code, and any alterations, additions, changes in use or changes in structures required by this code, which are within the scope of the International Building Code, shall be made in accordance therewith.

attachment.php
Click to expand...
Well, in the three cities I have worked in the fire marsahal is given a set of plans to review also,

So the fire marshal does, and yes IBC should be left to the building offical, but sometimes things are missed by the BO, or maybe not know that there is an IBC section that should be applied, so the FM picks it up.

Plus, sometimes the FM has to do the annual inspections, and it is not nice to walk into a building a year later and see a balring IBC violation that should have been taken care of during plan review.

I think it helps to have two departments reciew the plans. YES, it would be nice if they talked to each other, when they see something, so someone is not questioning why one person says this and another says something else.
 
CDA

I agree with you 100% and appreciate it when the FD brings up questions. However the Building Official has the final say and the FD should not be able to put a hold or demand changes on a project without the agreement of the Building Official except for the referenced sections to the Fire Code then the Fire Official has the final say.

This boils down to a code change a lot of us "old timers" may not like or agree with but we have to accept. The fire guy is digging his heels in because he disagrees with the code change
 
jeffreygordon said:
I was never fond of fire folks, they get the dog, the truck, the ladies, and 3 days a week of work and full retirement at 50
Click to expand...
My nephew is a cop, and he says the general attitude in their department is:

I don't know why everyone rates firemen higher on the "hero" scale than cops. When a fireman gets a call to a blaze, they set up a perimeter and squirt water from the outside. When cops get the call to a disturbance, we're the ones who go INTO the building.
 
An occupation does not make everyone within that occupation an automatic "hero". They have to do something self sacrificing, brave and courageous to earn the title "hero"

Sport figures and cross dressers are not hero's IMHO

Society tosses the word to so many people nowadays it no longer has any significant meaning.
 
Well, an update is needed on my situation in DC. As you may recall our code guy contacted the fire guy directly last Wed. and asked if they could discuss the situation on the phone. The response ignored the phone call request and for the 3rd time sent we were equating two different things and no!

That did not go over well with our code guy, not well at all!

Yesterday am we sent in a new alt. floor plan for the fire guy to review. We got an email around mid day from the fire guy telling us to hold up on the new alt. floor plan.

Today our code guy got an email from the fire guy indicating he had come around to our guy's interpretation of the requirement for emergency escape from the bedrooms and the fire guy was dropping

the requirement and we could proceed with our prior alternative!

Not sure what happened--our code guy suggested that maybe the fire guy actually took a look at 1029 and read it and the interpretations from ICC etc.

here we go!

j
 
jeffreygordon said:
Well, an update is needed on my situation in DC. As you may recall our code guy contacted the fire guy directly last Wed. and asked if they could discuss the situation on the phone. The response ignored the phone call request and for the 3rd time sent we were equating two different things and no!That did not go over well with our code guy, not well at all!

Yesterday am we sent in a new alt. floor plan for the fire guy to review. We got an email around mid day from the fire guy telling us to hold up on the new alt. floor plan.

Today our code guy got an email from the fire guy indicating he had come around to our guy's interpretation of the requirement for emergency escape from the bedrooms and the fire guy was dropping

the requirement and we could proceed with our prior alternative!

Not sure what happened--our code guy suggested that maybe the fire guy actually took a look at 1029 and read it and the interpretations from ICC etc.

here we go!

j
Click to expand...
You just have to wear them down till they give in!!!

Go forth and build!!!
 
jeffreygordon said:
Well, an update is needed on my situation in DC. As you may recall our code guy contacted the fire guy directly last Wed. and asked if they could discuss the situation on the phone. The response ignored the phone call request and for the 3rd time sent we were equating two different things and no!That did not go over well with our code guy, not well at all!

Yesterday am we sent in a new alt. floor plan for the fire guy to review. We got an email around mid day from the fire guy telling us to hold up on the new alt. floor plan.

Today our code guy got an email from the fire guy indicating he had come around to our guy's interpretation of the requirement for emergency escape from the bedrooms and the fire guy was dropping

the requirement and we could proceed with our prior alternative!

Not sure what happened--our code guy suggested that maybe the fire guy actually took a look at 1029 and read it and the interpretations from ICC etc.

here we go!

j
Click to expand...
I'm glad it eventually worked itself out. Now I've got a plans examiner who seems to think that Exception 2 to Section 508.3.3 (2012 IBC) means that Group I-1 (which this project has) cannot be reviewed as nonseparated occupancies. Sometimes I just want to reach out across the table and...(you get the picture).:banghd
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top