Second floor elevator required?

[Lexilou]

Existing unlimited building is adding a one story production space and a two story employee support area (6,100k SF each story). At the beginning of the project, the second story was not being used, it was for future office space so I added an elevator to the plans. Then they said they'd use the second story for storage, so I was able to tell them that if they limited occupancy to 5 people, they did not need an elevator. Now it's "multifunction/office space" so we're probably back to the elevator once they define what "multifunction" means, but I'm guessing it's more than 5 people. Now they are questioning since they have accessible office space elsewhere in the building, do they need to make this space accessible and since the code says "public access", they are also questioning that since the general public will not be accessing this second floor. It is strictly for plant employees. Can someone please help me figure out if they need an elevator? The public access thing is confusing me also since it's not really a public space - it's a manufacturing facility.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

6,100 divided by 150 ==> 40.40.667 occupant. Yes, I'd say that's a bit more than 5.

IMHO they don't have to define "multifunction." The operative word is "office." Table 1004.5 doesn't care if office use is "multifunction" -- it says the minimum occupant load shall be calculated at a ratio of one occupant per 150 gross square feet or floor area.

What section of the code are they relying on to claim that general office space is not "public access"?

 

[Lexilou]

I think their reasoning is that they are private offices for plant personnel, accessible office space is available elsewhere, and the general public will not be in these second floor offices. I need to be 110% sure when I tell them they need an elevator here if they are not solely using this space for storage.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

I think their reasoning is that they are private offices for plant personnel, accessible office space is available elsewhere, and the general public will not be in these second floor offices. I need to be 110% sure when I tell them they need an elevator here if they are not solely using this space for storage.

I don't think that's sufficient. With 6,100 square feet of space, they are not "private" offices. They may not be open to members of the general public, but it's reasonable to assume that various employees from other parts of the building may want or need to visit spaces on that story in the course of their work.

Your opening post says they are "adding" a two story employee support area (6,100k SF each story). Then you wrote, "At the beginning of the project, the second story was not being used, it was for future office space so I added an elevator to the plans. Then they said they'd use the second story for storage, so I was able to tell them that if they limited occupancy to 5 people, they did not need an elevator. Now it's "multifunction/office space" ..."

What -- exactly -- is the status? Is this a new building, still under construction, and the owner is vacillating during the construction period as to how they will use this space? Or is it a building that was previously built and for which a certificate of occupancy was issued declaring the second floor space as storage? (Even if it has been declared as storage, I don't see any way you could get the occupant load down to 5. 6,100 / 500 = 12.2.)

If it is an existing building, then you're looking at change of occupancy for this second floor space. That's chapter 10 of the IEBC (if the jurisdiction has adopted the IEBC. Where is it?). But chapter 10 of the IEBC doesn't mention accessibility. For that you have to go back to chapter 3. Section 306 addresses accessibility in existing buildings. Section 306.5 addresses additions, but it sends us to section 306.7, which is Accessibility in Alterations. And there we find:

306.7 Alterations. A facility that is altered shall comply
with the applicable provisions in Chapter 11 of the International
Building Code, ICC A117.1 and the provisions of
Sections 306.7.1 through 306.7.16, unless technically infeasible.
Where compliance with this section is technically
infeasible, the alteration shall provide access to the maximum
extent technically feasible.

306.7.1 Alterations affecting an area containing a
primary function. Where an alteration affects the accessibility
to, or contains an area of primary function, the
route to the primary function area shall be accessible. The
accessible route to the primary function area shall include
toilet facilities and drinking fountains serving the area of
primary function.

In an office building, office work areas ARE the areas containing the primary function. It doesn't matter that there are other areas where office work is also performed. So the IEBC says that accessibility must be provided in accordance with chapter 11 of the IBC.

You need an elevator. (Subject to application of the 20% rule, which is Exception #1 to IEBC 306.7.1)

If this is still under initial construction and they are just waffling about how to use this space, then IMHO they needed n elevator even if the second floor space was storage.

 

[Lexilou]

We are in SD phase with this addition to an existing building. The 90k production space and employee support (locker rooms, break room, quality control and a small open office - all first floor) are the addition. Initially they didn't want the second floor, but did want us to provide a roof that could double as a floor sometime in the future. Then they decided to just build it with the second floor being unoccupied space, office fit-out in the future. So we told them they needed an elevator. They came back and said they'd use it for storage now and add the elevator in the future when/if they decided to use the space for offices.

I applied IBC 1104.4:

with the reasoning that it's storage. There isn't going to be more than 5 people up there if the code official allows per this exception:



Putting the elevator in now would make the most sense, even if it's storage, maybe even because it's storage. I think I am stuck in a circle of overthinking and overanalysing. I keep looking to find the answer they want and can't find it so it must mean it's not there, but I am not an expert.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

I am familiar with that exception. In order to use it, the building official has to agree to it. Otherwise, the occupant load of your 6,100 s.f. space is 13 people if the space is storage (warehouse), or 41 occupants if it's sued for offices. You would be (IMHO) exceedingly foolish to proceed on the assumption that the building official will approve your arbitrary occupant load of 5 people in 6,100 s.f. I know I wouldn't approve it. (Not that I could -- I'm an ABO, so it would be up to my boss -- and I don't think he would approve it, either.)

Have you asked the AHJ if he/she will accept your 5 person occupant load? What's your justification for that number? It strikes me that the only "justification" is that if you keep it to five or fewer, you don't need an elevator. That's not much of a justification. We have had applicant try that game with respect to other features that they didn't want to pay for so they requested arbitrary occupant loads far below the minimum called for by Table 1004.5. The boss didn't buy it.

The building official where this project will be constructed might accept it. I don't know. But if you are (or work for) the architect, be advised that now is the time to ask the question, not after the design has been locked in and the working drawings have been completed.

 

[Lexilou]

I am familiar with that exception. In order to use it, the building official has to agree to it. Otherwise, the occupant load of your 6,100 s.f. space is 13 people if the space is storage (warehouse), or 41 occupants if it's sued for offices. You would be (IMHO) exceedingly foolish to proceed on the assumption that the building official will approve your arbitrary occupant load of 5 people in 6,100 s.f. I know I wouldn't approve it. (Not that I could -- I'm an ABO, so it would be up to my boss -- and I don't think he would approve it, either.)

Have you asked the AHJ if he/she will accept your 5 person occupant load? What's your justification for that number? It strikes me that the only "justification" is that if you keep it to five or fewer, you don't need an elevator. That's not much of a justification. We have had applicant try that game with respect to other features that they didn't want to pay for so they requested arbitrary occupant loads far below the minimum called for by Table 1004.5. The boss didn't buy it.

The building official where this project will be constructed might accept it. I don't know. But if you are (or work for) the architect, be advised that now is the time to ask the question, not after the design has been locked in and the working drawings have been completed.

Thank you! I believe the client is wrong in wanting to avoid the elevator and this gives me perfect reasoning. We are requesting a meeting with the AHJ as soon as possible just to make sure everything goes smoothly. The last thing we need are hiccups down the road.

Would you know the yearly cost to certify an elevator? That's one of their concerns for not wanting it in now.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

Would you know the yearly cost to certify an elevator? That's one of their concerns for not wanting it in now.

I have no idea. Elevators are regulated by the state here. All we cover as municipal building inspectors is construction of the hoistway shaft. The annual inspections are also done by state elevator inspectors.

 

[steveray]

I have no idea. Elevators are regulated by the state here. All we cover as municipal building inspectors is construction of the hoistway shaft. The annual inspections are also done by state elevator inspectors.

They get the elevator, and we get the shaft.......