What would you do?

[Yankee Chronicler]

Does anyone have access to a copy of a BOCA Basic Building Code from around 1989, and a copy of NFPA 101 from the same period?

I recently received a set of plans to renovate a portion of the second floor of a 2-story office condo building. The plans didn't provide much of the information required by the IEBC (such as which compliance method the designer was following), and didn't show means of egress beyond the immediate limits of the suite to be renovated. I stopped by the building to try to get a better understanding of how the egress works (and found that the contractor had already done all the demo and new framing without benefit of permit), and I discovered an unhappy situation.

In a nutshell, neither of the two exit stairs discharges directly to the exterior. Both discharge through spaces on the level of exit discharge (the first story), but neither space qualifies as a lobby or a vestibule because they are both open to a common corridor. That means that both exit discharges share the same atmosphere. The attached sketch isn't to scale, but it's pretty accurate in showing the concept.

As I read my old copy of BOCA, this arrangement wasn't allowed in 1989 when the building was built, it isn't allowed today under the IBC, it wasn't allowed for new business occupancies under NFPA 101 in 1989, and it isn't allowed for existing business occupancies under NFPA 101 today. As one of our former state building inspectors liked to remind us (frequently), "A violation is always a violation." Now that I know about it, I pretty much have to do something about it.

What would you do to begin addressing the issue? I have notified the designer (unlicensed) who did the second floor alteration drawings, but his client only owns a condo unit within the building, he doesn't own the entire building.

 

[steveray]

Does anyone have access to a copy of a BOCA Basic Building Code from around 1989, and a copy of NFPA 101 from the same period?

I recently received a set of plans to renovate a portion of the second floor of a 2-story office condo building. The plans didn't provide much of the information required by the IEBC (such as which compliance method the designer was following), and didn't show means of egress beyond the immediate limits of the suite to be renovated. I stopped by the building to try to get a better understanding of how the egress works (and found that the contractor had already done all the demo and new framing without benefit of permit), and I discovered an unhappy situation.

In a nutshell, neither of the two exit stairs discharges directly to the exterior. Both discharge through spaces on the level of exit discharge (the first story), but neither space qualifies as a lobby or a vestibule because they are both open to a common corridor. That means that both exit discharges share the same atmosphere. The attached sketch isn't to scale, but it's pretty accurate in showing the concept.

As I read my old copy of BOCA, this arrangement wasn't allowed in 1989 when the building was built, it isn't allowed today under the IBC, it wasn't allowed for new business occupancies under NFPA 101 in 1989, and it isn't allowed for existing business occupancies under NFPA 101 today. As one of our former state building inspectors liked to remind us (frequently), "A violation is always a violation." Now that I know about it, I pretty much have to do something about it.

What would you do to begin addressing the issue? I have notified the designer (unlicensed) who did the second floor alteration drawings, but his client only owns a condo unit within the building, he doesn't own the entire building.

Have the FM cite the violation as it is his code....Would be my short answer....
Cigna in Bloomfield has 7 interior exit enclosures that all dump into the same unrated corridor....And one that is now extended to the exterior via an exit passageway...

And I have BOCA 1987 on my desk....

 

[Paul Sweet]

Can they add doors between the corridors and vestibules and rate the vestibule walls?

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

Can they add doors between the corridors and vestibules and rate the vestibule walls?

They probably could, but I'm in this as a code official, not as the design professional. I'm not asking for design solutions. I'm asking two questions:

1. Do you agree that this is a problem/violation?
2. If the answer to #1 is yes, then how would you approach it administratively given that the current permit applicant is an owner of one unit in the building, but is not the owner of the building?

 

[steveray]

1. Was it "approved"? Did they get a mod? How do you know?
2. The owner of the building gets the violation...From the FM...Unless it is WWOP, then we would send that...

 

[classicT]

1. Do you agree that this is a problem/violation?
2. If the answer to #1 is yes, then how would you approach it administratively given that the current permit applicant is an owner of one unit in the building, but is not the owner of the building?

Yes.

Cite the violation. I'd make a call to the permit applicant (likely their design professional) and indicate that they need to create two vestibules.

One other option... cite the work without a permit to the building owner. Include the egress violation with that.

 

[TheCommish]

Definitely violation, they stared work without a permit and now have opened a can of worms.

The annalist of the existing building required by the IEBC would have uncover the problem, the level of work assigned would have prescribe the needed remediation if any. Who owns the building and what the tenant is doing is immaterial, the cost of required upgrades to the building is up to the lease/rental agreement.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

The annalist of the existing building required by the IEBC would have uncover the problem, the level of work assigned would have prescribe the needed remediation if any.

Interesting point. What analysis of the existing building is required that would have uncovered a means of egress violation on the ground floor of the work area is confined to less than 50% of the second floor?

I found it because the plans submitted for the alterations on the second floor didn't include the complete second floor, so I couldn't assess the exit access provisions, and I couldn't determine what percentage of the floor was affected. So I stopped by the building to get a better handle on the layout, and walked into a proverbial can of worms / minefield.

 

[TheCommish]

The means of egress from the second floor going thorough the first floor, is part of the analysis for the renovation in my review of any project. I you ignored the MOE from the second floor how do you ensure the building is safe for occupancy?

 

[Tim Mailloux]

Have the FM cite the violation as it is his code....Would be my short answer....
Cigna in Bloomfield has 7 interior exit enclosures that all dump into the same unrated corridor....

that's a real fun building to do work in

 

[SCBO1]

Does anyone have access to a copy of a BOCA Basic Building Code from around 1989, and a copy of NFPA 101 from the same period?

Check with Glenn Mathison, he's usually lurking around here and has a collection in his codes library!

 

[steveray]

Either 84 or 87 BOCA based...I can give you the 1987 on Thursday if you are going to be at CBOA or I can give it to your BO.....

 

[princeofpen]

It is a violation and probably always was. I don't see IEBC existing as getting any relief and it should be altered to provide a life safety level as per current code as you can't review based upon the past

 

[Yikes]

OK, I may be displaying my ignorance, but given that a maximum of two stories are allowed to atmospherically intercommunicate with each other, then if the path does not exceed maximum allowable "exit access" distance wouldn't this arrangement be allowable under current code?

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

OK, I may be displaying my ignorance, but given that a maximum of two stories are allowed to atmospherically intercommunicate with each other, then if the path does not exceed maximum allowable "exit access" distance wouldn't this arrangement be allowable under current code?

Only applies to 50% of the means of egress from a story.

The existing layout violated both the building code and NFPA 101 at the time of construction, and it violates the current IEBC and IBC and the existing business chapter of NFPA today.

 

[princeofpen]

OK, I may be displaying my ignorance, but given that a maximum of two stories are allowed to atmospherically intercommunicate with each other, then if the path does not exceed maximum allowable "exit access" distance wouldn't this arrangement be allowable under current code? << This came to mind yesterday on my way home and probably was how it was approved as a Exit Access Stairway.

Only applies to 50% of the means of egress from a story. ??? Where is this code wise? Are you referring to discharge requirements of discharge of interior stairways and ramps? 1023
If it isn't a shaftway and exempt as 1019 Exit Access Stairway with correct travel distance it doesn't need to meet the 50%

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

If it isn't a shaftway and exempt as 1019 Exit Access Stairway with correct travel distance it doesn't need to meet the 50%

That's a possibility, but it's up to the applicant to show how they meet the code. So far they have submitted only a partial plan showing approximately 30% of the second floor, with no egress diagram, so there is no way to assess exit access travel distance.

And that may get them around 1019 in the IBC, but it doesn't get them around NFPA 101.

 

[princeofpen]

With the diagram provided do the doors at the base of the stairs make them compliant with 8.6.8 a 2 story opening with partial enclosure?
I've seen 101 and IBC as mostly the same except for a few minor instances. That said, there isn't a definition for egress components quite like the IBC does regarding the 2 different types of stair systems