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



## camksu

As the title says, my team and I are dealing with the design of mixed use building with a question pertaining to floors 3-5 in a R-2, type 1-b, fully sprinkled, single exit units, two exit building... are bedrooms in the core of the building required to have a EER window?

I have looked at the tables in 1021 and read both the code and commentary in 1029 but I am still not clear on whether or not our interior bedrooms are dinged for not having windows.

Any help or insight is much appreciated.

Thank you in advance.


----------



## cda

Welcome to the party


----------



## cda

What code and edition are you designing to?

Helps when posting a question


----------



## cda

From 2009

See exception 1

SECTION 1029 EMERGENCY ESCAPE AND RESCUE

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

This section requires emergency escape and rescue provisions in groups where occupants may be sleeping during a potential fire buildup, but are capable of self-preservation (Groups R and I-1). A basement and each sleeping room are to be provided with an exterior window or door that meets the minimum size requirements and is operable for emergency escape by methods that are obvious and clearly understood by all users. Sleeping rooms four stories or more above grade are not required to be so equipped, since fire service access at that height, as well as escape through such an opening, may not be practical or reliable. In accordance with Chapter 9, such buildings will also be equipped throughout with an automatic fire suppression system. The provision for basements is in recognition that such types of spaces typically only have a single path of egress and often have no alternative routes available as other levels do.

It is important to note that this window is an element of escape and does not comprise any part of the means of egress unless it is a door with appropriate egress component characteristics.

Exception 1 assumes that the automatic sprinkler system can control fire buildup and reduce, if not eliminate, the need for an occupant to use an emergency escape window. The exception applies to buildings equipped throughout with an NFPA 13 or 13R sprinkler system.

Exception 2 allows another acceptable means of escape; that is, a door directly from the sleeping room to a corridor with exits in opposite directions, to substitute for the escape window.

Exception 3 provides for dwelling and sleeping units that have egress windows to a balcony that is within an atrium. The exception specifies that the dwelling or sleeping unit is to have another means of egress that does not pass through the atrium so that an independent route of egress is provided.

Exceptions 4 and 7 are intended to exempt basements that would not be likely to have sleeping rooms in them from the requirement to have emergency escape and rescue openings.

Exception 5 is in correlation with the exception for emergency escape windows in high-rise buildings addressed in Section 403.4.

The intent of Exception 6 is to permit sleeping rooms with a direct access to an exterior-type environment, such as a street or exit balcony, to not have an emergency escape window. The open atmosphere of the escape route would increase the likelihood that the means of egress be available even with the delayed response time for sleeping residents.


----------



## camksu

cda said:
			
		

> What code and edition are you designing to?Helps when posting a question


I neglected to mention that, didn't I?

We are governed by IBC - and here's the kicker... 2012, which reduces the exceptions in 1029 greatly.


----------



## cda

ok looks like you are stuck "below the fourth floor' with meeting the requirement

Can you provide a window and meet """"Such openings shall open directly into a public way or to a yard or court that opens to a public way"""?

Or has the ahj Amended the section??

it did not change back in the 2015.


----------



## camksu

cda said:
			
		

> ok looks like you are stuck "below the fourth floor' with meeting the requirementCan you provide a window and meet """"Such openings shall open directly into a public way or to a yard or court that opens to a public way"""?
> 
> Or has the ahj Amended the section??
> 
> it did not change back in the 2015.


That's what i was afraid of...

I read it the same as you, that my R-2 floors 4&5 are ok but floor 3 would still need to abide. Unfortunately, the bedrooms are interior and would not be able to open directly into a public way or yard or court.

As an aside, any idea why they excluded the sprinkler exception in 2012 and 2015? Seems to be pretty restrictive...


----------



## cda

Nope, there are a few """code adopter goers to meetings", on here that may know.

only guess is FD wanted the access, since it was so low??


----------



## Mech

Not sure of your floor plan, but can you add a door from the bedroom to a fire rated corridor?  See exception #2 from post #4 above.  I just used that exception (2009 IBC) to eliminate some EER window requirements.


----------



## camksu

Mech said:
			
		

> Not sure of your floor plan, but can you add a door from the bedroom to a fire rated corridor?  See exception #2 from post #4 above.  I just used that exception (2009 IBC) to eliminate some EER window requirements.


That's what I may have to end of up doing... on just the third floor, which is unfortunate from a design standpoint as that doubles the number of doors in the corridor in a fully sprinkled type 1b (fully protected structure).

I still don't fully understand why they reduced the exceptions from 2009 to 2012... then again i'm trying to apply logic to the code and well :banghd:banghd:banghd


----------



## steveray

camksu said:
			
		

> That's what I may have to end of up doing... on just the third floor, which is unfortunate from a design standpoint as that doubles the number of doors in the corridor in a fully sprinkled type 1b (fully protected structure).I still don't fully understand why they reduced the exceptions from 2009 to 2012... then again i'm trying to apply logic to the code and well :banghd:banghd:banghd


I know they significantly increased the travel distance with one exit....maybe this has something to do with that....?


----------



## cda

looks like we yelled about this before, and not sure if windows are required??

http://www.thebuildingcodeforum.com/forum/commercial-building-codes/10043-emergency-escape-rescue-openings.html


----------



## RLGA

I just went through this on another project.  Section 1029.1 states, in significant part, that EEROs are required "in Group R-2 occupancies in accordance with Tables 1021.2(1) and 1021.2(2)..."

If the Group R-2 is provided with only one exit from a story, then the EEROs are required per Footnote 'a' of Table 1021.2(1).  If a Group R-2 has two exits from the story, then EEROs are not required.  Individual dwelling units within the story of a Group R-2 are permitted to have one exit access doorway per Table 1015.1 if the occupant load of the dwelling unit does not exceed 10.

This is all from the 2012 IBC.


----------



## cda

RLGA said:
			
		

> I just went through this on another project.  Section 1029.1 states, in significant part, that EEROs are required "in Group R-2 occupancies in accordance with Tables 1021.2(1) and 1021.2(2)..."If the Group R-2 is provided with only one exit from a story, then the EEROs are required per Footnote 'a' of Table 1021.2(1).  If a Group R-2 has two exits from the story, then EEROs are not required.  Individual dwelling units within the story of a Group R-2 are permitted to have one exit access doorway per Table 1015.1 if the occupant load of the dwelling unit does not exceed 10.
> 
> This is all from the 2012 IBC.


After reading the previous discussion and the wording in 2012

Is it poorly written??

1. All r's are sprinkled per 2012

2. So they did not need to restate that

3. So you do not need the window in a sprinkled R

If someone has the 2012 commentary maybe post what it says


----------



## steveray

I agree that it is bad wording, but I don't think I agree about the EERO's not being required. That will require some more looking on my end. The tables specify that you can have one exit when..... Not you only need EERO's when....Even though that is where 1029 send you.....See what I am saying?


----------



## camksu

RLGA said:
			
		

> I just went through this on another project.  Section 1029.1 states, in significant part, that EEROs are required "in Group R-2 occupancies in accordance with Tables 1021.2(1) and 1021.2(2)..."If the Group R-2 is provided with only one exit from a story, then the EEROs are required per Footnote 'a' of Table 1021.2(1).  If a Group R-2 has two exits from the story, then EEROs are not required.  Individual dwelling units within the story of a Group R-2 are permitted to have one exit access doorway per Table 1015.1 if the occupant load of the dwelling unit does not exceed 10.
> 
> This is all from the 2012 IBC.


RLGA: Thank you very much for your insightful and helpful response. Question for you though...

Can you point me to where "If a Group R-2 has two exits from the story, then EEROs are not required."? I can't find that exception in 1021 or 1029


----------



## RLGA

steveray said:
			
		

> I agree that it is bad wording, but I don't think I agree about the EERO's not being required. That will require some more looking on my end. The tables specify that you can have one exit when..... Not you only need EERO's when....Even though that is where 1029 send you.....See what I am saying?


The first sentence of Section 1029.1 establishes the scoping of the requirement for EEROs.  It states that only Group R-2 and Group R-3 are required to have EEROs; thus, other occupancy groups (including Groups R-1 and R-4) are not required to provide EEROs.  The remaining sentences of Section 1029.1 further refine the scope as applied to the occupancy groups in the first sentence and are not meant to be broad-scope requirements to any basement or sleeping room in any occupancy group.


----------



## camksu

cda said:
			
		

> After reading the previous discussion and the wording in 2012Is it poorly written??
> 
> 1. All r's are sprinkled per 2012
> 
> 2. So they did not need to restate that
> 
> 3. So you do not need the window in a sprinkled R
> 
> If someone has the 2012 commentary maybe post what it says


The commentary does not lend much more clarity to 1029 as it states:

"This section requires emergency escape and rescue provisions in residential buildings where occupants may be sleeping during a potential fire buildup, but are capable of self-preservation. Group R-2 apartment buildings permitted to have a single exit are also required to have emergency escape openings by table 1021.2(1), Note a. Group R-2 congregate residences permitted to have a single exit are also required to have an EERO by table 1021.2(2), Note a"


----------



## camksu

RLGA said:
			
		

> The first sentence of Section 1029.1 establishes the scoping of the requirement for EEROs.  It states that only Group R-2 and Group R-3 are required to have EEROs; thus, other occupancy groups (including Groups R-1 and R-4) are not required to provide EEROs.  The remaining sentences of Section 1029.1 further refine the scope as applied to the occupancy groups in the first sentence and are not meant to be broad-scope requirements to any basement or sleeping room in any occupancy group.


Ah ha! I think I may understand now. So Group R-2 are only required to have EERO if they only have one exit for the building? Is that correct?


----------



## steveray

Guess I am just old fashioned in thinking EERO's are a good thing.....More sprinkler trade offs I guess...


----------



## cda

I still think if sprinkled window not required

Just bad wording


----------



## cda

WWICCD

you can always ask icc


----------



## steveray

Duplicate post


----------



## steveray

cda said:
			
		

> I still think if sprinkled window not requiredJust bad wording


The 2 exits from the story is the trigger....1 you still need the EERO...It brings it inline with R1 and such...Problem is you don't have as many long term idiots in R1....Time will tell how this works.


----------



## RLGA

camksu said:
			
		

> Ah ha! I think I may understand now. So Group R-2 are only required to have EERO if they only have one exit for the building? Is that correct?


Close, when they only have one exit from a story.

For further explanation, the 2009 IBC required all Group R occupancies to have EEROs, but if a building was sprinklered per NFPA 13 or 13R, the EEROs were not required (except for Group R-3).  Therefore, since Section 903.2.8 required sprinklers in all Group R occupancies, then most Group R occupancies were exempt from the EEROs (Group R-3 and Group R occupancies using NFPA 13D still required the EEROs).  However, if a building wanted stories with a single exit, then Table 1021.2 required that 3-story Group R-2s must have EEROs, even if they are sprinklered.  So, in essence, the requirements of the 2012 IBC are just another way of restating what was required in the 2009 IBC.

In actuality, the 2012 IBC is more restrictive than the 2009 IBC, since Table 1021.2(1) of the 2012 IBC requires that the basement, first story and second story--in addition to the third story--have the EEROs.  Table 1021.2 of the 2009 IBC, per Footnote 'c,' only required the EEROs when a building had a third story with a single exit--basements, first stories, and second stories, when the building did not have a third story, were not required to have the EEROs (Footnote 'c' is not indicated with the Group R or R-2 occupancies in the rows for those stories).


----------



## arcitek

RLGA said:
			
		

> Close, when they only have one exit from a story.For further explanation, the 2009 IBC required all Group R occupancies to have EEROs, but if a building was sprinklered per NFPA 13 or 13R, the EEROs were not required (except for Group R-3).  Therefore, since Section 903.2.8 required sprinklers in all Group R occupancies, then most Group R occupancies were exempt from the EEROs (Group R-3 and Group R occupancies using NFPA 13D still required the EEROs).  However, if a building wanted stories with a single exit, then Table 1021.2 required that 3-story Group R-2s must have EEROs, even if they are sprinklered.  So, in essence, the requirements of the 2012 IBC are just another way of restating what was required in the 2009 IBC.
> 
> In actuality, the 2012 IBC is more restrictive than the 2009 IBC, since Table 1021.2(1) of the 2012 IBC requires that the basement, first story and second story--in addition to the third story--have the EEROs.  Table 1021.2 of the 2009 IBC, per Footnote 'c,' only required the EEROs when a building had a third story with a single exit--basements, first stories, and second stories, when the building did not have a third story, were not required to have the EEROs (Footnote 'c' is not indicated with the Group R or R-2 occupancies in the rows for those stories).


Sorry I am dredging up an old post but I wanted to clarify something related to this subject.  I have a similar 4-story R2 project that will be fully sprinklered so the egress window will not be a concern under the 2009 IBC.  However, no one mentions anything about needing a window for natural light and ventilation?  For the ventilation, we are doing central HVAC with make-up air so the ventilation part should be addressed.  What I cannot locate for the life of me in the IBC is a reference to this 4% or 8% of floor space natural light requirement.  I think the IRC has this clause but I did not think the IRC applied to multi-story R2 and R3, the IBC would apply.  Any confirmation on this?  Thanks!


----------



## RLGA

See Section 1205.2.


----------



## arcitek

RLGA said:
			
		

> See Section 1205.2.


Thanks, but Section 1205.3 says not required which was what I had thought before I came upon another thread where they were pushing the requirement.  It is not ideal but we had done windowless offices and bedrooms before and I could not see why some were saying we had to have the windows.


----------



## mtlogcabin

1205.1 requires natural or artificial light

1205.2 gives you the reference of 8% for the minimum amount of natural light

1205.3 gives you the minimum amount average illumination (10 foot-candles) of allowable artificial light

It is the designers choice of what is provided


----------



## kilitact

"In addition to the means of egress required by this chapter, provisions shall be made for emergency escape and rescue openings in Group R-2 occupancies in accordance with Tables 1021.2(1) and 1021.2(2) and Group 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 escape 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".

Section 1029.1 tells you that you need emergency escape and rescue. Charging statement is that in addition to the means of egress required by this chapter..., this not an exception to the requirement.


----------



## mtlogcabin

Don't forget the exceptions to Section 1029.1 specifically #1 & #2

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


----------



## kilitact

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> Don't forget the exceptions to Section 1029.1 specifically #1 & #2Exceptions:
> 
> 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.	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.	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.	Basements without habitable spaces and having no more than 200 square feet (18.6 m2) in floor area shall not be required to have emergency escape windows.


You're apparently reading from the 2009?? I'm looking at the 2012-2014.


----------



## cda

kilitact said:
			
		

> You're apparently reading from the 2009?? I'm looking at the 2012-2014.


Hummmmmm,

I wonder if it is it one of those other "assumed sprinkled building" changes that did not pick up the exception, because the building is required to be sprinkled.


----------



## kilitact

cda said:
			
		

> Hummmmmm,I wonder if it is it one of those other "assumed sprinkled building" changes that did not pick up the exception, because the building is required to be sprinkled.


I don't think so, just reinstated what was previously taken out.


----------



## mtlogcabin

2009 is what arcitek referenced as to the code edition he is using

I never agreed with the 2009 exception for egress windows just because a sprinkler system is installed and am glad it is out of the 2012 editions


----------



## cda

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> 2009 is what arcitek referenced as to the code edition he is usingI never agreed with the 2009 exception for egress windows just because a sprinkler system is installed and am glad it is out of the 2012 editions


So you want them in a 20 story hotel?


----------



## mtlogcabin

cda said:
			
		

> So you want them in a 20 story hotel?


Not required above the 3rd floor

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.


----------



## kilitact

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> 2009 is what arcitek referenced as to the code edition he is usingI never agreed with the 2009 exception for egress windows just because a sprinkler system is installed and am glad it is out of the 2012 editions


 camksu is the op and using the 2012. I agree it should have never been missed, taken out of the requirements.


----------



## steveray

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> 2009 is what arcitek referenced as to the code edition he is usingI never agreed with the 2009 exception for egress windows just because a sprinkler system is installed and am glad it is out of the 2012 editions


Me too....We should be on 2012 early next year...


----------



## jeffreygordon

Hi, just joined the group and realizing I am a lot out of my leaque in regards to these code issues.  I will apologize in advance for not really getting all the nuances to the codes and the terminology, but I have printed it out and am trying to work through it--you all earn your money in my mind!

We are a small developer doing our first 4 story apartment building in DC.

We are in very early on conceptual design and doing the work in house with a Plans Examiner Firm providing limited guidance.

 We are under 2012 code and at our preliminary design review we were informed that since we did not have a recorded easement to use an existing rear walk way (been there 25+ years, just no one seems to have ever recorded any easements formalizing the walkway access--we expect to prove at least a prescriptive easement before we break ground) to an alleyway ("public way"?) the fire guy wanted us to have two means of egress stairs systems in the building.  This was tough with only a 24' building width--chews up a lot of space.

I understand since we have no way to legally access the rear of the building with fire equipment then we needed to have a 2nd means of egress from the rear units on floors 1-3 since we could not use Emergency Escape through exterior windows/doors on the rear of the building etc.

I am curious though would we still be expected to provide EERO's in the rear units if the bedrooms were against the outside of the building--i.e. even though we have been required to add the 2nd stair way means of egress?

This is also a zero lot line lot so only natural light is at the east and west ends of the building.  6 weeks ago we toured a condo finished late 2014 that was permitted under the 2009IBC.  That had the bedrooms against the interior common walls and the kitchen living rooms against the exterior walls where they could use the natural light rather than having it in the bedrooms only occupied in the night time.

We reviewed  the 2009 and 2012 and asked our plans examiner for guidance regarding moving the bedrooms to the common walls when we had both full sprinkled building and two separate exits from each unit and two means of egress from the building.   This guy has over 40 years of experience in the profession and had some difficulty in answering us so he eventually called ICC for an explanation.

this was his message to me including his conversation with the ICC interpretation;

"Today I spoke with Jeff from the code option section of the International Code Council.  I told him I was confused about the circular reference between IBC section 2029 and table 1021.2(1) footnote ‘a’.

My confusion was, section 1029 requires egress windows but also reference table 1021.2(1) which addresses the number of exits from a floor.  Footnote ‘a’ of the table specifically requires an egress window.  I could find no specific exception to the requirement for egress windows.

Jeff explained, they received a lot of calls regarding this section.  It seems in past codes there was a specific exception for egress windows when 2 exits were provided BUT the exception was being abused;  some were using the table in 1021.2(1) to first reduce the required exits and then applying the exception in 1029 to exempt the egress window stating they were in compliance with the table.  The specific exemption was removed and now it’s not as clear.

Jeff stated, it is the intent require the 2 exits either by one exit access and one egress windows OR 2 exit access.  To be more clear, it was the intent to allow for exemption of emergency egress windows if two exits or exit access were provided."

So we thought good we can redesign he units and move the bedrooms into the interior common walls.

When we submitted the revised plans back into DC fire we didnt get very far.  We were told things were fine but there was no emergency escape from the bedrooms.

So we submitted the quoted conversation above thinking we're fine.

but this is what we got back which has me even more appreciative of anybody who works with this stuff every day!

"They are confusing the issues. One issue is emergency escape from a sleeping room. The other is means of egress or  exiting a floor. The two shall not be equated."

My plans examiner says the fire guy is wrong. I understand we can ask DC for an interpretation/ruling on a matter from ICC.

I sure could use some guidance here, and I promise to never get involved in code issues again!

thanks

jeff


----------



## cda

am curious though would we still be expected to provide EERO's in the rear units if the bedrooms were against the outside of the building--i.e. even though we have been required to add the 2nd stair way means of egress?

 Under the 2012 yes unless the bedroom has a direct exterior door, the window is required.


----------



## cda

"""I sure could use some guidance here, and I promise to never get involved in code issues again!"""

Come on in the water's fine.


----------



## cda

Is the building official making the same comments??

It is more of a building code item, but have seen fire pick it up for various reasons, because the BO doesn't.


----------



## cda

So how many units are on each floor

Travel distance

Common path of egress distance


----------



## jeffreygordon

cda said:
			
		

> Is the building official making the same comments??It is more of a building code item, but have seen fire pick it up for various reasons, because the BO doesn't.


So far no, it is just the fire guy who has focused on it.  I was looking at the condo projects plans over the weekend and in the code comments they

did not even address the issue. But, they do have sliding barn doors on the those interior bedrooms and I am wondering if they also were making them

"studio" in nature so they changed their classification from Bedrooms?

maybe I am do dumb, but we have a brand new building with two separate 2 hour stairs ways out of the building and two separate exits out of every unit and and sprinklers and we also have to have Emergency Escape Exits from the bedrooms on the outside wall when they already claim we can not reach the rear of the building?

i would rather sleep in that building during a fire than about 95% of the other bedrooms in DC!

j


----------



## jeffreygordon

Hey, I am willing to dive in, I just never appreciated how convoluted the building codes are--everything these days seems to need an expensive interpreter to understand what is being said.  I guess that is fine, full employment for pros, but makes it easy to understand why housing in dc exceeds $600/sf.


----------



## jeffreygordon

two units on each floor. total of 8 in building.

travel distance max is under 37' from bedrooms and maximum 46' from anywhere in unit.

not sure what the common path of egress distance is, will have to look it up and report back.

thanks

j


----------



## jeffreygordon

cda said:
			
		

> am curious though would we still be expected to provide EERO's in the rear units if the bedrooms were against the outside of the building--i.e. even though we have been required to add the 2nd stair way means of egress? Under the 2012 yes unless the bedroom has a direct exterior door, the window is required.


so we have to add the 2nd means of egress stair system because no access to the rear of the building and we would still have to have the EERO's if the bedrooms are against the exterior wall?  I must be missing something here, these are 7 x 11 rooms, is 5.5' feet really going to make a difference in escaping a fire?


----------



## jeffreygordon

cda said:
			
		

> So how many units are on each floor   2 per floor 8 totalTravel distance  36' from bedrooms and 46 max from unit


Common path of egress distance

not sure what that is, will have to look it up and get back to you. building is 24 x 93.


----------



## jeffreygordon

Our focus is getting into a design review hearing to determine if we can get 100% relief for parking variance.  So our focus has been on getting the exterior of the building approved by the zoning commission with an understanding that we can fine tune the interior floor plans after we get the approval to build without parking on this narrow deep lot etc.

We assume we will be able to resolve the lack of rear alley access to the "Public Way" through either a negotiated easement or a prescriptive easement after we get through design review.  We also assume we are going to hire a local architect with MF experience to developer our building permit plan package etc..

So right now we are just trying to get through the conceptual review process with DC fire/Bldg. etc so we can get a referral to the Zoning Commission for the design review hearing.  It is a Maverick approach but for our first project we are in the dirt a about 20% of its market value so we are trying to keep our development costs minimized until we get the parking variance etc.

I have been looking at other way to fulfill the emergency escape requirement from the room and am a little confused about whether something as simple as a door through and adjacent bedroom would make our DC fire guy happy--i see some restrictions about passing through bedrooms/bathrooms etc., but it is not clear if those are in the same unit or separate units etc.

I sure appreciate the feedback and questions folks, the confusion is a bit mind boggling to me, my plans examiner guy says things have gotten a bit out of hand with "vested interests" playing a part in the entire process.  makes me want to go spend some time working on my Stancraft boat project and "feel" the wood with my hands as it is shaped to a thing of beauty!

thanks

j


----------



## cda

jeffreygordon said:
			
		

> So far no, it is just the fire guy who has focused on it.  I was looking at the condo projects plans over the weekend and in the code comments theydid not even address the issue. But, they do have sliding barn doors on the those interior bedrooms and I am wondering if they also were making them
> 
> "studio" in nature so they changed their classification from Bedrooms?
> 
> maybe I am do dumb, but we have a brand new building with two separate 2 hour stairs ways out of the building and two separate exits out of every unit and and sprinklers and we also have to have Emergency Escape Exits from the bedrooms on the outside wall when they already claim we can not reach the rear of the building?
> 
> i would rather sleep in that building during a fire than about 95% of the other bedrooms in DC!
> 
> j


Getting a little lost on all this

Sounds like the only thing missing is a window in the bedroom??

Or is the problem the bedroom does not have an exterior wall to put the window in??


----------



## cda

jeffreygordon said:
			
		

> so we have to add the 2nd means of egress stair system because no access to the rear of the building and we would still have to have the EERO's if the bedrooms are against the exterior wall?  I must be missing something here, these are 7 x 11 rooms, is 5.5' feet really going to make a difference in escaping a fire?


Possibly to the person in the bedroom, when the rest of the apartment is on fire.

Yes your building has sprinklers


----------



## cda

I have been looking at other way to fulfill the emergency escape requirement from the room and am a little confused about whether something as simple as a door through and adjacent bedroom would make our DC fire guy happy--i see some restrictions about passing through bedrooms/bathrooms etc., but it is not clear if those are in the same unit or separate units etc.

Same question again

The bedroom you want to have go through another bedroom,,,

Has no exterior wall???


----------



## cda

It does not sound with the 2nd exit and bedroom windows,,,

That they are asking for anything that has been in the code books, for years


----------



## jeffreygordon

cda said:
			
		

> Getting a little lost on all thisSounds like the only thing missing is a window in the bedroom??
> 
> Or is the problem the bedroom does not have an exterior wall to put the window in??


yeah, the issue is that the bedrooms are against and interior common wall and not against the outside wall,

so no exterior wall.

thanks


----------



## cda

Yep, you have a problem

Make that room something else, or is the problem can't get two bedrooms on any of the exterior walls


----------



## jeffreygordon

cda said:
			
		

> Yep, you have a problemMake that room something else, or is the problem can't get two bedrooms on any of the exterior walls


here is the floor plan he didnt like.

http://dcstadiumdistrict.com/new-project-in-dcsd/

here is the 2014 condo project they approved under the 2009 Code

http://dcstadiumdistrict.com/condos-approve/

Well I guess we talk to our plans examiner consultant and the ICC guy he spoke with and then the DC fire guy, and see how we go forward from here.

I appreciate the help folks, but I am even more confused now.


----------



## cda

Request to design to 2009

SECTION 1029 EMERGENCY ESCAPE AND RESCUE

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


----------



## jeffreygordon

cda said:
			
		

> Request to design to 2009SECTION 1029 EMERGENCY ESCAPE AND RESCUE
> 
> 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 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 escape 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. 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. 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. Basements without habitable spaces and having no more than 200 square feet (18.6 m2) in floor area shall not be required to have emergency escape windows.


Thanks CDA, is that a viable option or just a comment about how clueless I am


----------



## cda

jeffreygordon said:
			
		

> Thanks CDA, is that a viable option or just a comment about how clueless I am


Why both  off course

Naw sorry it is Monday

Yes if the AHJ will accept it, either as an alternative design or (((other recognized code will need to find a code reference for this)

A] 104.11 Alternative materials, design and methods of construction and equipment.

The provisions of this code are not intended to prevent the installation of any material or to prohibit any design or method of construction not specifically prescribed by this code, provided that any such alternative has been approved. An alternative material, design or method of construction shall be approved where the building official finds that the proposed design is satisfactory and complies with the intent of the provisions of this code, and that the material, method or work offered is, for the purpose intended, at least the equivalent of that prescribed in this code in quality, strength, effectiveness, fire resistance, durability and safety.


----------



## jeffreygordon

cda said:
			
		

> Why both  off courseNaw sorry it is Monday
> 
> Yes if the AHJ will accept it, either as an alternative design or (((other recognized code will need to find a code reference for this)
> 
> A] 104.11 Alternative materials, design and methods of construction and equipment.
> 
> The provisions of this code are not intended to prevent the installation of any material or to prohibit any design or method of construction not specifically prescribed by this code, provided that any such alternative has been approved. An alternative material, design or method of construction shall be approved where the building official finds that the proposed design is satisfactory and complies with the intent of the provisions of this code, and that the material, method or work offered is, for the purpose intended, at least the equivalent of that prescribed in this code in quality, strength, effectiveness, fire resistance, durability and safety.


Thanks we will give it a look and see how he responds.


----------



## mtlogcabin

You have a 4 story building therefore 2 exits (stairs) are required from each floor. Since you have two exits then EERO's are not required under 1029.1

See RGLA response in post #13



> I just went through this on another project. Section 1029.1 states, in significant part, that EEROs are required "in Group R-2 occupancies in accordance with Tables 1021.2(1) and 1021.2(2)..."If the Group R-2 is provided with only one exit from a story, then the EEROs are required per Footnote 'a' of Table 1021.2(1). If a Group R-2 has two exits from the story, then EEROs are not required. Individual dwelling units within the story of a Group R-2 are permitted to have one exit access doorway per Table 1015.1 if the occupant load of the dwelling unit does not exceed 10.
> 
> This is all from the 2012 IBC.


The Tables refer to stories with one exit. Time to educate the Fire Department Guy.

PS

I personally do not like it nor do I agree with it. However, it is the code


----------



## cda

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> You have a 4 story building therefore 2 exits (stairs) are required from each floor. Since you have two exits then EERO's are not required under 1029.1See RGLA response in post #13
> 
> The Tables refer to stories with one exit. Time to educate the Fire Department Guy.
> 
> PS
> 
> I personally do not like it nor do I agree with it. However, it is the code


I still do not understand how providing two exits gets you out of the window requirement


----------



## jeffreygordon

CDA if your confused, imagine how I feel!


----------



## jeffreygordon

MtLogCabin, thanks your thoughts seem to jibe with our code guys' thoughts today.

btw I can appreciate you might not like the code, I just want to move on this has been a very enlightening experience--you all are definitely worth whatever you get paid to work with this stuff every day!

Well, I guess it is time to have my guy call the fire guy!  I sure am not up to the task of educating the DC fire guy!

here is the email my 40 year building code professional sent to me this afternoon regarding his continued quest to salve my stress over this issue!

"So, I made a second call to ICC and talked to Chris this time.  Chris affirmed that many are confused about the new language  in 1029.  The short answer is;

The Emergency Escape window is only require if when the floor only has one exit.  In other words, if you are trying to apply table 1021(1) or 1021(2) (one exit floors) then an emergency escape window is required.

The language in the 2009 code was much clearer.  Since the 2012 code required all R-2 occupancies to be sprinklered, the language in 1029.1 changed and is very confusing now.

Below is the language of the 2009 code.

2009 IBC

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

2012 IBC

1029.1 General.

In addition to the means of egress required by this chapter, provisions shall be made for emergency escape and rescue openings in Group R-2 occupancies in accordance with Tables 1021.2(1) and 1021.2(2) and Group 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 escape 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.  (ICC states that table 1021.2(1) applies to R-2 occupancies were stories have only one exit and if you are not trying to apply this table by using just one exit from a floor, then the egress window required in footnote a would not be required.  That’s why the table is referenced in the charging language.  To restate, the egress windows are required in accordance with table 1021.2(1), this table requires the egress window when only one exit is being provided from a story.  If more than one exit is provided from a story then there is no need for the table and the footnote in the table.)

Exceptions:

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

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.

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


----------



## cda

Just make sure you hit all the maximum travel distances..

Just wonder what good are two exits, if you cannot get out of the apartment to them.


----------



## jeffreygordon

cda said:
			
		

> Just make sure you hit all the maximum travel distances..Just wonder what good are two exits, if you cannot get out of the apartment to them.


the terminology is a bit of challenge still.

thanks CDA, at least one good thing about this exercise is that I am starting to accrue the lingo,

not sure I get the common path exactly, but think i get the jist of it, now a new one Maximum travel

distance to look up.

I sure appreciate your feedback!!

j


----------



## cda

jeffreygordon said:
			
		

> the terminology is a bit of challenge still.  thanks CDA, at least one good thing about this exercise is that I am starting to accrue the lingo,
> 
> not sure I get the common path exactly, but think i get the jist of it, now a new one Maximum travel
> 
> distance to look up.
> 
> I sure appreciate your feedback!!
> 
> j


Do I have to draw you pictures?? I know someone had to do it for me!!;


----------



## ADAguy

Are there buildings with zero lot lines on both sides of the building?


----------



## jeffreygordon

ADAguy said:
			
		

> Are there buildings with zero lot lines on both sides of the building?


The assumption is that yes there will be at some point in the future, we are building lot line to lot line and the parcels on each side are zoned to 90' in a mixed use zone.

j


----------



## Pcinspector1

> Is IBC section 1205, lighting, being meet?
> 
> Going with the artificial light I suspect?


----------



## jeffreygordon

Pcinspector1 said:
			
		

> Is IBC section 1205, lighting, being meet?
> 
> Going with the artificial light I suspect?
Click to expand...

actually the bedrooms all have "relight" windows along the top of the walls to let in natural light from the exterior windows.

thanks


----------



## jeffreygordon

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*


----------



## jeffreygordon

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


----------



## cda

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


----------



## jeffreygordon

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


----------



## cda

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


----------



## mtlogcabin

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.
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





View attachment 1257


View attachment 1257


/monthly_2015_12/572953d982bb8_fireref.JPG.216423952810262d982aff3158e613ff.JPG


----------



## cda

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.


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.


----------



## mtlogcabin

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


----------



## Yikes

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


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.


----------



## mtlogcabin

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.


----------



## jeffreygordon

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


----------



## cda

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


You just have to wear them down till they give in!!!

Go forth and build!!!


----------



## RLGA

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


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


----------



## jeffreygordon

Thanks to all of you for help on this.   It was truly an eye opening experience!


----------



## cda

jeffreygordon said:
			
		

> Thanks to all of you for help on this.   It was truly an eye opening experience!


If you would like to help this self funded forum, we would thank you for any help,,

http://www.thebuildingcodeforum.com/forum/payments.php


----------

