# Exit Remoteness



## mudsox40 (Jan 8, 2015)

My issue involves the construction of an observation/feeding deck at a giraffe exhibit and the exits that serve the deck.  The occupant load of the deck is 270, which means two exits from the deck are required.  There are two ramps that serve the deck, as can be seen in the image below, on opposite sides of the deck.  1015.2 states that exits and exit access doorways shall meet the remoteness requirement in 1015.2.1.  My question is does the remoteness requirement apply to the exit terminations.  As you can see, the entrances to the ramps from the deck meet remoteness however the ramps curl around and terminate at the same landing, ~10' apart, which would not meet remoteness.  Thoughts?

View attachment 2121


View attachment 2121


/monthly_2015_01/572953f2848ef_GiraffeDeck.jpg.cbb44651c58cfef6ca54046f2baa16c2.jpg


----------



## mtlogcabin (Jan 8, 2015)

> My question is does the remoteness requirement apply to the exit terminations.


Simple answer

No


----------



## cda (Jan 8, 2015)

Welcome

Go Buckeyes


----------



## JPohling (Jan 8, 2015)

converging exits.  I say it's a no go!


----------



## cda (Jan 8, 2015)

Ok does the ibc apply?

If so what occupancy group

A-5 stretch ?????

Looks like a walk way/patio


----------



## mtlogcabin (Jan 8, 2015)

Sorry I forgot my manners

Welcome

Spent a lot of summers in Orient & Grove City area. Almost moved there in the late 70's


----------



## mjesse (Jan 8, 2015)

JPohling said:
			
		

> converging exits.  I say it's a no go!


My first thought was - Approve.

Upon further review, I'm siding with JP.

And yes, WELCOME to THE Forum!!


----------



## cda (Jan 8, 2015)

what occupancy group???

if it was one solid deck would there be a problem?

occupant load??

one exit only needed??


----------



## JBI (Jan 8, 2015)

cda, Why is A-5 a stretch? Outdoor assembly for entertainment or educational outside of a school sounds like an A-5 to me.

That he exterior ramps are closer at the terminus should be of no concern as far as the Code requirements IMHO.

They never actually merge, and it is only the beginning of the 'exit' that is required to be remote.


----------



## cda (Jan 8, 2015)

I do not have my 2015 code stretcher yet. It is on order

A-5: Structures classified in Group A-5 are outdoor facilities where people assemble to view or participate in social and recreational activities (e.g., stadiums, grandstands, bleachers, coliseums). In order to qualify as an outdoor facility, the structure must be one where the products of combustion are freely and rapidly vented to the atmosphere (i.e., a structure without enclosures that would prevent the free movement of smoke from the occupied area to the outside). Any recreation facility that has exterior walls that enclose the facility and a roof that fully covers the area would not be classified in Group A-5, but rather in Group A-3 or A-4 depending on whether a seating area has been provided. In the case of a structure with a retractable roof, the more stringent occupancy classification (i.e., Group A-4) would be required.

Since occupancies classified in Group A-5 are primarily viewing and sports participation areas, the fuel load associated with them is very low (i.e., the structure itself and seats). Since the fuel load present is relatively low and the expectation is that smoke will be quickly evacuated from the structure, the relative fire hazard of occupancies classified in Group A-5 is expected to be low. The life safety hazard from panic that might occur in an emergency, however, is a serious concern; hence, the capability of large crowds to exit the structure quickly and orderly during emergencies is an important design consideration (see Section 1028).

Both Group A-4 and A-5 occupancies will include a variety of uses that support the viewing of sports and similar activities. There will likely be luxury seating suites, locker rooms, toilet facilities and press boxes, which are clearly part of the overall uses of the facility. There will also be offices, food concession stands and merchandise stands which by their use are different occupancies, but are probably within the accessory occupancy limits established in Section 508.2. Because of the multitiered design of most Group A-4 and A-5 occupancies, the limit for accessory occupancies to account for less than 10 percent of the story will need to be creatively applied. There may be full-fledged restaurants that are in the same building, but may be open to guests not limited to those attending an event. An Group A-2 occupancy designation is likely the most appropriate classification unless the restaurant is clearly accessory to the arena or stadium use.

It is a patio not attached to anything


----------



## steveray (Jan 8, 2015)

I know we amended in something for exit discharge remoteness as well but can't seem to find it...That way you don't take out 2 stairs with one car....I will dig...


----------



## steveray (Jan 8, 2015)

(Add) 1023.2.1 Remoteness. Where two or more doors leading to exit discharge are required, a minimum of two such doors shall be placed a distance apart equal to not less than one-third of the length of the maximum overall diagonal dimension of the building served, measured in a straight line between doors. Additional doors leading to exit discharge shall be arranged a reasonable distance apart so that if one becomes blocked, the others will be available.

Looks like it is just an "us" thing in 2009....it does make some sense even though the wording could be better...Not in the 2012 that I can see...


----------



## mtlogcabin (Jan 8, 2015)

1015.2 applies and you meet the requirement

EXIT ACCESS DOORWAY. A door or access point along the path of egress travel from an occupied room, area or space where the path of egress enters an intervening room, corridor, unenclosed exit access stair or unenclosed exit access ramp .


----------



## Chad Pasquini (Jan 8, 2015)

Welcome, and I think cda wanted to say go DUCKS


----------



## cda (Jan 8, 2015)

There's always one

I normally root for the "under buck"


----------



## Chad Pasquini (Jan 8, 2015)

So do I cda, as I am a raiders fan, which has been 12 years of pain and suffering for me


----------



## north star (Jan 8, 2015)

*= [ + ] =*



mudsox40,

Also, ...welcome to The Building Codes Forum !  

Since the door has already been opened,  ...in this scenario, I would favor the

Ducks also !.................Quack, quack quack !



*= [ + ] =*


----------



## mudsox40 (Jan 9, 2015)

In this case we decided to agree with the architect who classified the structure as an A-5, which required two exits due to a calculated occupant load of 265.  The initial concern was with the converging ramps and the potential of creating a bottleneck in case of panic or the "taking out two stairs with one car" analogy.  However, our building official ended up allowing this design as the wording in 1015.2, as some have pointed out, appears to only apply to the entrance to the exits and since the entire structure is open to the atmosphere.

MT-I just moved from Grove City after living there for 9 years.  It was a nice area and much cheaper than the north side of Columbus.

Thank you all for the input and Go Bucks!


----------

