Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Building Code topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council hears safety, home‑rule and cost concerns over state‑driven single‑exit apartment option
Summary
Staff explained a state law option allowing certain multifamily buildings up to five stories to use a single exit if compensating life‑safety systems are installed; council members and the fire marshal raised home‑rule, operational and rescue‑safety concerns and asked staff for more legal and technical analysis before any local adoption.
Regional Building Manager Roger Lovell briefed the council on a regional code amendment prepared to implement provisions of state legislation that allow an option for single‑exit egress in certain multifamily buildings up to five stories, provided developers meet onerous life‑safety conditions such as full NFPA‑13 sprinklers, smoke‑control pressurization, full alarm systems, larger exit widths and egress windows in every dwelling unit.
Lovell said the state provision will be effective Dec. 1, 2027, and that the regional code language attempts to mirror the state requirements. He cautioned council that under the current 2021 International Building Code there is no clear permissive path for five‑story single‑exit buildings and that local adoption would need to consider code cycles and interaction with forthcoming 2027 model codes.
Fire Marshal Chris Cooper said single‑stair buildings concern him operationally because firefighters often must carry out rescues when a common stair is compromised by smoke; he said sprinklers and pressurization help but do not eliminate the evacuation and rescue risks that multiple life‑safety egress routes historically addressed. He reiterated that modern fire behavior (faster flashover times) increases the urgency of having multiple egress paths.
Councilmembers raised home‑rule and equity concerns: several asked whether the state law in effect forces adoption or merely creates an optional path, whether adopting the option locally would create inconsistent rules at the city boundary (a building across the street in the county might not be allowed the same option), and whether the cost offsets (some estimates that a second stair saves 7–12% of construction cost but added sprinkler/type‑I construction costs may exceed those savings) were realistic. Staff said adoption would be optional and that they did not expect widespread local use of the option but recommended further technical and legal review before any vote.
Why it matters: The provision affects building design options, fire‑safety planning and potential developer cost calculus; it also touches home‑rule authority and interjurisdictional consistency for the Pikes Peak regional building department.
What’s next: Staff will return with additional legal analysis, technical detail, and proposed local amendments for council consideration.
