Garage - No Man Door

[jar546]

Does a detached accessory structure, such as a garage, require a man door, or is the overhead door sufficient?

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

Residential (IRC) or commercial (IBC)? If IBC, how large/what's the occupant load. Overhead doors are allowed as egress under the IBC if serving (if I recall correctly) either 10 or less, or under 10 occupants.

 

[jar546]

Residential (IRC) or commercial (IBC)? If IBC, how large/what's the occupant load. Overhead doors are allowed as egress under the IBC if serving (if I recall correctly) either 10 or less, or under 10 occupants.

I posted this in the Residential Building Code section.
Big enough to fit 6 cars 2cars x3rows

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

I'm not seeing any requirements pertaining to doors in section R309 except the requirement that garage door openers by listed. All I see in Section R311 is that a dwelling shall have at least one egress door that's side-hinged.

Other doors shall not be
required to comply with these minimum dimensions. Egress
doors shall be readily openable from inside the dwelling without
the use of a key or special knowledge or effort.

It doesn't appear that other door are regulated, so I'm going to go with all you need is the overhead garage doors.

 

[jar546]

It doesn't appear that other door are regulated, so I'm going to go with all you need is the overhead garage doors.

Let's see if everyone agrees on this.

 

[bill1952]

I would have sworn this has been discussed here and the consensus was MOE is not required for an accessory structure that is just storage or isn't for habitation. I was surprised.

As an aside, having recently built a detached 2 car garage with a person-door, I wished I'd omitted it. We never use it. Much easier to use extra remotes from house to open or close the overhead doors and not have to walk around to side nor shovel snow. Just how it works for us.

 

[ICE]

Much easier to use extra remotes from house to open or close the overhead doors

And if the power fails?

A man door is not required but makes sense in a lot of ways. Just one example: The wind is howling and you have an open box of classified Top Secret documents stashed in front of your Corvette. What then; would you open the roll-up or slink out the man door.....just a hypothetical, that would never happen in real life.....but if it did, just getting dust all over the 'Vette would be a shame, no? Every time it happens you'd wish you had spent the extra $467.00 on a man door.

A friend had a Corvette for sale. People that inquired were asked one question: If you're driving in a rain storm and the wipers quit working, what do you do? If they answered, Pull over. He said, Wrong answer, you do not drive a Corvette in the rain....and hung up.

 

[bill1952]

Stay home. Once in 6 years I can deal with it. If I hadn't put in a door, the window that would have been there would be openable. Or rigged a release from somewhere. Too easy to figure a work around. Could live fine without it. And it would be quite a stretch to fit that within the "purpose" of the IRC.

 

[chuck Miller]

I believe those papers are with the laptop that blew away.
As for the accessory building, I think once the square footage is 1000 SF it becomes a structure that needs a man door.

 

[bill1952]

or

And if the power fails?

I searched for this issue because I was certain it had been discussed and the simple and least expensive option for power failure is a battery backup.

Is this much different as fast as egress than self storage bays with just an overhead door?

 

[bill1952]

or

I searched for this issue because I was certain it had been discussed and the simple and least expensive option for power failure is a battery backup.

Is this much different as fast as egress than self storage bays with just an overhead door?

PS - learned something new - openers with built in battery backup. https://www.bestproductsreviews.com/garage-door-openers-with-battery-backup

 

[ICE]

least expensive option for power failure is a battery backup.

The least expensive would be reusing the existing opener when replacing the old garage doors. But of course, California will not allow that and the garage door companies will not reinstall the old opener because a battery backup is required. That came about after an elderly couple was found deceased in the car that was in the garage after the Camp fire. They made no attempt to take out the door with the car. So now we all have a battery next to the ceiling. I used mine recently when the power was out for twenty hours.

Now they have wifi and cameras. I can open the garage door from Hong Kong and live stream the people stealing my stuff.

 

[bill1952]

Well, that would be for the California section. In NY I was fine re-using garage doors and openers. Easy to find remotes and inexpensive.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

As for the accessory building, I think once the square footage is 1000 SF it becomes a structure that needs a man door.

Code citation?

 

[ICE]

Code citation?

I recall the 1000 sq.ft. limit so I went looking for it but alas, I can't find it. It might be with the gate key to our back yard as I can't find that either.

 

[Yikes]

I recall the 1000 sq.ft. limit so I went looking for it but alas, I can't find it. It might be with the gate key to our back yard as I can't find that either.

CBC/IBC 1010.1.2 Egress Door Types
Egress doors shall be of the side-hinged swinging door, pivoted door, or balanced door types.
Exceptions:
1. Private garages, office areas, factory and storage areas with an occupant load of 10 or less.

Per table 1004.5, the occupant load for a parking garage is 200 SF/occ. That’s about 10’x20’, the size of a single parking space inside a garage in a typical residential zoning code.
2 cars x 3 rows is approx 40’ deep x 30’ wide, 1200 SF, which is 6 occupants.

A garage of 2000 SF in area would qualify as “10 occupants or less”, at which point an egress door is not required to be swinging.

You would also need to check to see if accessibility codes would apply to your proposed use.

 

[ICE]

What recall was a limit on the size of a garage of 1000 sq.ft. It had nothing to do with occupant load.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

CBC/IBC 1010.1.2 Egress Door Types
Egress doors shall be of the side-hinged swinging door, pivoted door, or balanced door types.
Exceptions:
1. Private garages, office areas, factory and storage areas with an occupant load of 10 or less.

Per table 1004.5, the occupant load for a parking garage is 200 SF/occ. That’s about 10’x20’, the size of a single parking space inside a garage in a typical residential zoning code.
2 cars x 3 rows is approx 40’ deep x 30’ wide, 1200 SF, which is 6 occupants.

A garage of 2000 SF in area would qualify as “10 occupants or less”, at which point an egress door is not required to be swinging.

You would also need to check to see if accessibility codes would apply to your proposed use.

But this question isn't an IBC question. It's an IRC question.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

What recall was a limit on the size of a garage of 1000 sq.ft. It had nothing to do with occupant load.

I found a copy of one of the CABO codes on-line and downloaded it. I didn't see anything in there about 1,000 square feet.

I couldn't find a downloadable copy of a BOCA code. I'll have to disinter my old code books in the basement to see what BOCA said. I can't remember if I may have a copy of a UBC left over from when I was licensed in California. If I do, I haven't seen it for decades.

 

[Yikes]

But this question isn't an IBC question. It's an IRC question.

I hear you, but R311.2 only addresses dwelling unit doors. So here in California either you conclude that the IRC / CRC has no minimum egress door requirements for accessory structures/uses to residential dwellings, or you go back to chapter 1 of the IRC to see if it defers to the IBC / CBC for scoping.


1.1.3 Scope
The provisions of this code shall apply to the construction, alteration, movement, enlargement, replacement, repair, equipment, use and occupancy, location, maintenance, removal and demolition of every detached one- and two-family dwelling and townhouse not more than three stories above grade plane in height with a separate means of egress and structures accessory thereto throughout the State of California.

1.1.3.1 Classification
Structures or portions of structures shall be classified with respect to occupancy in one or more of the groups listed in Chapter 3 of the California Building Code. A room or space that is intended to be occupied at different times for different purposes shall comply with all of the requirements that are applicable to each of the purposes for which the room or space will be occupied. Structures with multiple occupancies or uses shall comply with Section 508 of the California Building Code. Where a structure is proposed for a purpose that is not specifically provided for in this code, such structure shall be classified in the group that the occupancy most nearly resembles, according to the fire safety and relative hazard involved in accordance with this code or the California Building Code.

 

[wwhitney]

I hear you, but R311.2 only addresses dwelling unit doors. So here in California either you conclude that the IRC / CRC has no minimum egress door requirements for accessory structures/uses to residential dwellings

Given the inclusion of "structures accessory thereto" in IRC/CRC 1.1.3's scope, isn't that the only possible conclusion?

Cheers, Wayne

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

Given the inclusion of "structures accessory thereto" in IRC/CRC 1.1.3's scope, isn't that the only possible conclusion?

Cheers, Wayne

That's the way we do it. It makes no sense to build a house under the IRC and then say that a detached garage or a garden shed on the same parcel fall under the IBC.

 

[Yikes]

Given the inclusion of "structures accessory thereto" in IRC/CRC 1.1.3's scope, isn't that the only possible conclusion?

Cheers, Wayne

Hypothetical: A 1,000 SF house with an attached 20,000 SF garage that holds a private car collection. Does the IRC require any occupant means of egress for the garage at all? (For that matter, does the unamended IRC have any limitations as to the allowable area of either the residence or its accessory uses other than height?)

Could you hypothetically build a variant of The White House under the the IRC (less than 3 stories above grade, right?) , where the West Wing functions as an accessory structure?

In my opinion California modified the IRC via 1.1.3.1 (see post #20) to refer us to the CBC as the primary/ precedent scoping document when dealing with multiple occupancies.

 

[wwhitney]

In my opinion California modified the IRC via 1.1.3.1 (see post #20) to refer us to the CBC as the primary/ precedent scoping document when dealing with multiple occupancies.

Sure, you can refer to IBC/CBC Chapter 3 to decide based on the use if there are in fact multiple occupancies or not. I'm not so versant with that Chapter, but I imagine your outlier examples would depend on whether the building is used just by the owner and their family, in which case it would be accessory to the one family dwelling and under the IRC. Or whether it is, say, open to the public for tours, in which case it might be a different occupancy which is subject to the IBC.

Interestingly, I noticed under Group U in the IBC it includes "Grain silos, accessory to a residential occupancy." Does that mean I can build a grain silo next to my farmhouse under the provision of the IRC rather than the IBC? Maybe some of the height limits in the IRC would make that impractical.

Cheers, Wayne