• Welcome to The Building Code Forum

    Your premier resource for building code knowledge.

    This forum remains free to the public thanks to the generous support of our Sawhorse Members and Corporate Sponsors. Their contributions help keep this community thriving and accessible.

    Want enhanced access to expert discussions and exclusive features? Learn more about the benefits here.

    Ready to upgrade? Log in and upgrade now.

egress from office suites

N

Nicole Brooks

REGISTERED
Joined
Sep 21, 2018
Messages
113
Location
Baltimore
I have a suite, after the original space was demised, left with only one exit. The common path of travel (furthest point to spot where I have access to two distinct exits or exit access doorways) exceeds 100'. It is 125' to the exit stairway, which means I need two exit access doorways out of the space. I can't find anything that disputes my solution below, but both of these lead to the same corridor behind the exit and my travel distance to the exit is still 125' (below the 300' of a sprinklered business occupancy). I could see the logical argument that these two exit access doorways still leave you with the exact same situation you had when you only had one doorway, effectively leaving a single opening into the space, a corridor outside of the space vs within the space. However, I can't find anything that says this isn't permissible. The space in question is the gray shaded area and the two exits out of the space are the required remoteness.

1696525403115.png
 
What is the rating on your existing corridor walls?
and
Would the work possibly fall under the scope of the existing building code?
 
MADrkTEK said:
What is the rating on your existing corridor walls?
and
Would the work possibly fall under the scope of the existing building code?
Click to expand...
The corridor is not rated, the building is sprinklered. I don't think you can make an "existing building argument" because the former space did comply, no one made us demise it like this. A colleague of mine reviewed the plan when the space was demised and made the mistake of thinking the common path of egress was to the exit of the suite, not at the point of decision where you had two choices of exits.
 
Nicole Brooks said:
The corridor is not rated, the building is sprinklered. I don't think you can make an "existing building argument" because the former space did comply, no one made us demise it like this. A colleague of mine reviewed the plan when the space was demised and made the mistake of thinking the common path of egress was to the exit of the suite, not at the point of decision where you had two choices of exits.
Click to expand...
If this is the case, I believe your initial post is correct: your common path measures to the entrance of the nearest stair tower (exit) since both egress paths converge. The only viable option I see is to create an Exit Passageway from both of your Suite doors up to and including the nearby Stair tower Door.
 
steveray said:
But if you go out the "left door" you have to walk by the "right door? I would not call that a choice of 2....
Click to expand...
I found this in the ICC committee interpretations, which I would say backs up the not being able to provide 2 exit access doors before you get to the point of decision, even if it is not implicitly stated.
1696529358925.png
 
That is unfortunate. You have converging exits. Your Common path length will not comply and would not be allowed in our jurisdiction. Unless you are on the ground floor and can provide a direct exit to the exterior I see no solution that would not involve impacting the adjacent tenant area to provide another corridor to allow exiting in two directions that do not converge.
 
MADrkTEK said:
If this is the case, I believe your initial post is correct: your common path measures to the entrance of the nearest stair tower (exit) since both egress paths converge. The only viable option I see is to create an Exit Passageway from both of your Suite doors up to and including the nearby Stair tower Door.
Click to expand...
Yes, we have also considered that as well, leasing doesn't want to lose the ability of providing glass suite doors (without having to pay lots of money for rated glass doors. I suggested giving away the corner of the space that isn't within the 100' of C.P.O.T. which equates to around 250 sf, but over the 10' year lease of the tenant to the left, it's 75,000 dollars in lost rent, so leasing wasn't crazy about that. The interior designer on the project is trying to rework the adjacent tenant plan as an option, but lease has already been signed.
 
Tim Mailloux said:
I believe the code commentary version has diagrams indicating that this situation is not code compliant.
Click to expand...
If they do, I haven't been able to find it. They only give uncomplicated examples. I did find some further interpretation from ICC under their committee interpretations, intent of the code is if there is a fire emergency that the paths do not collide. My last-ditch solution is out!
 
Nicole Brooks said:
If they do, I haven't been able to find it. They only give uncomplicated examples. I did find some further interpretation from ICC under their committee interpretations, intent of the code is if there is a fire emergency that the paths do not collide. My last-ditch solution is out!
Click to expand...
page #397 of the 2021 IBC Illustrated Handbook has the most relevant diagram for your situation
 
Could the door at X75 open directly into the corridor, and the other door have a minimum width corridor going to the left of the stair instead of the right? That would let you get to the center stair without passing the right stair.
 
The bigger buildings getting broken up into smaller tenants piece by piece end up with egress challenges...We have one that "painted themselves into a corner" and now has square footage they cannot lease...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top