• 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 Issue? I don't think so... but?

J

JZegowitz

REGISTERED
Joined
Apr 1, 2021
Messages
18
Location
Metro Boston
Designed a 6 unit R-2 Building, two units per floor split down the middle with a stair accessible to both units on every floor, front and back - BASIC. Inside the front door of each unit is a small area with a coat closet directly in front of you, 4'-6" away from the entry door; the coat closet door and the unit entry door walls are parallel. Coat closet door is 2'-8" wide, entry door is 3' wide. 3rd party code review says the coat closet MAY impede egress. 1- difficult to respond to a 'may', 2 - assuming the coat closet door is closed, there's a clear 3' path thru the front door. Are we to assume the coat closet door will remain open at all times enough to impact the swing of the front door? Hadn't heard this one before. Wouldn't then any door (perhaps linen clos door in hall) opening into the hall, along the egress path of travel, then likewise impede egress? Or is it just when doors have possible swing conflict? Not buying it. Yes, there are work arounds, but I REALLY don't want to introduce bifold doors to this building. Thanks for your input- JZ
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot 2025-05-22 201740.png
    Screenshot 2025-05-22 201740.png
    19.7 KB · Views: 23
The closet door would not prevent the egress door from opening. Perhaps spring loaded hinges on the closet door would appease the AHJ.
 
I would not consider it to be "doors in a series", and even if it were, there is no requirement under IBC 1010.1.7 exc. #3.
JZegowitz said:
Are we to assume the coat closet door will remain open at all times enough to impact the swing of the front door?
Click to expand...
No
JZegowitz said:
Wouldn't then any door (perhaps linen clos door in hall) opening into the hall, along the egress path of travel, then likewise impede egress?
Click to expand...
Yes.

If you have do move (close) one additional door in order to open the unit egress door a full 90 degrees, that is not any greater burden than being in the bedroom and having to first move (open) the bedroom door in order to get to the unit egress door.

Perhaps the plan checker's concern is not egress, but entry. Could the closet door slab, left open at just the perfect angle, get stuck on the unit egress/entry door hardware? Maybe, but even then, there's still plenty of room for a person to walk in or reach around and move the door out of the way.

1748027686938.png


Again, have the plan checker cite the particular code non-compliance problem, or remove the correction.
 

Attachments

  • 1748027390020.png
    1748027390020.png
    14.2 KB · Views: 2
Last edited:
Its a non-issue. This is a common residential design that you see in many apartment buildings.
From IBC:

1005.7.1 Doors.

Doors, when fully opened, shall not reduce the required width by more than 7 inches (178 mm). Doors in any position shall not reduce the
required width by more than one-half.

Exceptions:
1. Surface-mounted latch release hardware shall be exempt from inclusion in the 7-inch maximum (178 mm) encroachment where
both of the following conditions exist:
1.1. The hardware is mounted to the side of the door facing away from the adjacent wall where the door is in the open​
position.
1.2. The hardware is mounted not less than 34 inches (865 mm) nor more than 48 inches (1219 mm) above the finished floor.​
2. The restrictions on door swing shall not apply to doors within individual dwelling units and sleeping units of Group R-2
occupancies and dwelling units of Group R-3 occupancies.

Dwelling unit = 1 apartment
 
Penguin87 said:
Its a non-issue. This is a common residential design that you see in many apartment buildings.
From IBC:

1005.7.1 Doors.

Doors, when fully opened, shall not reduce the required width by more than 7 inches (178 mm). Doors in any position shall not reduce the
required width by more than one-half.

Exceptions:
1. Surface-mounted latch release hardware shall be exempt from inclusion in the 7-inch maximum (178 mm) encroachment where
both of the following conditions exist:
1.1. The hardware is mounted to the side of the door facing away from the adjacent wall where the door is in the open​
position.
1.2. The hardware is mounted not less than 34 inches (865 mm) nor more than 48 inches (1219 mm) above the finished floor.​
2. The restrictions on door swing shall not apply to doors within individual dwelling units and sleeping units of Group R-2
occupancies and dwelling units of Group R-3 occupancies.

Dwelling unit = 1 apartment
Click to expand...
 
Thank you Penguin! I'm a little (lot) embarrassed I hadn't found that; pretty damned straight forward. A little cranky (lot) knowing the 3rd party reviewer making $bank to go thru the plans doesn't know that either, costs directly put on the developer for the review.
Thanks all for the input as well, I think that one closes the book!
JZ
 
JZegowitz said:
A little cranky (lot) knowing the 3rd party reviewer making $bank to go thru the plans doesn't know that either, costs directly put on the developer for the review.
Click to expand...
Well, tell us the company so no one ever uses them again....Mass is a little weird like that....Even if I needed third party, I'm not sure I've ever seen anyone good enough for me to want to use...Except for maybe YC or TM.... ;)
 
steveray said:
Well, tell us the company so no one ever uses them again....Mass is a little weird like that....Even if I needed third party, I'm not sure I've ever seen anyone good enough for me to want to use...Except for maybe YC or TM.... ;)
Click to expand...
This was a party hired by the MUNICIPALITY, one where I have other projects pending, so pretty reluctant to give em up, but will be back with other nonsensical issues I'm sure!
 
JZegowitz said:
Thank you Penguin! I'm a little (lot) embarrassed I hadn't found that; pretty damned straight forward. A little cranky (lot) knowing the 3rd party reviewer making $bank to go thru the plans doesn't know that either, costs directly put on the developer for the review.
Thanks all for the input as well, I think that one closes the book!
JZ
Click to expand...
No problem!

We've had our fair share of weird comments coming from 3rd party reviewers. Worked on a project recently that was FM Global, the owner hired out a second engineering firm to review our drawings and about 95% of the comments were not really justified. None of them were really code issues but we had to write a long report to respond to them all, which took at least a week.
 
Penguin87 said:
No problem!

We've had our fair share of weird comments coming from 3rd party reviewers. Worked on a project recently that was FM Global, the owner hired out a second engineering firm to review our drawings and about 95% of the comments were not really justified. None of them were really code issues but we had to write a long report to respond to them all, which took at least a week.
Click to expand...
Responding to another one right now, different muni, on a single egress R2, 3 stories above grade, one walk out below. Saying I need to write an affidavit saying the lowest level is either 50% above or below grade. Uhhhh... errrr..... well
 
JZegowitz said:
Responding to another one right now, different muni, on a single egress R2, 3 stories above grade, one walk out below. Saying I need to write an affidavit saying the lowest level is either 50% above or below grade. Uhhhh... errrr..... well
Click to expand...

I don't even know what that means ...
 
That because that requirement was 33 years ago and you are still a young pup.
UBC 1997
1748443321059.png

1748443461101.png

Designers would design 3 or 4 story apartments and put 5 foot of dirt around the building and classify the building as 2 or 3 stories. Like the one below

1748443997642.png

ICC
[BG]STORY ABOVE GRADE PLANE. Any story having its finished floor surface entirely above grade plane, or in which the finished surface of the floor next above is:

  1. 1.More than 6 feet (1829 mm) above grade plane; or
  2. 2.More than 12 feet (3658 mm) above the finished ground level at any point.
[BG]GRADE PLANE. A reference plane representing the average of finished ground level adjoining the building at exterior walls. Where the finished ground level slopes away from the exterior walls, the reference plane shall be established by the lowest points within the area between the building and the lot line or, where the lot line is more than 6 feet (1829 mm) from the building, between the building and a point 6 feet (1829 mm) from the building.
 
Last edited:
JZegowitz said:
Responding to another one right now, different muni, on a single egress R2, 3 stories above grade, one walk out below. Saying I need to write an affidavit saying the lowest level is either 50% above or below grade. Uhhhh... errrr..... well
Click to expand...
Assumedly trying to determine whether it is a story above grade or not....If there is not an accurate site grading plan, I could see that...
 
There is no 50% requirement for making a determination. It is 6 ft or 12 feet finished floor above the average grade plane around the entire perimeter or the portion that slopes away from the building. That portion could be 1% up to 99% of the story above.
 
I remember the 50 % from somewhere, but I don't see it now...What code are you on? Lets see how far we can drift this....

IBC 2024:
[BG] STORY ABOVE GRADE PLANE. Any story having its finished floor surface entirely above grade plane, or in which the finished surface of the floor next above is:

  1. 1.More than 6 feet (1829 mm) above grade plane; or
  2. 2.More than 12 feet (3658 mm) above the finished ground level at any point.
One determination of the allowed height of a building under Section 504 is based on the number of stories above grade plane (see definitions of “Basement,” “Grade plane” and “Height, building”). The code establishes by this definition which stories of a building are those above grade plane. Clearly, it includes those stories that are fully above grade plane. It also includes stories that may be partially below finished ground level, but the finished floor level is more than 6 feet (1829 mm) above grade plane. It also includes those floor levels that, due to an irregular terrain, have a finished floor level more than 12 feet (3658 mm) above finished ground level at any point surrounding the building. Any building level not qualifying as a story above grade plane is, by definition, a basement.

GRADE PLANE. A reference plane representing the average of finished ground level adjoining the building at exterior walls. Where the finished ground level slopes away from the exterior walls, the reference plane shall be established by the lowest points within the area between the building and the lot line or, where the lot line is more than 6 feet (1829 mm) from the building, between the building and a point 6 feet (1829 mm) from the building.
 
Oh wow, thats interesting.

A developer built a "house" down the street from a family member of mine, and the "basement" is completely at grade. The "house" has 12 kitchens, 18 bathrooms, and is 4 and a half stories tall. There was no engineering provided to the city. In fact, the construction drawings included a floorplan per level and elevations. Wall construction was noted as "wood framed wall."

This was in the City of Portland! And they approved it without any comments.

I believe it was probably subdivided into 12 apartments with a daycare on the ground floor. After the city found out about the daycare, they made the owner install sprinklers in the structure.

And no, I am not making this up. I actually e-mailed the city plans examiner about it because it was so egregious and never received a response! It was absolutely shocking.
 
mtlogcabin said:
That because that requirement was 33 years ago and you are still a young pup.
UBC 1997
View attachment 15696

View attachment 15697
Click to expand...

Who are you calling a young pup? If that was directed at me, you missed rather badly. 33 years ago I was 48 years old. I had been licensed as an architect for 18 years at that point, and I was two years shy of getting my building official license.

I'm aware of the ways the old codes tried to define when a story was a story above grade and when it wasn't. The way it was expressed in the post I responded to wasn't even close.

Responding to another one right now, different muni, on a single egress R2, 3 stories above grade, one walk out below. Saying I need to write an affidavit saying the lowest level is either 50% above or below grade. Uhhhh... errrr..... well
Click to expand...
 
I apologize I was trying to be humorous not insulting.
No matter how many years we have on the code side of the counter we are all still "pups" learning new tricks. When we quit learning, we become "Old Dogs" who should go lay on the porch
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top