Egress through intervening spaces

[TJacobs]

I would like to know how you would handle the following in reference to 2006 IBC 1014.2:

Mixed use nonseparated Type IIB. Tenant space (7,200 sq. ft.) in a multi-tenant building (65,000 sq. ft.).

Tenant space of B/S-1 with 3,000 B and 4,200 S-1. B use is in the front with entrance/exit and warehouse in the back with exit out rear wall. Building requires 2 exits per amendment to 1019.2. No amendment to 1015.1 so spaces with 1 exit are ok and each space complies with Table 1015.1 (each space under occupant load).

Plans for the tenant alteration (first tenant) have an exit sign over the front entry door plus an exit sign on the office side over the door to the warehouse; they do not show one on the other side (from the warehouse to the office). If the warehouse stores carpet rolls and floor tile, would you permit exiting through the warehouse? If so, are there any conditions that go with that approval.

 

[AegisFPE]

Re: Egress through intervening spaces

You may wish to consider IFC Section 2301.4, which permits public accessible areas for high-piled storage.

 

[texasbo]

Re: Egress through intervening spaces

If I understand your explanation correctly and the office space only requires 1 exit, I would have the exit sign removed from the door leading to the warehouse area.

 

[TJacobs]

Re: Egress through intervening spacesSee if the attached picture helps.intervening01.jpg[/attachment:a2uz5s6z]

View attachment 54

View attachment 54

/monthly_2010_05/intervening01.jpg.ab9ac40c03da0634629630c226707a1c.jpg

 

[texasbo]

Re: Egress through intervening spaces

Ya, it's kind of faint, but it's what I was thinking about. Pretty much all offices and ancillary spaces, one exit required, there's just no reason for the exit sign to be there.

Strangely, if it was retail and two exits were required, the code would allow exiting through the storage room under certain conditions. I guess if you were assured that the exit path would always be discernable in the storage room, you could take the exception to 1014.2 depending on your interpretation. But with one exit required we're just talking about removing the exit sign, no?

 

[TJacobs]

Re: Egress through intervening spaces

Ya, it's kind of faint, but it's what I was thinking about. Pretty much all offices and ancillary spaces, one exit required, there's just no reason for the exit sign to be there. Strangely, if it was retail and two exits were required, the code would allow exiting through the storage room under certain conditions. I guess if you were assured that the exit path would always be discernable in the storage room, you could take the exception to 1014.2 depending on your interpretation. But with one exit required we're just talking about removing the exit sign, no?

I want to see if I get more input before I answer that.

 

[TJacobs]

Re: Egress through intervening spaces

You may wish to consider IFC Section 2301.4, which permits public accessible areas for high-piled storage.

No storage plan yet.

 

[Plans Approver]

Re: Egress through intervening spaces

Plans for the tenant alteration (first tenant) ...

A little confused by "(first tenant)" - office space is first tenant and warehouse is second tenant? Or first tenant in building?

Assuming the latter: In general, I do not consider S-1/S-2 occupancy areas to be "storage rooms" - they are occupancies. So exiting through the warehouse would be permitted - as long as there is a continuous and unobstructed path of egress travel from any occupied portion of a building to a public way.

Further, 1014.2 No. 1 allows egress through adjoining rooms or areas that are accessory* to the area served, are not a high-hazard occupancy and provide a discernible path of egress travel to an exit.

From counting ceilings tiles in the office area (50'? x 60'?), it looks like the common path of travel might just make the 100 feet with 30 or less occupants. But, the warehouse (50'? x 84'?) looks like it might exceed the CP of T and the door to the office requires an exit sign. I know you said space w/ 1 exit by occupant load, did you also mean common path of travel?

I would require designation of a continuous and unobstructed means of egress through the warehouse under any circumstance 1 or 2 exits. If I am correct about the CP of T in the warehouse, I would require an exit sign and means of egress lighting. The exit sign from the office to warehouse would not be required, but, would not be required to be removed, even in this space with one required exit.

* let's not go off topic with the word "accessory" - the Commentary states that the word "accessory" in this section does NOT mean 10% as in 508.3.1.

 

[brudgers]

Re: Egress through intervening spaces

IMO, the back of the tenant space is a warehouse not a "storage room."

IMO, the building is safer with the door between the office area and the warehouse marked as an exit.

If the fire is in the middle of either space, the nearest exit in the direction away from the fire is the door between the occupancies and directing occupants toward that door rather than toward the fire is desirable.

 

[TJacobs]

Re: Egress through intervening spaces

Plans for the tenant alteration (first tenant) ...

A little confused by "(first tenant)" - office space is first tenant and warehouse is second tenant? Or first tenant in building?

First tenant alteration to the space in a shell building built last year. Other tenants already there.

 

[texasbo]

Re: Egress through intervening spaces

I'm really disappointed there haven't been more responses. I am very interested in knowing if the code professionals in this group consider a warehouse a "space used for similar purpose" as a storage room and would allow the offices to exit through it.

 

[TJacobs]

Re: Egress through intervening spaces

Plans for the tenant alteration (first tenant) ...

A little confused by "(first tenant)" - office space is first tenant and warehouse is second tenant? Or first tenant in building?

Assuming the latter: In general, I do not consider S-1/S-2 occupancy areas to be "storage rooms" - they are occupancies. So exiting through the warehouse would be permitted - as long as there is a continuous and unobstructed path of egress travel from any occupied portion of a building to a public way.

Further, 1014.2 No. 1 allows egress through adjoining rooms or areas that are accessory* to the area served, are not a high-hazard occupancy and provide a discernible path of egress travel to an exit.

From counting ceilings tiles in the office area (50'? x 60'?), it looks like the common path of travel might just make the 100 feet with 30 or less occupants. But, the warehouse (50'? x 84'?) looks like it might exceed the CP of T and the door to the office requires an exit sign. I know you said space w/ 1 exit by occupant load, did you also mean common path of travel?

No. The B use OL is 29, and the S-1 use OL is 8, so the total OL is 37. Since each use can have 1 exit when evaluated separately, and the whole space is under the 2-exit OL, I did not evaluate CP of T since 2 exits are NOT* required. Fully-sprinklered building per 903.3.1.1, so permitted travel distance is 250' in S-1 and 300' in B.

I would require designation of a continuous and unobstructed means of egress through the warehouse under any circumstance 1 or 2 exits. If I am correct about the CP of T in the warehouse, I would require an exit sign and means of egress lighting. The exit sign from the office to warehouse would not be required, but, would not be required to be removed, even in this space with one required exit.

* let's not go off topic with the word "accessory" - the Commentary states that the word "accessory" in this section does NOT mean 10% as in 508.3.1.

*Edited to correct mistake

 

[brudgers]

Re: Egress through intervening spaces

Ok so here's the question:

Is it ok to put an exit sign on the warehouse side of the communicating door?

 

[texasbo]

Re: Egress through intervening spaces

Ok so here's the question:Is it ok to put an exit sign on the warehouse side of the communicating door?

In my opinion, yes.

 

[brudgers]

Re: Egress through intervening spaces

Ok so here's the question:Is it ok to put an exit sign on the warehouse side of the communicating door?

In my opinion, yes.

So you would allow two exits from the space with eight occupants, but not allow two exits from the space with 29?

 

[texasbo]

Re: Egress through intervening spaces

Ok so here's the question:Is it ok to put an exit sign on the warehouse side of the communicating door?

In my opinion, yes.

So you would allow two exits from the space with eight occupants, but not allow two exits from the space with 29?

It would not be a matter of not *allowing* two exits. It's a matter of not *having* two complying exits available.

An exit through the warehouse, in my opinion, is not a code complying exit. Does it hurt to have a door there? Of course not. Does it hurt to have an exit sign there? Maybe, if someone panics, runs out that door, thinking it's a valid exit, and gets trapped by a pile of boxes or run over by a forklift.

I know and understand what you're saying, and in reality it would probably never be a problem. But from a pure code standpoint, I can't say, "One good exit and one bad exit is better than just one good exit". To add a ridiculous example, if the building's on fire, I may go through the nearest window, but that doesn't mean it can have an exit sign over it.

Edit: this whole warehouse thing might be more of a regional interpretation. It is not common around here to see required exits allowed through warehouses; in other parts it might be quite common.

 

[brudgers]

Re: Egress through intervening spaces

An exit through the warehouse, in my opinion, is not a code complying exit. Does it hurt to have a door there? Of course not. Does it hurt to have an exit sign there? Maybe, if someone panics, runs out that door, thinking it's a valid exit, and gets trapped by a pile of boxes or run over by a forklift.

So it's better if they burn?

 

[cda]

Re: Egress through intervening spaces

texasbo

Agree with your thoughts no exiting from office through what ever term you want to use

 

[texasbo]

Re: Egress through intervening spaces

An exit through the warehouse, in my opinion, is not a code complying exit. Does it hurt to have a door there? Of course not. Does it hurt to have an exit sign there? Maybe, if someone panics, runs out that door, thinking it's a valid exit, and gets trapped by a pile of boxes or run over by a forklift.

So it's better if they burn?

No, I'd take the forklift, personally.

Again, people might use an overhead door as an exit; that doesn't mean it's a *code complying* exit.

 

[brudgers]

Re: Egress through intervening spaces

An exit through the warehouse, in my opinion, is not a code complying exit. Does it hurt to have a door there? Of course not. Does it hurt to have an exit sign there? Maybe, if someone panics, runs out that door, thinking it's a valid exit, and gets trapped by a pile of boxes or run over by a forklift.

So it's better if they burn?

No, I'd take the forklift, personally.

Again, people might use an overhead door as an exit; that doesn't mean it's a *code complying* exit.

Now don't move the goal posts.

There is a code complying exit in the warehouse. Overhead doors don't enter into the equation.

Indeed if there is an exit sign on the warehouse side of the door, then its no more likely to be blocked than any other warehouse exit.

And if there is a means of egress from the office through the warehouse then blocking it is a violation 1003.6 (same as it would be on the office side).

BTW, I didn't see a list of prohibited locations in 1011 Exit signs...just required ones.

 

[texasbo]

Re: Egress through intervening spaces

Brudgers said:

Now don't move the goal posts.There is a code complying exit in the warehouse. Overhead doors don't enter into the equation.

Indeed if there is an exit sign on the warehouse side of the door, then its no more likely to be blocked than any other warehouse exit.

And if there is a means of egress from the office through the warehouse then blocking it is a violation 1003.6 (same as it would be on the office side).

BTW, I didn't see a list of prohibited locations in 1011 Exit signs...just required ones.

Not moving goal posts; an overhead door is no more a valid exit than a door into a warehouse area. You can't put an exit sign over either one (in my world).

 

[brudgers]

Re: Egress through intervening spaces

Not moving goal posts; an overhead door is no more a valid exit than a door into a warehouse area. You can't put an exit sign over either one (in my world).

What section do you cite?

 

[texasbo]

Re: Egress through intervening spaces

Not moving goal posts; an overhead door is no more a valid exit than a door into a warehouse area. You can't put an exit sign over either one (in my world).

What section do you cite?

1011.1. Your move.

 

[brudgers]

Re: Egress through intervening spaces

Not moving goal posts; an overhead door is no more a valid exit than a door into a warehouse area. You can't put an exit sign over either one (in my world).

What section do you cite?

1011.1. Your move.

Here's the complete list of prohibited locations from 1011.1 Where Required:

Which one are you going with?