Egress through intervening spaces

[texasbo]

Re: Egress through intervening spaces

Good post.The section, "Exception: Means of egress are not prohibited through adjoining or intervening rooms or spaces in a Group H, S or F occupancy when the adjoining or intervening rooms or spaces are the same or a lesser hazard occupancy group" does make my head spin a bit.

If we had never had this discussion and I was reviewing the business occupancy, I would have read "spaces in a Group H, S or F occupancy" and disregarded as not applicable since I am reviewing a B. I do see that the sentence states the intervening space is "in a Group S", and I definitely see where you are coming from, but I wonder as to the intent. Allow warehouse workers to exit through an office, absolutely. The other way around, is that what this section intended?

Is it me, or does this exception also remove the "accessory to the area served" requirement?

1014.2, Item 1 starts out saying that egress from a room or space cannot pass through an adjoining room, except where the adjoining room is accessory...

Then the exception says that in group H,S, F , there *can* be exits through adjoining rooms or spaces (meaning they don't have to be accessory, as required by the paragraph above). This isn't an H,S or F occupancy, it's a mixed B and S occupancy, and therefore in my opinion, the exception doesn't apply at all. This will be debated by others. In this particular case, in my opinion, Item 2 (below) really makes it irrelevant:

1014.2 , Item 2, is a completely separate and more restrictive requirement than Item 1, and in my opinion, the section of 1014.2 that is critical to consider in this particular application. It says you can't exit through a ...storage room... or space used for similar purposes. The intent here is to make sure that there is a clear and unimpeded egress path. In my opinion, a warehouse is clearly a "space used for similar purposes", and does not afford an equal or less hazardous level of access and protection for those exiting an office space.

 

[TJacobs]

Re: Egress through intervening spaces

OK, I am not in the office today but I think I can clear up some stuff.

I would call this new building an industrial strip mall, small businesses that have an office area in front and a warehouse area in the rear. Most spaces are >5,000 sq. ft. in area with around 2,000 as B and the rest S-1. 30' tall Type IIB tilt-up and steel bar joist. So far, the tenants have been single tenants. This will be a flooring outfit with carpet rolls and flooring of all kinds. I was told there will be no retail sales here.

Each space is under the occupant load for the need for 2 exits...B use OL is 29 and the S-1 OL is 8. I did check CP of T yesterday afternoon for each space individually and the longest is 82' in the warehouse.

In the old BOCA days a B use was not considered the same hazard class as S-1. Now it is.

My personal feeling about exit signs has changed over the years. When I was a fire inspector I had the "more is better" attitude until I realized there were a lot more codes out there than the fire code. Now, I realize there is a difference between a required exit and just throwing them over any exterior door, etc. For example, in Illinois, all exits have to be accessible so that has an impact.

I'm liking the feedback I'm getting.

 

[texasbo]

Re: Egress through intervening spaces

Two things surprise me about this thread. First, I am surprised more members aren't weighing in. Office/warehouse is a very, very common building type. Surely everyone here has encountered this issue at one time or another.

The other thing that surprises me is that there is such a division of opinion. I've been going along fat, dumb and happy, thinking everyone must surely prohibit office areas from exiting through warehouses, and of course from the posts, that isn't the case. And that's just another reason I love this forum; I learn something almost every time I come here.

 

[brudgers]

Re: Egress through intervening spaces

Brudgers said:

And of course a warehouse is a warehouse, not a storage room or a space used for a similar purpose per 1014.2, 2006 IBC.

Fixed it for you.

Like I said before, if you can get the building official to agree with that, and allow office spaces to exit through warehouses, then you're good to go.

You should think about "The difference."

 

[texasbo]

Re: Egress through intervening spaces

Brudgers said:

And of course a warehouse is a warehouse, not a storage room or a space used for a similar purpose per 1014.2, 2006 IBC.

Fixed it for you.

Like I said before, if you can get the building official to agree with that, and allow office spaces to exit through warehouses, then you're good to go.

Your position depends on an absurd interpretation of the code.

Edited because I don't think I can delete it.

 

[JBI]

Re: Egress through intervening spaces

Hey, how about those Jets?

texasbo - IMO, the 'storage room' in this particular code section would not have a door to the exterior labeled as an exit door. Rather I think the intent was for a smaller storage room with no direct egress to the exterior. Consider if you will Sam's Club, Costco, etc. They are 'warehouses' with 'mercantile' all in one space, but they still have 'storage rooms' as well... :roll:

Being from NY I still have trouble with the whole idea of non-seperated uses. We've only had that in our codes since 2003 (our first modified I-codes). Prior to that pretty much everything was seperated, including and especially commercial kitchens from the dining room(s) served. Fast food places threw a major wrench in the works...

 

[texasbo]

Re: Egress through intervening spaces

Hey, how about those Jets?texasbo - IMO, the 'storage room' in this particular code section would not have a door to the exterior labeled as an exit door. Rather I think the intent was for a smaller storage room with no direct egress to the exterior. Consider if you will Sam's Club, Costco, etc. They are 'warehouses' with 'mercantile' all in one space, but they still have 'storage rooms' as well... :roll:

Being from NY I still have trouble with the whole idea of non-seperated uses. We've only had that in our codes since 2003 (our first modified I-codes). Prior to that pretty much everything was seperated, including and especially commercial kitchens from the dining room(s) served. Fast food places threw a major wrench in the works...

I just don't see it that way JD. I think if the code was just considering "small" rooms, there would be an area provision. If it had no exit door then it wouldn't be under consideration in the first place.

Instead, the requirement is broad and general, even going as far as saying "and spaces used for similar purposes".

In my opinion, the intent of the code is to insure that the level of safety is maintained until you reach the exit. In a Sam's Club, you do not have the level of protection diminished. You're in a whatever, and you stay in that whatever until you exit.

Can you say that the average warehouse operation affords the same level of exit safety as the average 3000 square foot office use? Again, there may be B.O.'s out there that interpret it differently. You and Plans Approver have said you'd be ok with it. I just haven't seen it permitted generally.

 

[texasbo]

Re: Egress through intervening spaces

Brudgers said:

You should think about "The difference."

Ha, excellent! I was waiting for you to bring that up. Great thread by the way, and agree completely with you.

Anyway, I did consider it. I will always go with the least restrictive interpretation when I feel comfortable with both. However, in this case, I feel strongly that exit integrity could be seriously compromised when going from an office into the potential maelstrom that is many warehouse operations.

It might come from having the third busiest airport in the world (28th busiest cargo airport) in my back yard. I see a lot of office warehouse uses, and I know what a cluster a warehouse can be. But I also see it in the jurisdictions all around my region, so I don't think I'm crazy. It might be very common in other places; I'd just like some input from others.

 

[brudgers]

Re: Egress through intervening spaces

1014.2.1 is stating the conditions for large spaces where the significant factor is occupancy.

1014.2.2 is stating the conditions for small spaces where the significant factor is use aka "kitchens, storage rooms, closets, or spaces used for similar purposes."

If 1014.2.2 actually prohibited egress through a warehouse then every warehouse office would have to exit directly to the outside whenever the office is accessory to the warehouse (since 1014.2.1 would not apply and 1014.2.2 would prohibit passage through the "storage room").

 

[Plans Approver]

Re: Egress through intervening spaces

Thank you, Jake! While my foot was getting sore from kicking that dead horse, I have one last kick. The CP of T was measured at right angles and not as the crow flies, correct? Without a storage/working plan of the warehouse, the CP of T is measured at the most restrictive, direct path from the most remote point of the warehouse office to the rear exit door. You can't assume a diagonal, but, "usually" right angles of some configuration "should" be available. In the office space, the CP of T is measured along the normal path from the bowl in the Men's room down hallways around desks to the exit door. Now, my foot hurts enough to stop on that subject.

Mixed occupancy S and B, unseparated.Limit for a single exit in B occupancy is 49.

Limit for a single exit in S occupancy is 29.

Total occupant load is 37 per the OP and exceeds most restrictive requirement.

The most restrictive requirements of unseparated, mixed occupancy (508.3.2.1) are the application of Chapter 9, sprinklers which this building has, and Section 403, high rise which this is not. The occupant load is not a restricting requirement.

I have posted several times that the commentaries and interpretations are not always the best reference. But, when they make sense, I use them.

Is it me, or does this exception also remove the "accessory to the area served" requirement?

1014.2 Egress through intervening spaces. Egress through intervening spaces shall comply with this section.

1. Egress from a room or space shall not pass through adjoining or intervening rooms or areas, except where such adjoining rooms or areas are accessory to the area served, are not a high-hazard occupancy and provide a discernible path of egress travel to an exit.

The Commentary states: "The intent of Item 1 is not that the accessory space be limited to the 10 percent area in Section 508.3.1, but that the spaces be interrelated so that doors between the spaces will not risk being blocked or locked."

If the code language had just used "interrelated", associated", "adjoining", "adjacent", or another word other than accessory, it would be much more clear.

And now for something not so totally different - (apologies to Monty Python).

Let's take a slightly different look at Jake's drawing. Remember the occupancies do not have to be separated, so the door between the office and warehouse can stay or be removed.. If the B occupancy were extended through the warehouse, using a chain link fence to designate the expanded B occupancy, no longer passing through the S-1 area. Would that make anybody more safe? What if the long section of fence was replaced with 10' high racks of carpet? Would that make a difference?

I said I would allow it with a "continuous and unobstructed path of travel. And still would.

 

[kilitact]

Re: Egress through intervening spaces

brudgers wrote:

1014.2.1 is stating the conditions for large spaces where the significant factor is occupancy.1014.2.2 is stating the conditions for small spaces where the significant factor is use aka "kitchens, storage rooms, closets, or spaces used for similar purposes."

If 1014.2.2 actually prohibited egress through a warehouse then every warehouse office would have to exit directly to the outside whenever the office is accessory to the warehouse (since 1014.2.1 would not apply and 1014.2.2 would prohibit passage through the "storage room").

I agree with brudgers correct reading of the building code.

Plans Approver, why a chain link fence, to keep the dogs out :lol:

 

[Plans Approver]

Re: Egress through intervening spaces

Plans Approver, why a chain link fence, to keep the dogs out :lol:

To keep the warehouse dogs away from the business bunnies.

In reality, because it's not a solid wall. Jus' causing trouble.

 

[JBI]

Re: Egress through intervening spaces

Wal-Mart in my prior jurisdiction had as part of their exiting plan a wide 'path' through the back (their 'storage room'?) to a marked 'exit'. At review I had a thought in the back of my head that there was no way they would keep it unobstructed, but the code allowed it. (TimNY, this was under the old 'green book', not the new codes. )

After they were opened a little while I had occasion to be in the vicinity of the 'exit' in question. The last part of the store before entering the back was the 'lay-away' area. It was in the fall, so Christmas lay-aways were really piling up. I was off-duty at the time, but management knew who I was (mostly because I'm the SOB that made them take the 300 bicycles off the roof joists!). After pointing out the problem, and explaining that I really didn't want to come back the next business day on Town time, they found a few Associates to move the blockage.

In my gut, I knew that area would be a problem and more than just one time. Lacking a code provision to prevent it I had to pass the plans. It's what many Planning Board members (and most municipal attorneys) refer to as an 'enforcement problem'.

I'd like to say we can't anticipate potential problems. Fact is we can. Another fact is that the Codes will never obviate the need for enforcement.

Do I like the path of egress to go through the back? No, never did, never will.

Can I disapprove a plan that shows it (based solely on this particular use of the space)? No, I can't, not with the sections provided here on this thread.

 

[mtlogcabin]

Re: Egress through intervening spaces

This has been an excellent post, stays on topic and some interesting answers.

In general I will have to agree with texasbo that the office should not exit thru the warehouse (S occupancy).

The CPOT requires 2 exits for the building which it has. The placement of the wall between the B & S occupancies has reduced the CPOT and OL of each space to where only one exit is required from each space

1011.1 Where required.

Exits and exit access doors shall be marked by an approved exit sign.....

Exceptions:

1. Exit signs are not required in rooms or areas that require only one exit or exit access.

In this case no exit signs are required.

1014.2 1 talks about intervening rooms that are accessory to the area served. The conference room adjacent to the reception area, The bosses office located behind the secretary's office. The exception refers to different occupancy groups. They do not have to be accessory to one another and probably aren't.

Exception 1 in 1014.2 allows H,F & S's to exit thru other intervening spaces that are a lessor hazard

Example an H could exit thru a F or S but an F-2 (Low hazard occupancy) cannot exit thru a F-1(Moderate hazard occupancy) A B occupancy would be less of a hazard than an S therefore the S can exit thru the B but the B cannot exit thru the S a higher hazard occupancy. So I agree with texasbo and would not allow an exit sign to be placed on the B side of the door leading into the warehouse

 

[kilitact]

Re: Egress through intervening spaces

excellent post JD, I think we all agree we don't like it but our job is to enforce the code(s), not our personal likes or dislikes

 

[JBI]

Re: Egress through intervening spaces

Kil - Exactly...

 

[texasbo]

Re: Egress through intervening spaces

John Drobysh said:

Can I disapprove a plan that shows it (based solely on this particular use of the space)? No, I can't, not with the sections provided here on this thread.

I love it; and I have no choice but to disapprove it, based on the sections provided in this thread! Just goes to show that the only interpretation that matters in your jurisdiction, is yours...

 

[brudgers]

Re: Egress through intervening spaces

I love it; and I have no choice but to disapprove it, based on the sections provided in this thread! Just goes to show that the only interpretation that matters in your jurisdiction, is yours...

Which just goes to show that the justification for creating the ICC was as much a fiction as I said it was at the time.

 

[Plans Approver]

Re: Egress through intervening spaces

Just goes to show that the only interpretation that matters in your jurisdiction, is yours...

Amen, brother, Amen.