• Welcome to the new and improved Building Code Forum. We appreciate you being here and hope that you are getting the information that you need concerning all codes of the building trades. This is a free forum to the public due to the generosity of the Sawhorses, Corporate Supporters and Supporters who have upgraded their accounts. If you would like to have improved access to the forum please upgrade to Sawhorse by first logging in then clicking here: Upgrades

H-3 Occupancy - Exits (1015 v. 1019)

What that means is that when two paths converge, they are also considered a CPET. A single path to an exit or exit access door is a CPET--it doesn't have to be two converging paths to be a CPET.

alora, I don't don't know how to say this politely, so I'll be blunt: this is "Building Code 101" stuff, and, as an architect, you should have a basic understanding of means of egress requirements in model building codes. I would understand the lack of understanding in complex applications, but this is a basic, straightforward application.

I suggest you invest in the IBC "Code and Commentary" and take advantage of the Arizona Building Officials (AZBO) Fall Education Institute in Prescott, AZ, October 3-7, 2011.
 
Because you do not have access to 2 separate and distinct paths of egress travel to 2 exits within the space, you are further limited by the CPET.
 
I guess you can go through the appeals process and get another answer

May or may not be in your favor
 
BO is correct. I bet he was much more polite than you would like to be with him. Swallow your pride and read a book.
 
rshuey said:
BO is correct. I bet he was much more polite than you would like to be with him. Swallow your pride and read a book.
Click to expand...
Actually, he wasn't correct.

He incorrectly used the 1019.2 to apply the 25' requirement. This is not a building.
 
The BO is correct for the wrong reason. Table 1019.2 is not correct and Table 1015.1 is correct; however, Section 1014.3 for common path of egress travel is applicable in this case.

You're trying to rationalize a design error. As cda stated, you can go the appeals route, but if the BO is the City of Tucson or Pima County, my personal opinion is that you have less than a 1% chance of success.
 
rshuey said:
BO is correct. I bet he was much more polite than you would like to be with him. Swallow your pride and read a book.
Click to expand...
It depends on if the BO called him an idiot or not...
 
alora said:
Actually, he wasn't correct.He incorrectly used the 1019.2 to apply the 25' requirement. This is not a building.
Click to expand...
Actually, he was correct; he told you two exits were required. The fact that you don't understand CPET leads me to believe it's highly unlikely that you comprehend what you were told.
 
alora, however you get there, he correctly identified a 25 foot measurement - he is right that the door needs to be moved or another added. I'm done.
 
Talked with B.O. on the phone while looking over the drawings. He actually agreed that the 1019.2 section doesn't apply in this case.

But, he also doesn't seem to think CPET applies either. He didn't give an exact interpretation (I asked), but his reasoning points hovered around 4 items:

1. Low occupancy, (side point: a maintenance technician will probably be in the room for all of 5 minutes, once a day to verify all equipment is functioning)

2. Fire sprinklers being provided,

3. The fact that our actual travel distance is about 1/4 what's allowed under "normal circumstances", and

4. (Surprising to me), the occupants of the space are not being required to go through other spaces -- the exit is directly to the exterior.

In the end, the design is acceptable as-is.

Right or wrong, I've learned one thing: Common sense can trump the building code from time to time.

Thanks to everyone for their help!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top