• 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.

Hotel Bathroom Pair of Doors

LGreene

LGreene

REGISTERED
Joined
Oct 20, 2009
Messages
1,165
Location
San Miguel de Allende, Mexico
I've run into this issue twice in the last 2 weeks so it must be a new trend. One hotel is under construction with door frames installed, and the other is in the design stage. The bathroom door within the guest room is a pair of 1'-5" or 1'-6" wide doors (each leaf). IMO, the IBC requires at least one leaf of a pair to provide 32" clear, and there isn't a relevant exception. The accessibility standards also require one leaf to provide 32" clear, but this would apply to accessible units and the egress would apply to all units. We've already talked about whether a bathroom door has to meet egress requirements and I think most of us agreed that it would. Is this design code-compliant? What am I missing?

View attachment 1755

Here's the section from the 2009 IBC:1008.1.1 Size of doors. The minimum width of each door opening shall be sufficient for the occupant load thereof and shall provide a clear width of 32 inches (813 mm). Clear openings of doorways with swinging doors shall be measured between the face of the door and the stop, with the door open 90 degrees (1.57 rad). Where this section requires a minimum clear width of 32 inches (813 mm) and a door opening includes two door leaves without a mullion, one leaf shall provide a clear opening width of 32 inches (813 mm). The maximum width of a swinging door leaf shall be 48 inches (1219 mm) nominal. Means of egress doors in a Group I-2 occupancy used for the movement of beds shall provide a clear width not less than 41 1/2 inches (1054 mm). The height of door openings shall not be less than 80 inches (2032 mm). Exceptions:1. The minimum and maximum width shall not apply to door openings that are not part of the required means of egress in Group R-2 and R-3 occupancies.2. Door openings to resident sleeping units in Group I-3 occupancies shall have a clear width of not less than 28 inches (711 mm).3. Door openings to storage closets less than 10 square feet (0.93m2) in area shall not be limited by the minimum width.4. Width of door leaves in revolving doors that comply with Section 1008.1.4.1 shall not be limited.5. Door openings within a dwelling unit or sleeping unit shall not be less than 78 inches (1981 mm) in height.6. Exterior door openings in dwelling units and sleeping units, other than the required exit door, shall not be less than 76 inches (1930 mm) in height.7. In other than Group R-1 occupancies, the minimum widths shall not apply to interior egress doors within a dwelling unit or sleeping unit that is not required to be an Accessible unit, Type A unit or Type B unit.View attachment 1755

/monthly_2013_01/572953e813f2e_HotelBathroomPair.JPG.7e990d0d69443d0c115fd11ac3511356.JPG
 
Are these extended stay hotels (classified as Group R-2 nontransient hotels) or standard hotels (classified as transient Group R-1)? If the latter, then I don't see how they would comply. However, if the former (i.e. Group R-2), then Exception 7 would apply.
 
. The minimum and maximum width shall not apply to door openings that are not part of the required means of egress in Group R-2 and R-3 occupancies.

7. In other than Group R-1 occupancies, the minimum widths shall not apply to interior egress doors within a dwelling unit or sleeping unit that is not required to be an Accessible unit, Type A unit or Type B unit.

sorry do not think in this set up, the bathroom door is part of egress
 
RLGA said:
Are these extended stay hotels (classified as Group R-2 nontransient hotels) or standard hotels (classified as transient Group R-1)? If the latter, then I don't see how they would comply. However, if the former (i.e. Group R-2), then Exception 7 would apply.
Click to expand...
They are both regular hotels, so R-1.
 
cda said:
. The minimum and maximum width shall not apply to door openings that are not part of the required means of egress in Group R-2 and R-3 occupancies.sorry do not think in this set up, the bathroom door is part of egress
Click to expand...
If these are R-1 occupancies, the minimum width does apply, doesn't it?
 
cda said:
sorry do not think in this set up, the bathroom door is part of egress
Click to expand...
cda: Are you saying that the bathroom door is or isn't part of the means of egress? Your sentence can be interpreted both ways.
 
cda: Why would you not consider the bathroom door(s) part of the means of egress? Per the definition of of "means of egress," all "occupied" portions of the building must be provided a means of egress.
 
Back to that "occupied " word

These exceptions do not apply to the question

. The minimum and maximum width shall not apply to door openings that are not part of the required means of egress in Group R-2 and R-3 occupancies.

7. In other than Group R-1 occupancies, the minimum widths shall not apply to interior egress doors within a dwelling unit or sleeping unit that is not required to be an Accessible unit, Type A unit or Type B unit.
 
I agree they do not apply, since Lori mentioned that the hotels are Group R-1 and not Group R-2 nontransient hotels.

If the hotels were Group R-2, only Exception 7 would be applicable. Personally, I would not consider Exception 1 applicable if these were Group R-2 hotels, since the bathrooms are occupied spaces and the door into the bathrooms would then be a required means of egress.
 
RLGA said:
I agree they do not apply, since Lori mentioned that the hotels are Group R-1 and not Group R-2 nontransient hotels.
Click to expand...
I just want to make sure I'm understanding this right. When you say "they do not apply" do you mean that the exception does not apply? Because I think Charles is saying that the clear width requirements don't apply.

Since the hotel is R-1 and the exception applies to "other than R-1", the exception doesn't apply and therefore the minimum clear width requirement (32" clear one leaf) does apply. That is, unless an egress route isn't required from the bathroom.

As the mother of 3 small kids there are times that I'd like to have no access to or egress from my "safe room" but we probably shouldn't go down that road on the board again. The last time it went on and on and there was a little TMI.
 
Lori:

Neither Exception 1 nor Exception 7 apply to the hotels in question, since they are (or should be) classified as Group R-1. Therefore, per my interpretation, the bathrooms are occupied portions of the building and the doors to these bathrooms are part of the means of egress by definition. Thus, they should have a clear width opening of 32 inches and one leaf should provide a clear width of 32 inches.
 
Ok a little more awake

Yes R-1 must comply on means of egress doors

In other than Group R-1 occupancies, the minimum widths shall not apply to interior egress doors within a dwelling unit or sleeping unit that is not required to be an Accessible unit, Type A unit or Type B unit.

Still wonder if a hotel room bathroom door is means of egress???

Lori possibly the situation you are looking at are they latching? Are the dual swing??

How is this section applied to cafe doors???

Hay Lori how about this from the 09?

1008.1.2 Door swing. Egress doors shall be of the pivoted or side-hinged swinging type.

Exceptions:

8. Doors serving a bathroom within an individual sleeping unit in Group R-1.
 
cda said:
Still wonder if a hotel room bathroom door is means of egress???Lori possibly the situation you are looking at are they latching? Are the dual swing??

How is this section applied to cafe doors???

Hay Lori how about this from the 09?

1008.1.2 Door swing. Egress doors shall be of the pivoted or side-hinged swinging type.

Exceptions:

8. Doors serving a bathroom within an individual sleeping unit in Group R-1.
Click to expand...
They are not dual swing. They have roller latches, so you push or pull the door to overcome the resistance of the roller latch.

I don't know how cafe doors would be addressed. They probably have more of those in TX than MA.

The door swing exception would apply to sliding doors but I don't know if it helps on the clear width issue.
 
north star said:
Lori,Based on our recent discussion of "Is a restroom occupiable"

[ see this link: = = > http://www.thebuildingcodeforum.com/forum/commercial-mechanical-codes/10120-restroom-=-occupiable-space.html ]

I'm of the opinion that a restroom is not occupiable, and therefore, the MOE requirements do not apply!
Click to expand...
That seems to be the $64,000 question, and although we've discussed it a few times, we haven't agreed on the answer. Back in 2010 I asked whether a bathroom door had to meet the requirements for a single operation to unlatch. http://www.thebuildingcodeforum.com/forum/commercial-building-codes/2354-egress-door.html

The response I got from the ICC back then indicated that the bathroom door hardware did have to meet the requirements for egress:

Questions: Is a single bathroom in a non-residential facility considered an "occupiable space" which would therefore have to comply with the "one operation to unlatch" requirement of this section? Would a lever handle latch set and a separate deadbolt (2 motions to unlatch) be acceptable on a toilet room, or should the door comply with the one operation to unlatch requirement? The definition of occupiable space doesn't clearly state that a single toilet would have to comply, but common sense says that a door leading out of a bathroom would need to meet the requirements for an exit access door.

Answers: Toilet rooms are not considered ‘occupiable’ based on the definition of Occupiable Spaces in Chapter 2. However, doors accessing toilet rooms are expected to have operable parts on both sides that unlatch with a single operation. A door without either a latch or a lock would also comply. Toilet room door hardware, when provided, is held to the same requirements as all other hardware on doors intended for human passage. The exceptions in the above sections identify the only locations where bolt locks or multiple hardware operations are permitted. Single-user toilet rooms that need a lock function for privacy must un-lock and un-latch with one operation.



The exceptions specifically address "other than Group R-1" or specifically apply to R-2/R-3, so I still can't figure out how they would apply here.

1. The minimum and maximum width shall not apply to door openings that are not part of the required means of egress in Group R-2 and R-3 occupancies.

7. In other than Group R-1 occupancies, the minimum widths shall not apply to interior egress doors within a dwelling unit or sleeping unit that is not required to be an Accessible unit, Type A unit or Type B unit.
 
# + #

Lori,

**RLGA** [ and maybe others ] believes the toilet rooms within the R-1

Occ. Group are classified as "occupiable"....ICC believes that the toilet

rooms are not occupiable [ RE: Answers: Toilet rooms are not considered

‘occupiable’ based on the definition of Occupiable Spaces in Chapter 2 ],

but WOULD require the hardware to be "egress compliant" [ <---- ?? ].

IMO, I would not consider them to be occupiable either, therefore the

minimum egress door widths would not apply, however, whenever there is a

conflict with separate code sections, Section 102.1 [ in the `06 IBC ] DOES

offer a solution.....Which code requirement is "the most restrictive" ?

If one applies "the most restrictive" application, then the doors WOULD

have to meet egress requirements, along with the hardware.......Does this help?

Also, it is always a good recommendation to ask for clarity from the AHJ.

+ # +

 
They have roller latches, so you push or pull the door to overcome the resistance of the roller latch

So if you hit/ push them in the middle they would both open??

Double swing or cafe doors;;, """ not full width "

http://www.peppermillhome.com/31-categories/cafe-doors.jpg

http://www.swingingcafedoors.com/catalog/cabinet.JPG

http://powerquality.eaton.com/images/product-images/air-flow/End-of-Row-Doors-Cafe-lrg.jpg

http://img.hisupplier.com/var/userImages/2012-12/21/124632287_double_swing_doors_s.jpg
 
The bathroom pair would be more difficult to open than the saloon/cafe doors which are just free-swinging. You would have to push or pull hard enough on both leaves to open both doors. The roller latches don't typically require too much force but they are adjustable so it would depend on how they were installed. One of the hotels in question had inswinging doors that open to 90 degrees, the other had outswinging doors that open to 180 degrees.
 
Well if the plan reviewer thought it had to meet the width requirement, they took that both sides ware openable, and would have to open for most normal size people to go through
 
cda said:
Well if the plan reviewer thought it had to meet the width requirement, they took that both sides ware openable, and would have to open for most normal size people to go through
Click to expand...
The normal size person would have to open both doors...17"-18" is a bit tight.
 
cda said:
They have roller latches, so you push or pull the door to overcome the resistance of the roller latchSo if you hit/ push them in the middle they would both open??

Double swing or cafe doors;;, """ not full width "

http://www.peppermillhome.com/31-categories/cafe-doors.jpg

http://www.swingingcafedoors.com/catalog/cabinet.JPG

http://powerquality.eaton.com/images/product-images/air-flow/End-of-Row-Doors-Cafe-lrg.jpg

http://img.hisupplier.com/var/userImages/2012-12/21/124632287_double_swing_doors_s.jpg
Click to expand...
Did not state my point:::

Some of these cafe doors whether full height or partial, are not full width doors.

"""IMO, the IBC requires at least one leaf of a pair to provide 32" clear""""
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top