Hotel Bathroom Pair of Doors

[RLGA]

**RLGA** [ and maybe others ] believes the toilet rooms within the R-1Occ. 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" [ <---- ?? ].

The definition for means of egress uses "occupied portions" and not "occupiable space," which is defined by the IBC. The IBC Commentary states the following in regard to the definition for "occupiable space":

Occupiable spaces are those areas designed for human occupancy. It applies to both residential and nonresidential spaces alike. Most spaces in a building are occupiable spaces. Based on the nature of the occupancy, various code sections apply. All habitable spaces are also considered occupiable (see the definition of “Habitable space”); however, all occupiable spaces are not habitable. Additionally, some spaces are neither habitable nor occupiable. The code identifies crawl spaces, attics, penthouses and elevated platforms (mechanical or industrial equipment) as unoccupied spaces. Since the code generally states how these spaces must be accessed, but does not specifically require means of egress, they would not be occupiable spaces. If access is limited to maintenance and service personnel, it is likely that a space is not occupiable.



Bathrooms are not considered "habitable space," but that doesn't mean it wouldn't be considered "occupiable space." For me, a bathroom is designed for human occupancy, thus it is occupiable space, as well as "occupied portions" of a building as indicated in the means of egress definition.

Just my humble opinion...

 

[lunatick]

I can understand the design approach of using a split leaf.

I can understand using a roller style latch mechanism from a design scenario.

However this design is in response to ADA SAD requirements for a unit. Threading the needle of the requirements.

Refer to 224.1.2 which specifically mentioned 404.2.3 Doorway Clear Width, which only speak of 32 inch wide clear space.

Interesting 404.2.4 doesn't come into the equation as isn't specifically commented by 224.1.2.

But more interestingly, it doesn't mention either 404.2.2 either, which would require one leaf to fulfill the 32 requirement.

That stated, looking at the layout harken me back to the 70's. Can I get a few more sf please?

 

[LGreene]

Here's the response from the ICC, posted with permission. My question was a lot more involved, explaining the whole situation, but he paraphrased it:

Q: Are bathroom doors within a Group R-1 sleeping unit or dwelling unit required to meet the minimum clear door width of 32 inches for at least one door leaf?

A: Yes. Section 1008.1.1 requires all doors to be a minimum width of 32 inches, or if ‘double doors’, at least one leaf of the ‘set’ to be 32 inches in clear width. The exceptions to Section 1008.1.1 generally exempt doors that are not considered as ‘means of egress doors’, such as closet doors, and certain doors in certain Group R occupancies.

As for R-1 occupancies, there are no specific exemptions for a 32-inch wide door; in fact, Exception #7 to Section 1008.1.1, for example, notes that “In other than Group R-1 occupancies….”. This emphasizes the fact that, although Group R-1 has the same ‘number of occupants’ as an R-2 or R-3 occupancy, Group R-1 occupants are transient, thus not as familiar with their surroundings at any given time and require the doors to be full width to accommodate the unfamiliarity.

Code opinions issued by ICC staff are based on ICC published codes and do not include local, state or federal codes, policies or amendments. This opinion is based on the information which you have provided. We have made no independent effort to verify the accuracy of this information nor have we conducted a review beyond the scope of your question. This opinion does not imply approval of an equivalency, specific product, specific design, or specific installation and cannot be published in any form implying such approval by the International Code Council. As this opinion is only advisory, the final decision is the responsibility of the designated authority charged with the administration and enforcement of this code.

 

[Jim B]

In my opinion, in an R1, the toilet room door would need to comply for door leaf clear width of 32” at 90 degrees.

IBC 2009, 1008.1.1, Exception 3 references storage closets less than 10 square feet do not need to meet requirements of door width.

Does an 11 square foot storage closet represent occupiable space but 10 square foot closet does not?

In discussion with the ICC a few years ago, I was told that the Access Board asked hotel chains if they rent accessible rooms to non-handicapped persons and the answer was “yes”. As a result, the Access Board decided to put this requirement in the ADA for R1s to provide all doors with 32” of clear width (2010 ADA, 224.1.2). This was then incorporated into the IBC as well.

The 2010 ADA requires ALL doors in R1’s to comply, including toilet room doors.