Spaces with one means of Egress

[G2arch]

I have a project with two suites for a Husband (Psychologist) and Wife (Dentist). This project in under IBC2012. Building is type IIB and Non-sprinkled. Psych suite is 1135sf (12 occupants) and and Dental suite is 1790sf (18 occupants). (30occupants total) As individual Suites they qualify as spaces with one means of Egress per Section 1015.1. The issue is they want to put a door from the Psych suite into the lounge of the Dental Suite. (Top center part of Plan). When we do this does my two suites become a single Space in lieu of two individual spaces? I can not find the definition of space in the code book. If the interpretation is that the Suites are one Space because of the door, are any of the following possible solutions;A. Delete the door (obvious solution but not desired by owner)B. Rate the wall between Suites.C. Add a door between the waiting rooms so that the common path from anywhere in the two suites to just one of the two suite entry doors is less than 100ft. Thus, the entire combined suites would qualify per Section 1015.1. We would want to keep both doors but only one would be required. This seems to meet code but seems like the addition of this door does not really increase life safety as exiting directly through a suite entry door would be quicker in both cases.

View attachment 2120

View attachment 2120

/monthly_2015_01/Key-plan.jpg.dd0afbe4b07e9fc3c1d62b7ad4ce6180.jpg

 

[steveray]

Why are you saying they don't qualify as one space with one MOE?...Adding a "convenience" door does nothing to negatively affect the tenant spaces.....If it were required for egress from either space I would have some issues, but I can't think of any as shown....

 

[G2arch]

The desired location of a single door from the Psych suite into the lounge would not meet code for one MOE because it would result in exiting through the lounge, and would increase my common path over 100ft.

 

[steveray]

To clarify...It looks like both spaces qualify by OL and CPET for one MOE...the "connecting" door is meaningless....Unless someone is saying that 2 exit access doors are required from the "one space"and now you do not have proper seperation distance...?

 

[mjesse]

The desired location of a single door from the Psych suite into the lounge would not meet code for one MOE because it would result in exiting through the lounge, and would increase my common path over 100ft.

Except, unless I mis-understand it, the existing door in the psych suite remains?

Adding more doors within the existing space(s) does not create a negative issue as I see it.

Basically, I agree with Steveray

 

[cda]

Welcome

G2

You will find this is one of the forums favorite subjects

 

[mtlogcabin]

Similar to hotel rooms with adjoining suites. The door is not an exit nor on an exit path

I don't see an issue.

 

[G2arch]

Steveray, your are correct in your assumption on what is being said. The plan review comment is;

4. The code notes purport that only one means of egress is required from the space; however the use of two separate doors to the corridor is used to make the travel distances less than 75 feet.

He is calling it one space and I see it as two spaces (with a door between them). I can't seem to find language in the code that defines/clarifies when it is one space or two.

 

[mtlogcabin]

4. The code notes purport that only one means of egress is required from the space; however the use of two separate doors to the corridor is used to make the travel distances less than 75 feet.

He is wrong. You have 2 different and distinct tenant spaces. The fact that the different tenant spaces are willing to share a break room does not automatically make them one "space"

This section might help you defend your position. I assume a lock would be on the door to secure the dental office from unwanted visitor from walking into the patient area. HEPA laws come to mind

1014.2.1 Multiple tenants.

Where more than one tenant occupies any one floor of a building or structure, each tenant space, dwelling unit and sleeping unit shall be provided with access to the required exits without passing through adjacent tenant spaces, dwelling units and sleeping units.

Exception: The means of egress from a smaller tenant space shall not be prohibited from passing through a larger adjoining tenant space where such rooms or spaces of the smaller tenant occupy less than 10 percent of the area of the larger tenant space through which they pass; are the same or similar occupancy group; a discernable path of egress travel to an exit is provided; and the means of egress into the adjoining space is not subject to locking from the egress side. A required means of egress serving the larger tenant space shall not pass through the smaller tenant space or spaces.

 

[JBI]

"4. The code notes purport that only one means of egress is required from the space; however the use of two separate doors to the corridor is used to make the travel distances less than 75 feet."

The issue appears to be with your notes, not with your plan (per se). Change the note?

 

[RLGA]

The addition of a door between the two suites does not change anything as long as both suites have separate means of egress.

FYI, the common path actually should extend the length of the dead end corridor to the point where the occupant has two separate and distinct paths to two separate exits.

 

[steveray]

I was thinking the same thing Ron....but it didn't seem far enough to make a difference.....CPET does not always end at the door out of the tenant space....Unless that whole area is a protected exit...

 

[RLGA]

I was thinking the same thing Ron....but it didn't seem far enough to make a difference.....CPET does not always end at the door out of the tenant space....Unless that whole area is a protected exit...

I agree, but, rest assured, the chance that the plans examiner is anal retentive is pretty good (at least for me) and that it will come back as a comment that needs correcting before a permit will be issued.

 

[mtlogcabin]

The OP stated this was an IBC 2012 project. He did not state if this is new construction or a remodel of existing suites. If a remodel it should be under the IEBC which does not require a CPOT and only allows a maximum travel distance of 75 ft in a room/space before 2 exit doors are required. You would not have to include the dead end corridor in the travel distance

 

[JBI]

Welcome to the group and no, as long as the beginning of the 'exits' are remote, and considering it is (effectively) and exterior ramp that does not completely merge with other remote ramp then I see no problem.

And why is A-5 a stretch? Outdoor assembly is outdoor assembly. They are there for entertainment and or educational purposes.

 

[G2arch]

Talked to the plans examiner and found out that they have had multiple instances where people have put a door between two existing suites and then used it as one suite, they say to avoid requirements for rated corridors. Therefore they have taken the interpretation/stance that a door between tenant suites creates one space as they can't predict what will happen in the future (like new tenant using entire space as one.). We are going with option 'C' in my original post in order to get the entire area to qualify as one space per 1015.1. The plans examiner has not brought it up, yet, but when including the dead end corridor the CPOT is still less than 100ft. Fortunately, the clients are growing to like the idea of the door between waiting rooms for possible joint office functions/parties.

Thanks for the help!

 

[mtlogcabin]

Therefore they have taken the interpretation/stance that a door between tenant suites creates one space as they can't predict what will happen in the future (like new tenant using entire space as one.)

Nobody can predict what will happen in the future

Everybody is guilty of some possible future event

I really dislike departments that review plans or require things because of a possible future change or event. It does a disservice to the permit process and plan review profession