# sleeping room exiting through another sleeping room



## retire09 (Nov 25, 2014)

The IBC does not allows an exit access to pass though a room that can be locked to prevent egress, other sleeping areas and toilet rooms or bathrooms. 1014.2(2) and (3)

This makes perfect sense to me but does this not apply to the IRC for one and two family dwellings?

The only IRC requirement I can find is that the exit cannot pass through a garage.

Am I missing something here?


----------



## cda (Nov 25, 2014)

No

Think about your own house or others you have been in.

Code normally only requires one exit from a house

And normally one window or door to the outside from a bedroom


----------



## retire09 (Nov 25, 2014)

I have no problem with the one exit required but as written a person could encounter interior egress doors locked from the other side if allowed to pass though a bathroom or other sleeping room and forced to use an emergency egress opening.

I would much rather have to pass through a garage than to not be able to get out a door at all.


----------



## JBI (Nov 25, 2014)

retire09, IF the jurisdiction has adopted the Property Maintenance Code, you will find the prohibition you seek. It's an anomaly in the IRC (and in NYS codes as well), you can build it like that but cannot occupy it like that...

*404.4.2 Access from bedrooms.* Bedrooms shall not constitute the only means of access to other bedrooms or habitable spaces and shall not serve as the only means of egress from other habitable spaces


----------



## retire09 (Nov 25, 2014)

I wish ICC would add that laguage to the IRC so I would not have to disallow these designs by executive action.

Thanks for the info. That IPMC code section is literally a life saver.


----------



## cda (Nov 25, 2014)

404.4.2 Access from bedrooms. Bedrooms shall not constitute the only means of access to other bedrooms or habitable spaces and shall not serve as the only means of egress from other habitable spaces

That only applies to bedrooms

If say you walked through a kitchen to get to the living room to get to the den to get to an exit, seems that would be legal


----------



## Builder Bob (Nov 25, 2014)

Check for State amendments or local amendments.....

South Carolina Building Code Council

Modification Number: IBC 2012 04.

Section: 1014.2. Egress through intervening spaces.

Modification: The section was deleted and replaced with substitute language.

The section now states: Means of egress shall consist of continuous and unobstructed paths of travel to the exterior of a building. Means of egress shall not be permitted through kitchens, closets, restrooms and similar areas nor through adjacent tenant spaces.

Exception: Means of egress shall be permitted through a kitchen area serving adjoining rooms constituting part of the same dwelling unit or guest room.

When unusually hazardous conditions exist, the building official may require additional means of egress to assure the safety of the occupants.

Reason: Most hotel and motel suites built in South Carolina, are designed with a living room, a bedroom (sleeping area) a small kitchen and a bathroom, all utilizing a single means of egress. It is also customary to place “Murphy” beds, “roll-away” beds or sleeper sofas in the living room of the unit, thereby creating a second sleeping area when necessary. Section 1014.2 does not allow egress through a sleeping area, effectively prohibiting the construction of hotel or motel suites that do not have a second means of egress or an exit access corridor around the sleeping area (be it the living room or bedroom) closest to the exit door.

Note: Continued modification IBC 2000 08, IBC 2003 04 and IBC 2006 04. In the 2003 edition the section number was changed from 1004.2.3 to 1013.2 and in the 2006 edition the section number was changed from 1013.2 to 1014.2.

Proponent: Grand Strand Chapter, AIA.

Effective Date: July 1, 2001.


----------



## north star (Nov 25, 2014)

*= **[ ***** ]** =*

retire09,

Can you submit an Amendment to your AHJ's IRC for a clarification

and improvement of designed Residential plans ?



*=** [ ***** ] **=*


----------



## steveray (Nov 25, 2014)

Our town ordinance has similar language to the IPMC...but nothing in IRC yet other than EERO....


----------



## Pcinspector1 (Nov 25, 2014)

*404.4.2 Access from bedrooms.* Bedrooms shall not constitute the only means of access to other bedrooms or habitable spaces and shall not serve as the only means of egress from other habitable spaces

This section has an exception: Units that contain fewer than TWO bedrooms.

So can you make the third bedroom your study or office and then be in compliance?

pc1


----------



## cda (Nov 25, 2014)

""""This makes perfect sense to me but does this not apply to the IRC for one and two family dwellings?

 The only IRC requirement I can find is that the exit cannot pass through a garage.

 Am I missing something here? """""

so now you all want to redesign how houses are built?

isnt the original question about egress from a house???             under IRC????


----------



## JBI (Nov 25, 2014)

Pcinspector1, Your question is flawed. A 3 bedroom apt would need to have 2 of the 3 bedrooms relabeled to be in compliance as the exception is for *fewer* than 2 bedrooms (meant for 1 bedroom and efficiency units.

cda, That's the 'anomaly', it can be designed and built with the pass through under the IRC but not occupied that way under the PMC.

Anomaly: 1 - something that deviates from what is standard, normal, or expected

 I would expect that a newly constructed Code compliant SFD would be able to be occupied without issue.


----------



## Pcinspector1 (Nov 26, 2014)

JBI,

< 2 = One bedroom, elementary math works here, yes, I see my flaw.

I'm only a grasshopper?


----------



## kilitact (Nov 30, 2014)

If the IRC is adopted by your State, what path would you take from the PMC to the IRC? The IBC not the IRC is a referenced standard in the PMC.


----------



## JBI (Dec 2, 2014)

*[A] 101.2 Scope.  *

The provisions of this code shall apply to all existing residential and nonresidential structures and all existing _premises _and constitute minimum requirements and standards for _premises,_ structures, equipment and facilities for light, _ventilation,_ space, heating, sanitation, protection from the elements, life safety, safety from fire and other hazards, and for safe and sanitary maintenance; the responsibility of _owners,_ _operator_s and _occupants;_ the _occupancy _of existing structures and _premises,_ and for administration, enforcement and penalties.

*[A] 102.3 Application of other codes.  *

Repairs, additions or alterations to a structure, or changes of _occupancy,_ shall be done in accordance with the procedures and provisions of the _International Building Code, International Energy Conservation Code, International Fire Code, International Fuel Gas Code, International Mechanical Code, International Residential Code, International Plumbing Code _and NFPA 70. Nothing in this code shall be construed to cancel, modify or set aside any provision of the _International Zoning Code._ IF the jurisdiction adopts the PMC, no 'path' is needed, though one is clearly provided.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Dec 2, 2014)

kilitact said:
			
		

> If the IRC is adopted by your State, what path would you take from the PMC to the IRC? The IBC not the IRC is a referenced standard in the PMC.


R102.7 Existing structures.

The legal occupancy of any structure existing on the date of adoption of this code shall be permitted to continue without change, except as is specifically covered in this code, the International Property Maintenance Code or the International Fire Code , or as is deemed necessary by the building official for the general safety and welfare of the occupants and the public.

You are correct in the fact a path does not exist from the IPMC to the IRC however the IRC does state existing residential structure have to adhere to the things specifically covered in the IPMC.


----------



## kilitact (Dec 2, 2014)

JBI said:
			
		

> *[A] 101.2 Scope.  *The provisions of this code shall apply to all existing residential and nonresidential structures and all existing _premises _and constitute minimum requirements and standards for _premises,_ structures, equipment and facilities for light, _ventilation,_ space, heating, sanitation, protection from the elements, life safety, safety from fire and other hazards, and for safe and sanitary maintenance; the responsibility of _owners,_ _operator_s and _occupants;_ the _occupancy _of existing structures and _premises,_ and for administration, enforcement and penalties.
> 
> *[A] 102.3 Application of other codes.  *
> 
> Repairs, additions or alterations to a structure, or changes of _occupancy,_ shall be done in accordance with the procedures and provisions of the _International Building Code, International Energy Conservation Code, International Fire Code, International Fuel Gas Code, International Mechanical Code, International Residential Code, International Plumbing Code _and NFPA 70. Nothing in this code shall be construed to cancel, modify or set aside any provision of the _International Zoning Code._ IF the jurisdiction adopts the PMC, no 'path' is needed, though one is clearly provided.


The code section I see doesn't include the IRC? R102.3 Application of other codes. Repairs, additions or alterations to a structure, or changes of occupancy, shall be done in accordance with the procedures and provisions of the International Building Code, International Fuel Gas Code, International Mechanical Code and NFPA 70. Nothing in this code shall be construed to cancel, modify or set aside any provision of the International Zoning Code.


----------



## kilitact (Dec 2, 2014)

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> R102.7 Existing structures.The legal occupancy of any structure existing on the date of adoption of this code shall be permitted to continue without change, except as is specifically covered in this code, the International Property Maintenance Code or the International Fire Code , or as is deemed necessary by the building official for the general safety and welfare of the occupants and the public.
> 
> You are correct in the fact a path does not exist from the IPMC to the IRC however the IRC does state existing residential structure have to adhere to the things specifically covered in the IPMC.


 This code section appears to resolve the difference.

 R102.4.2 Provisions in referenced codes and standards.

Where the extent of the reference to a referenced code or standard includes subject matter that is within the scope of this code, the provisions of this code, as applicable, shall take precedence over the provisions in the referenced code or standard.


----------



## kilitact (Dec 2, 2014)

kilitact said:
			
		

> This code section appears to resolve the difference. R102.4.2 Provisions in referenced codes and standards.
> 
> Where the extent of the reference to a referenced code or standard includes subject matter that is within the scope of this code, the provisions of this code, as applicable, shall take precedence over the provisions in the referenced code or standard.


This was the code section.

R102.4.1 Differences.

Where differences occur between provisions of this code and referenced codes and standards, the provisions of this code shall apply.


----------



## JBI (Dec 3, 2014)

Let's try this one more time... with a little *emphasis *added...

2012 IPMC

*[A] 102.3 Application of other codes.  *

Repairs, additions or alterations to a structure, or changes of _occupancy,_ shall be done in accordance with the procedures and provisions of the _International Building Code, International Energy Conservation Code, International Fire Code, International Fuel Gas Code, International Mechanical Code, __*International Residential Code*__, International Plumbing Code _and NFPA 70. Nothing in this code shall be construed to cancel, modify or set aside any provision of the _International Zoning Code._ IF the jurisdiction adopts the PMC, no 'path' is needed, though one is clearly provided.

Your State/Local adoption may have modified it, but it is in the I-Codes.


----------



## kilitact (Dec 3, 2014)

JBI said:
			
		

> Let's try this one more time... with a little *emphasis *added...2012 IPMC
> 
> *[A] 102.3 Application of other codes.  *
> 
> ...


Copied from the fourth printing of the unamended 2009 IPMC.

 Section 102.3 Application of other codes. Repairs, additions or alterations to a structure, or changes of occupancy, shall be done in accordance with the procedures and provisions of the International Building Code, International Fuel Gas Code, International Mechanical Code and NFPA 70. Nothing in this code shall be construed to cancel, modify or set aside any provision of the International Zoning Code.

Yes, your state may have modified it. Hope that one more time does the trick.


----------



## JBI (Dec 4, 2014)

kilitact,

What a difference a code cycle makes... 2012 includes IRC, 2009 did not. And NYS actually replaces all of Chapter 1 due to our legislative requirements. I do try to use unchanged I-Codes sections unless I know what code to look at specifically. I also tend to quote the most current edition under the same circumstance. Perhaps had your initial reply included the year edition (like mine did...) I would have not been so snarky.


----------



## kilitact (Dec 4, 2014)

JBI said:
			
		

> retire09, IF the jurisdiction has adopted the Property Maintenance Code, you will find the prohibition you seek. It's an anomaly in the IRC (and in NYS codes as well), you can build it like that but cannot occupy it like that...*404.4.2 Access from bedrooms.* Bedrooms shall not constitute the only means of access to other bedrooms or habitable spaces and shall not serve as the only means of egress from other habitable spaces


I thought that was just your personally to be snarky. Yes, I agree if the code year was included that would be of help. The only conflict would be if an existing residential building owner made permitted changes. The C of O issued for new would be golden.


----------



## TrishB (Jan 7, 2015)

I'm a little late to this conversation..but it seems like the IRC is pretty clear that you can't have egress from one bedroom through another.

IRC R310.1 "...every sleeping room shall have at least one operable emergency escape and rescue opening....emergency escape and rescue openings shall open directly into a public way, or to a yard or court that opens to a public way."


----------



## cda (Jan 7, 2015)

TrishB said:
			
		

> I'm a little late to this conversation..but it seems like the IRC is pretty clear that you can't have egress from one bedroom through another.  IRC R310.1 "...every sleeping room shall have at least one operable emergency escape and rescue opening....emergency escape and rescue openings shall open directly into a public way, or to a yard or court that opens to a public way."


Welcome to the party


----------



## retire09 (Jan 7, 2015)

The question is about exit access. R310.1 is about emergency escape.

We have the egress windows in the bedroom but the only normal way in or out can be through another sleeping room or bathroom that could be locked from the other side

leaving you no exit. You should not have to exit the space through an emergency egress window when there is no emergency.

Welcome to the discussion.


----------



## steveray (Jan 8, 2015)

I do not believe there is anything in the IRC on this...IPMC yes and we have it in our Town Code of Ordinances....


----------



## tmurray (Jan 8, 2015)

retire09 said:
			
		

> The question is about exit access. R310.1 is about emergency escape.We have the egress windows in the bedroom but the only normal way in or out can be through another sleeping room or bathroom that could be locked from the other side
> 
> leaving you no exit. You should not have to exit the space through an emergency egress window when there is no emergency.
> 
> Welcome to the discussion.


Why do you care? As long as someone can get out of the building in an emergency I really don't care how they access rooms on a regular basis. I agree that is not a good idea, but ultimately that's someone else's decision on what works for their family.


----------



## retire09 (Jan 8, 2015)

If the smoke alarms go off, I would like to have the option to leave by a door before having to jump from a third floor window to the ground.

Here in Alaska, egress windows in the winter typically are frozen shut and cannot be opened. They have to be broken out.

Egress windows should always be the last resort for emergency escape; not the only reliable option.


----------

