# Dressing Room doors



## Codegeek (Nov 13, 2013)

How many of you would require a door serving a dressing room to comply with Section 1008.1.1 and have the door provide 32 inches of clear egress width?  Common sense tells me that it's not intended to serve as a means of egress door, but I have a code official insisting that the door comply.  There is an accessible dressing room so that's not the issue.

Why is it that toilet compartments are allowed to be 30 inches minimum in width which would require a door much smaller than 32 inches of clear width yet a dressing room for a retail store must have 32 inches of clear width?  Both are intended to be occupied by one person at a time.  To me, the means of egress door for the toilet compartment is the door serving the toilet room and the means of egress for the dressing rooms is the means of egress from the tenant space.  What am I missing?


----------



## cda (Nov 13, 2013)

Ten or less provision???

Good question not a means of egress


----------



## fatboy (Nov 13, 2013)

I think your analogy of the toiletcompartment door is appropriate.


----------



## Codegeek (Nov 13, 2013)

fatboy said:
			
		

> I think your analogy of the toiletcompartment door is appropriate.


I used that with the jurisdiction and they said it didn't matter.   Their argument was that there is nothing in the IBC to exempt dressing room doors from complying with the means of egress requirements.


----------



## tmurray (Nov 13, 2013)

Codegeek said:
			
		

> What am I missing?


A reasonable building inspector.

Lets go crazy with this scenario. Lets put four people in the dressing room. Do I, as a building inspector, believe that this poses a hazard to life safety? Not a chance. You know what probably poses a greater hazard to life safety than the size of the door? the dressing room itself. Most people will attempt to re-dress before exiting the dressing room even in an emergency.


----------



## Codegeek (Nov 13, 2013)

tmurray said:
			
		

> A reasonable building inspector. Lets go crazy with this scenario. Lets put four people in the dressing room. Do I, as a building inspector, believe that this poses a hazard to life safety? Not a chance. You know what probably poses a greater hazard to life safety than the size of the door? the dressing room itself. Most people will attempt to re-dress before exiting the dressing room even in an emergency.


That was my thought, but this jurisdiction is dead set on having the door be 32 inches of clear width.  I think it's ridiculous myself.  If there's an emergency, people will get out of the dressing room whether it has 32 inches or not.


----------



## cda (Nov 13, 2013)

Codegeek said:
			
		

> I used that with the jurisdiction and they said it didn't matter.   Their argument was that there is nothing in the IBC to exempt dressing room doors from complying with the means of egress requirements.


Are they requiring an exit sign above it??


----------



## cda (Nov 13, 2013)

Are they applying the lock section to it also?


----------



## Codegeek (Nov 13, 2013)

No, not requiring an exit sign above it or applying the lock section.


----------



## Gregg Harris (Nov 13, 2013)

A means of egress is very specific on the three elements involved.

The door to a dressing room is not one of those components so 1008.1.1 does not apply

Your AHJ is ill informed on what is required for a means of egress


----------



## mtlogcabin (Nov 13, 2013)

1008.1 Doors.

Means of egress doors shall meet the requirements of this section.

MEANS OF EGRESS. A continuous and unobstructed path of vertical and horizontal egress travel from any occupied portion of a building or structure to a public way . A means of egress consists of three separate and distinct parts: the exit access , the exit and the exit discharge .

EXIT ACCESS. That portion of a means of egress system that leads from any occupied portion of a building or structure to an exit .

OCCUPIABLE SPACE. A room or enclosed space designed for human occupancy in which individuals congregate for amusement, educational or similar purposes or in which occupants are engaged at labor, and which is equipped with means of egress and light and ventilation facilities meeting the requirements of this code.

A dressing room is not an occupiable space under the definition of the code nor is it part of the exit access, therefore the door is not part of the means of access and section 1008 is not applicable


----------



## JPohling (Nov 13, 2013)

How do you come to the conclusion that a "dressing room"  is not a "space designed for human occupancy"?  It may not be continuously occupied, but it is certainly intended to be occupied by humans


----------



## tmurray (Nov 13, 2013)

JPohling said:
			
		

> How do you come to the conclusion that a "dressing room"  is not a "space designed for human occupancy"?  It may not be continuously occupied, but it is certainly intended to be occupied by humans


I would propose that it is not designed for human occupancy in which individuals congregate for *amusement, educational or similar purposes*. It is simply a space designed to be occupied for the purpose of trying on clothes. Not usually amusing. I guess it could be educational, but it is kind of a stretch.

I have a two step process to determine if a code violation exists.

1. Is this a code violation?

2. considering the intent of the code and the application in this specific case is it still a code violation?

This definitely does not pass number 2. If it did we would have vast swaths of the public being decimated by these unsafe changing rooms on an international level. Surely I would have heard of this.


----------



## JPohling (Nov 13, 2013)

Do you believe that these people prior to entering the dressing room were in a space that was not designed for occupancy by humans because they were not congregating for amusement, educational or similar purposes or in which occupants are engaged at labor?  perhaps the definition is not complete?  Surely the retail space is designed for human occupancy and would require code complying egress


----------



## mtlogcabin (Nov 13, 2013)

JPohling said:
			
		

> How do you come to the conclusion that a "dressing room"  is not a "space designed for human occupancy"?


By the definition within the code

The 32" minimum requirement is to allow the passage of a wheelchair as well as a person utilizing a walking device. There is an accessible dressing room being provided.

If the door opening is not 32 inches then the space is not "designed" for human occupancy and is not part of a means of egress. Therefore it is not an occupiable space however nothing in the code prohibits the dressing room from being used by individuals for short periods of time.


----------



## LGreene (Nov 14, 2013)

We had a discussion similar to this before, but with regard to a single bathroom, whether the room was occupiable and whether the lock had to unlatch with one operation as required for doors in a means of egress.

http://www.thebuildingcodeforum.com/forum/commercial-building-codes/2354-egress-door.html

This was the ICC's answer:

_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._

We also had a discussion about required clear width on a bathroom door. It was a residential occupancy so not the same as a dressing room, but there might be something in this thread to help:  http://www.thebuildingcodeforum.com/forum/door-hardware-forum-sponsored-ingersoll-rand-security-technologies/10653-hotel-bathroom-pair-doors.html

This was the ICC's answer:

_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._

My answer would have been that the door must provide 32" of clear width based on section 1008.1.1, because there is no exception in that section that applies to a dressing room.  If the answer is that the door is not part of the means of egress, then does that mean that my office door is not part of the means of egress from my office?  If the answer is that the room is not occupiable, the ICC agreed that a bathroom was not occupiable as defined by the code, but also stated that the egress door from the bathroom still had to comply with the egress requirements.


----------



## cda (Nov 14, 2013)

Codegeek said:
			
		

> How many of you would require a door serving a dressing room to comply with Section 1008.1.1 and have the door provide 32 inches of clear egress width?  Common sense tells me that it's not intended to serve as a means of egress door, but I have a code official insisting that the door comply.  There is an accessible dressing room so that's not the issue.  Why is it that toilet compartments are allowed to be 30 inches minimum in width which would require a door much smaller than 32 inches of clear width yet a dressing room for a retail store must have 32 inches of clear width?  Both are intended to be occupied by one person at a time.  To me, the means of egress door for the toilet compartment is the door serving the toilet room and the means of egress for the dressing rooms is the means of egress from the tenant space.  What am I missing?


What size door did you want to install?


----------



## steveray (Nov 14, 2013)

Maybe they are hung up on the term "room"...Call it a dressing compartment?......It would seem that the inspector is picking nits.....


----------



## Codegeek (Nov 14, 2013)

cda said:
			
		

> What size door did you want to install?


The architect had specified a 2'8" door, which gives you about 30 inches of clear width.


----------



## Kaplagh (Nov 15, 2013)

MEANS OF EGRESS. A continuous and unobstructed path of vertical and horizontal egress travel from *any occupied portion of a building.*

When a person is in the dressing room it is occupied, therefore it must have a path of travel out of the room.


----------



## Gregg Harris (Nov 15, 2013)

Kaplagh said:
			
		

> MEANS OF EGRESS. A continuous and unobstructed path of vertical and horizontal egress travel from *any occupied portion of a building.*When a person is in the dressing room it is occupied, therefore it must have a path of travel out of the room.


OCCUPIABLE SPACE. A room or enclosed space designed for human occupancy in which individuals congregate for amusement, educational or similar purposes or in which occupants are engaged at labor, and which is equipped with means of egress and light and ventilation facilities meeting the requirements of this code.

Even though I have experience with my daughters "sitting for hours" while they try on cloths and it can be amusing and educational at the same time the intent of the code does not apply.


----------



## Yikes (Nov 16, 2013)

steveray said:
			
		

> Maybe they are hung up on the term "room"...Call it a dressing compartment?......It would seem that the inspector is picking nits.....


"EXIT ACCESS DOORWAY. A door or access point along the path of egress travel from an occupied room, area or space where the path of egress enters an intervening room, corridor, unenclosed exit access stair or unenclosed exit access ramp."

If the dressing compartment or stall itself is *not* considered a separate room from the rest of the area that it's in, and the compartment door is not dumping immediately into a corridor or unenclosed  stair or ramp, then the compartment door is not an *exit access door*.

As to whether the compartment is a separate room from the space that leads to/from it, look for these clues: atmospheric interconnection, open at the top to a shared ceiling, a compartment "door" that is providing only a modicum of privacy (like a toilet stall door that is open below and above), perhaps an occupant load of less than 10, etc.


----------



## tmurray (Nov 18, 2013)

Kaplagh said:
			
		

> MEANS OF EGRESS. A continuous and unobstructed path of vertical and horizontal egress travel from *any occupied portion of a building.*When a person is in the dressing room it is occupied, therefore it must have a path of travel out of the room.


I think we've all been in stores that have clothing racks that would be too close together for the minimum egress corridor width. When you are doing a pre-occupancy inspection would you make them move clothing racks to maintain the minimum for corridor width? What everyone saying that this should be treated like an egress door is forgetting is the intent of that section. Egress doors are typically choke points for mass egress from a space. That is why we regulate size. It is patently unreasonable to enforce this section on a room designed for one or two people. The door leading from a room where you can only have one or two people in them will never be choke points during an emergency.


----------



## Yikes (Nov 18, 2013)

tmurray, there are all kinds of situations where systems furniture would not comply with egress width, if it was applied to those components.  For that matter, an old-school phone booth would not comply. Many residential shower stall doors would not comply.  A built-in booth in a restaurant would not comply, because you have to slide out on fixed seats, past the fixed table, which is a "point of access" - -and yet the booth area is considered part of the occupiable portion of the building.


----------



## Pcinspector1 (Nov 18, 2013)

What happen to a curtain and rod?

pc1


----------



## cda (Nov 18, 2013)

Pcinspector1 said:
			
		

> What happen to a curtain and rod?pc1


Flammable not allowed


----------

