# Egress through intervening spaces



## TJacobs

I would like to know how you would handle the following in reference to 2006 IBC 1014.2:

Mixed use nonseparated Type IIB.  Tenant space (7,200 sq. ft.) in a multi-tenant building (65,000 sq. ft.).

Tenant space of B/S-1 with 3,000 B and 4,200 S-1.  B use is in the front with entrance/exit and warehouse in the back with exit out rear wall.  Building requires 2 exits per amendment to 1019.2.  No amendment to 1015.1 so spaces with 1 exit are ok and each space complies with Table 1015.1 (each space under occupant load).

Plans for the tenant alteration (first tenant) have an exit sign over the front entry door plus an exit sign on the office side over the door to the warehouse; they do not show one on the other side (from the warehouse to the office).  If the warehouse stores carpet rolls and floor tile, would you permit exiting through the warehouse?  If so, are there any conditions that go with that approval.


----------



## AegisFPE

Re: Egress through intervening spaces

You may wish to consider IFC Section 2301.4, which permits public accessible areas for high-piled storage.


----------



## texasbo

Re: Egress through intervening spaces

If I understand your explanation correctly and the office space only requires 1 exit, I would have the exit sign removed from the door leading to the warehouse area.


----------



## TJacobs

Re: Egress through intervening spacesSee if the attached picture helps.intervening01.jpg[/attachment:a2uz5s6z]

View attachment 54


View attachment 54


/monthly_2010_05/intervening01.jpg.ab9ac40c03da0634629630c226707a1c.jpg


----------



## texasbo

Re: Egress through intervening spaces

Ya, it's kind of faint, but it's what I was thinking about. Pretty much all offices and ancillary spaces, one exit required, there's just no reason for the exit sign to be there.

Strangely, if it was retail and two exits were required, the code would allow exiting through the storage room under certain conditions. I guess if you were assured that the exit path would always be discernable in the storage room, you could take the  exception to 1014.2 depending on your interpretation. But with one exit required we're just talking about removing the exit sign, no?


----------



## TJacobs

Re: Egress through intervening spaces



			
				texasbo said:
			
		

> Ya, it's kind of faint, but it's what I was thinking about. Pretty much all offices and ancillary spaces, one exit required, there's just no reason for the exit sign to be there. Strangely, if it was retail and two exits were required, the code would allow exiting through the storage room under certain conditions. I guess if you were assured that the exit path would always be discernable in the storage room, you could take the  exception to 1014.2 depending on your interpretation. But with one exit required we're just talking about removing the exit sign, no?


I want to see if I get more input before I answer that.


----------



## TJacobs

Re: Egress through intervening spaces



			
				AegisFPE said:
			
		

> You may wish to consider IFC Section 2301.4, which permits public accessible areas for high-piled storage.


No storage plan yet.


----------



## Plans Approver

Re: Egress through intervening spaces



> Plans for the tenant alteration (first tenant) ...


A little confused by "(first tenant)" - office space is first tenant and warehouse is second tenant? Or first tenant in building?

Assuming the latter: In general, I do not consider S-1/S-2 occupancy areas to be "storage rooms" - they are occupancies. So exiting through the warehouse would be permitted - as long as there is a continuous and unobstructed path of egress travel from any occupied portion of a building to a public way.

Further, 1014.2 No. 1 allows egress through adjoining rooms or areas that are *accessory** to the area served, are not a high-hazard occupancy and provide a discernible path of egress travel to an exit.

From counting ceilings tiles in the office area (50'? x 60'?), it looks like the common path of travel might just make the 100 feet with 30 or less occupants. But, the warehouse (50'? x 84'?) looks like it might exceed the CP of T and the door to the office requires an exit sign. I know you said space w/ 1 exit by occupant load, did you also mean common path of travel?

I would require designation of a continuous and unobstructed means of egress through the warehouse under any circumstance 1 or 2 exits. If I am correct about the CP of T in the warehouse, I would require an exit sign and means of egress lighting. The exit sign from the office to warehouse would not be required, but, would not be required to be removed, even in this space with one required exit.

*** let's not go off topic with the word "*accessory*" - the Commentary states that the word "*accessory*" in this section does *NOT* mean 10% as in 508.3.1.


----------



## brudgers

Re: Egress through intervening spaces

IMO, the back of the tenant space is a warehouse not a "storage room."

IMO, the building is safer with the door between the office area and the warehouse marked as an exit.

If the fire is in the middle of either space, the nearest exit in the direction away from the fire is the door between the occupancies and directing occupants toward that door rather than toward the fire is desirable.


----------



## TJacobs

Re: Egress through intervening spaces



			
				Plans Approver said:
			
		

> Plans for the tenant alteration (first tenant) ...
Click to expand...

A little confused by "(first tenant)" - office space is first tenant and warehouse is second tenant? Or first tenant in building?

First tenant alteration to the space in a shell building built last year.  Other tenants already there.


----------



## texasbo

Re: Egress through intervening spaces

I'm really disappointed there haven't been more responses. I am very interested in knowing if the code professionals in this group consider a warehouse a "space used for similar purpose" as a storage room and would allow the offices to exit through it.


----------



## TJacobs

Re: Egress through intervening spaces



			
				Plans Approver said:
			
		

> Plans for the tenant alteration (first tenant) ...
Click to expand...

A little confused by "(first tenant)" - office space is first tenant and warehouse is second tenant? Or first tenant in building?

Assuming the latter: In general, I do not consider S-1/S-2 occupancy areas to be "storage rooms" - they are occupancies. So exiting through the warehouse would be permitted - as long as there is a continuous and unobstructed path of egress travel from any occupied portion of a building to a public way.

Further, 1014.2 No. 1 allows egress through adjoining rooms or areas that are *accessory** to the area served, are not a high-hazard occupancy and provide a discernible path of egress travel to an exit.

From counting ceilings tiles in the office area (50'? x 60'?), it looks like the common path of travel might just make the 100 feet with 30 or less occupants. But, the warehouse (50'? x 84'?) looks like it might exceed the CP of T and the door to the office requires an exit sign. I know you said space w/ 1 exit by occupant load, did you also mean common path of travel?

No.  The B use OL is 29, and the S-1 use OL is 8, so the total OL is 37.  Since each use can have 1 exit when evaluated separately, and the whole space is under the 2-exit OL, I did not evaluate CP of T since 2 exits are NOT* required.  Fully-sprinklered building per 903.3.1.1, so permitted travel distance is 250' in S-1 and 300' in B.



			
				Plans Approver said:
			
		

> I would require designation of a continuous and unobstructed means of egress through the warehouse under any circumstance 1 or 2 exits. If I am correct about the CP of T in the warehouse, I would require an exit sign and means of egress lighting. The exit sign from the office to warehouse would not be required, but, would not be required to be removed, even in this space with one required exit.


*** let's not go off topic with the word "*accessory*" - the Commentary states that the word "*accessory*" in this section does *NOT* mean 10% as in 508.3.1.

*Edited to correct mistake


----------



## brudgers

Re: Egress through intervening spaces

Ok so here's the question:

Is it ok to put an exit sign on the warehouse side of the communicating door?


----------



## texasbo

Re: Egress through intervening spaces



			
				brudgers said:
			
		

> Ok so here's the question:Is it ok to put an exit sign on the warehouse side of the communicating door?


In my opinion, yes.


----------



## brudgers

Re: Egress through intervening spaces



			
				texasbo said:
			
		

> brudgers said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok so here's the question:Is it ok to put an exit sign on the warehouse side of the communicating door?
Click to expand...

In my opinion, yes.

So you would allow two exits from the space with eight occupants, but not allow two exits from the space with 29?


----------



## texasbo

Re: Egress through intervening spaces



			
				brudgers said:
			
		

> texasbo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> brudgers said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok so here's the question:Is it ok to put an exit sign on the warehouse side of the communicating door?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In my opinion, yes.
Click to expand...

So you would allow two exits from the space with eight occupants, but not allow two exits from the space with 29?

It would not be a matter of not *allowing* two exits. It's a matter of not *having* two complying exits available.

An exit through the warehouse, in my opinion, is not a code complying exit. Does it hurt to have a door there? Of course not. Does it hurt to have an exit sign there? Maybe, if someone panics, runs out that door, thinking it's a valid exit, and gets trapped by a pile of boxes or run over by a forklift.

I know and understand what you're saying, and in reality it would probably never be a problem. But from a pure code standpoint, I can't say, "One good exit and one bad exit is better than just one good exit". To add a ridiculous example, if the building's on fire, I may go through the nearest window, but that doesn't mean it can have an exit sign over it.

Edit: this whole warehouse thing might be more of a regional interpretation. It is not common around here to see required exits allowed through warehouses; in other parts it might be quite common.


----------



## brudgers

Re: Egress through intervening spaces



			
				texasbo said:
			
		

> An exit through the warehouse, in my opinion, is not a code complying exit. Does it hurt to have a door there? Of course not. Does it hurt to have an exit sign there? Maybe, if someone panics, runs out that door, thinking it's a valid exit, and gets trapped by a pile of boxes or run over by a forklift.


So it's better if they burn?


----------



## cda

Re: Egress through intervening spaces

texasbo

Agree with your thoughts no exiting from office through what ever term you want to use


----------



## texasbo

Re: Egress through intervening spaces



			
				brudgers said:
			
		

> texasbo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An exit through the warehouse, in my opinion, is not a code complying exit. Does it hurt to have a door there? Of course not. Does it hurt to have an exit sign there? Maybe, if someone panics, runs out that door, thinking it's a valid exit, and gets trapped by a pile of boxes or run over by a forklift.
Click to expand...

So it's better if they burn?

No, I'd take the forklift, personally.

Again, people might use an overhead door as an exit; that doesn't mean it's a *code complying* exit.


----------



## brudgers

Re: Egress through intervening spaces



			
				texasbo said:
			
		

> brudgers said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> texasbo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An exit through the warehouse, in my opinion, is not a code complying exit. Does it hurt to have a door there? Of course not. Does it hurt to have an exit sign there? Maybe, if someone panics, runs out that door, thinking it's a valid exit, and gets trapped by a pile of boxes or run over by a forklift.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So it's better if they burn?
Click to expand...

No, I'd take the forklift, personally.

Again, people might use an overhead door as an exit; that doesn't mean it's a *code complying* exit.

Now don't move the goal posts.

There is a code complying exit in the warehouse.  Overhead doors don't enter into the equation.

Indeed if there is an exit sign on the warehouse side of the door, then its no more likely to be blocked than any other warehouse exit.

And if there is a means of egress from the office through the warehouse then blocking it is a violation 1003.6 (same as it would be on the office side).

BTW, I didn't see a list of prohibited locations in 1011 Exit signs...just required ones.


----------



## texasbo

Re: Egress through intervening spaces

Brudgers said:



> Now don't move the goal posts.There is a code complying exit in the warehouse.  Overhead doors don't enter into the equation.
> 
> Indeed if there is an exit sign on the warehouse side of the door, then its no more likely to be blocked than any other warehouse exit.
> 
> And if there is a means of egress from the office through the warehouse then blocking it is a violation 1003.6 (same as it would be on the office side).
> 
> BTW, I didn't see a list of prohibited locations in 1011 Exit signs...just required ones.


Not moving goal posts; an overhead door is no more a valid exit than a door into a warehouse area. You can't put an exit sign over either one (in my world).


----------



## brudgers

Re: Egress through intervening spaces



			
				texasbo said:
			
		

> Not moving goal posts; an overhead door is no more a valid exit than a door into a warehouse area. You can't put an exit sign over either one (in my world).


What section do you cite?


----------



## texasbo

Re: Egress through intervening spaces



			
				brudgers said:
			
		

> texasbo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not moving goal posts; an overhead door is no more a valid exit than a door into a warehouse area. You can't put an exit sign over either one (in my world).
Click to expand...

What section do you cite?

1011.1. Your move.


----------



## brudgers

Re: Egress through intervening spaces



			
				texasbo said:
			
		

> brudgers said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> texasbo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not moving goal posts; an overhead door is no more a valid exit than a door into a warehouse area. You can't put an exit sign over either one (in my world).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What section do you cite?
Click to expand...

1011.1. Your move.

Here's the complete list of prohibited locations from *1011.1 Where Required:*

Which one are you going with?


----------



## TJacobs

Re: Egress through intervening spaces

Boy, this is fun...


----------



## texasbo

Re: Egress through intervening spaces

Brudgers wrote:



> Here's list of prohibited locations from 1011.1 Where Required:


Indeed. They are required over exits. Real exits.

Now, you are making the case that because they are not expressly prohibited anywhere, then it is okay to put them everywhere.  Do you really want to go that direction? With your line of logic, then if I have my one required exit, I can put an exit sign over the broom closet, the boss's office, the overhead dock door 3' above grade, the pet door, and the ladies room... Seriously brudgers?


----------



## texasbo

Re: Egress through intervening spaces



			
				TJacobs said:
			
		

> Boy, this is fun...


Just hijacked it to high holy hell, didn't we? Sorry TJ. At least it's civil and on-topic.


----------



## TJacobs

Re: Egress through intervening spaces



			
				texasbo said:
			
		

> TJacobs said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boy, this is fun...
Click to expand...

Just hijacked it to high holy hell, didn't we? Sorry TJ. At least it's civil and on-topic.

This is what I was hoping for actually, because it allows me to see where others are getting their logic.

The kettle corn is popping in the microwave... :lol:


----------



## texasbo

Re: Egress through intervening spaces



			
				TJacobs said:
			
		

> texasbo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TJacobs said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boy, this is fun...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just hijacked it to high holy hell, didn't we? Sorry TJ. At least it's civil and on-topic.
Click to expand...

This is what I was hoping for actually, because it allows me to see where others are getting their logic.

The kettle corn is popping in the microwave... :lol:

Yes, but it would be nice to get other's opinions too.


----------



## brudgers

Re: Egress through intervening spaces



			
				texasbo said:
			
		

> Brudgers wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's list of prohibited locations from 1011.1 Where Required:
Click to expand...

Indeed. They are required over exits. Real exits.

Now, you are making the case that because they are not expressly prohibited anywhere, then it is okay to put them everywhere.  Do you really want to go that direction? With your line of logic, then if I have my one required exit, I can put an exit sign over the broom closet, the boss's office, the overhead dock door 3' above grade, the pet door, and the ladies room... Seriously brudgers?

OK, so even though: 1. the code is a minimum, 2. and the code does not prohibit the exit sign, 3. and during a fire it might be a really good idea to leave the office area through the warehouse rather than the front door...

...your emminently logical interpretation is that despite the benefit to life safety, they need to tear it down.

Here's your sign:

*TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:*

WE KNOW YOU'RE IN A PANIC, BUT

THIS IS NOT AN OFFICIAL EXIT.

THOUGH PROCEEDING THROUGH THIS DOOR

MAY HAVE BENEFICIAL VALUE FOR LIFE SAFETY

PURPOSES IN THE EVENT OF A FIRE,

YOU SHOULD TURN AROUND AND USE THE OTHER

DOOR EVEN IF DOING SO CAUSES DELAY AND AN

INCREASE TO YOUR RISK OF BODILY INJURY OR

EVEN DEATH.

BY PROCEEDING THROUGH THIS DOOR IN THE

EVENT OF A FIRE, EARTHQUAKE, TORNADO, WAR

OR OTHER NATURAL DISASTER OR MANMADE

ACT, YOU HEREBY AGREE TO HOLD HARMLESS

THE BUILDING OFFICIAL, HIS HEIRS, SUCCESSORS,

AND CHATTELS FROM EVENTS ARISING FROM

SUCH PASSAGE, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED

TO BLOODY NOSES FROM RUNNING INTO BOXES,

BROKEN BONES RESULTING FROM COLLISIONS

WITH FORK LIFTS, AND BURNING TO DEATH

WHILE READING THIS SUBSTITUTE FOR A

SIMPLE EXIT SIGN.

WE APOLOGIZE TO YOU AND/OR YOUR NEXT OF

KIN AS APPLICABLE, BUT OUR HANDS ARE

TIED BY THE BUILDING CODE...AND YOURS,

WELL DON'T LOOK NOW BUT THEY'RE

BURING OFF.


----------



## texasbo

Re: Egress through intervening spaces

Nah... my sign, in this case, is a nice blank wall above the door leading into the warehouse. Or maybe a mural of the MGM Grand painted above it.

What's your feeling about fake fire extiguishers? I mean, you've got the required amount. The extras don't have to actually work do they?


----------



## TJacobs

Re: Egress through intervening spaces

Wow...I'd like to post right now but I would be taken out of context.


----------



## texasbo

Re: Egress through intervening spaces



			
				TJacobs said:
			
		

> Wow...I'd like to post right now but I would be taken out of context.


It's your thread, TJ, and I think it's pretty loose around here right now.


----------



## brudgers

Re: Egress through intervening spaces



			
				texasbo said:
			
		

> Nah... my sign, in this case, is a nice blank wall above the door leading into the warehouse. Or maybe a mural of the Las Vegas Hilton painted above it. What's your feeling about fake fire extiguishers? I mean, you've got the required amount. The extras don't have to actually work do they?


Of course fake fire extinguishers are not analogous.  The exit sign is real.  The analogous case would be prohibiting working fire extinguishers from locations that do not require them.

Semioticly, I don't know which of your ideas is more interesting.

The ontological - the absence of a sign is a sign.

Or the metaphysical - an exit sign can be indexly false even though it points to the exit to which it purports to point.


----------



## brudgers

Re: Egress through intervening spaces

OK so here's the thought experiment.

Since the occupancies are not required to be separated, then the door is not required.

So take it out and just provide a cased opening.

Paint lines on either side of a path connecting the cased opening to rear door of the warehouse.

On the plan, designate the continuous and uninterupted path from the front door, through the opening, to the rear door as "Exit access 1."

Now, can you put an exit sign over both sides of the cased opening?


----------



## Plans Approver

Re: Egress through intervening spaces

Just got back from an all day seminar on wall bracing. It will take some time to catch up, but ...



			
				TJacobs said:
			
		

> No. The B use OL is 29, and the S-1 use OL is 8, so the total OL is 37. Since each use can have 1 exit when evaluated separately, and the whole space is under the 2-exit OL, I did not evaluate CP of T since 2 exits are required. Fully-sprinklered building per 903.3.1.1, so permitted travel distance is 250' in S-1 and 300' in B.


Spaces w/ 1 exit need to be evaluated for both OL and CPofT per 1015.1 or as directed to 1015.1 by 1019.2 No.3. What am I missing?

ps: for those sitting on the goal posts:

1008.1.2 Door swing. Egress doors shall be side-hinged swinging.

Exceptions:

1. Private garages, office areas, factory and storage areas with an occupant load of 10 or less.


----------



## texasbo

Re: Egress through intervening spaces



> Of course fake fire extinguishers are not analogous.  The exit sign is real.  The analogous case would be prohibiting working fire extinguishers from locations that do not require them.


I disagree. A fake fire extinguisher puts out a real fire about as well as a fake exit sign gets you to a real exit.



> The ontological - the absence of a sign is a sign.


In this case, less is more



> Or the metaphysical - an exit sign can be indexly false even though it points to the exit to which it purports to point


See above. It's false because it doesn't point to an exit.


----------



## texasbo

Re: Egress through intervening spaces



			
				brudgers said:
			
		

> OK so here's the thought experiment.Since the occupancies are not required to be separated, then the door is not required.
> 
> So take it out and just provide a cased opening.
> 
> Paint lines on either side of a path connecting the cased opening to rear door of the warehouse.
> 
> On the plan, designate the continuous and uninterupted path from the front door, through the opening, to the rear door as "Exit access 1."
> 
> Now, can you put an exit sign over both sides of the cased opening?


Look at 1014.2, Item 2: "Egress shall not pass...through storage rooms...or spaces used for similar purposes.". There's an exception for M occupancies, if certain criteria is met.

Now, if you can rationalize to yourself, the code professional, the attorney and/or the judge that a warehouse is not similar to a storage room, then you're golden.

Like I said earlier, this may be common in other parts of the country, and if you're comfortable with that, then great.


----------



## TJacobs

Re: Egress through intervening spaces



			
				Plans Approver said:
			
		

> Just got back from an all day seminar on wall bracing. It will take some time to catch up, but ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TJacobs said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. The B use OL is 29, and the S-1 use OL is 8, so the total OL is 37. Since each use can have 1 exit when evaluated separately, and the whole space is under the 2-exit OL, I did not evaluate CP of T since 2 exits are NOT*required. Fully-sprinklered building per 903.3.1.1, so permitted travel distance is 250' in S-1 and 300' in B.
Click to expand...

Spaces w/ 1 exit need to be evaluated for both OL and CPofT per 1015.1 or as directed to 1015.1 by 1019.2 No.3. What am I missing?

ps: for those sitting on the goal posts:

1008.1.2 Door swing. Egress doors shall be side-hinged swinging.

Exceptions:

1. Private garages, office areas, factory and storage areas with an occupant load of 10 or less.

*I made a mistake and I have also corrected the previous post...sorry


----------



## cda

Re: Egress through intervening spaces

So thinking a different way maybe,

If you put an exit sign over the door leading to the warehouse, either by requireing it or saying nothing and let it be installed.

Than something does happen and said person says well it was marked as an exit so I went that way.

and attorney asked you on the stand why did you require/ allow the exit sign when in this big fat expensive book put together by people with more brains than you say it is not ane exit and should not be marked????

and the live at five cameras have your  face all over the news trying to explain well if you put a sign there it is not really and exit , but it is an exit, no wait let me think about that...............

just my two minutes


----------



## TimNY

Re: Egress through intervening spaces

If you're not going to classify the warehouse as a storage or "similar area", then I think it would be classified as a separate tenant area.

It appears (maybe can be confirmed) that the owner leases the office to some tenants, and may lease the warehouse to another tenant.  OP says "multi-tenant" building.  One is not accessory to the other.

I couldn't find this in the 2003 code, but 2006 has it.  Makes sense to me.

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.

Edit: Link to citation


----------



## brudgers

Re: Egress through intervening spaces



			
				texasbo said:
			
		

> brudgers said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK so here's the thought experiment.Since the occupancies are not required to be separated, then the door is not required.
> 
> So take it out and just provide a cased opening.
> 
> Paint lines on either side of a path connecting the cased opening to rear door of the warehouse.
> 
> On the plan, designate the continuous and uninterupted path from the front door, through the opening, to the rear door as "Exit access 1."
> 
> Now, can you put an exit sign over both sides of the cased opening?
Click to expand...

Look at 1014.2, Item 2: "Egress shall not pass...through storage rooms...or spaces used for similar purposes.". There's an exception for M occupancies, if certain criteria is met.

Now, if you can rationalize to yourself, the code professional, the attorney and/or the judge that a warehouse is not similar to a storage room, then you're golden.

Like I said earlier, this may be common in other parts of the country, and if you're comfortable with that, then great.

There is only one space which is continuous between the front and rear doors.

It is designated as "Exit Access 1."

This single space abuts S1 and B occupancies at various points.

And of course a warehouse is a warehouse, not a storage room.


----------



## Plans Approver

Re: Egress through intervening spaces



			
				TJacobs said:
			
		

> No. The B use OL is 29, and the S-1 use OL is 8, so the total OL is 37. Since each use can have 1 exit when evaluated separately, and the whole space is under the 2-exit OL, I did not evaluate CP of T since 2 exits NOT*are required. Fully-sprinklered building per 903.3.1.1, so permitted travel distance is 250' in S-1 and 300' in B.


I must be dense or I'm kicking the crap out of a dead horse. I don't understand how you can not take into account the common path of travel. Common path of travel is not exclusive to buildings with 2 or more exits.  In the case you presented, the termination of the common path of travel is the exit discharge for each space. At that point, they out of the building and should more than 2 directions of travel if it is the public way.

Condition 2 exists in 1015.1 to limit the travel distance within a space with one exit.


----------



## brudgers

Two Exits required.

Mixed occupancy S and B, unseparated.

Limit for a single exit in B occupancy is 49.

Limit for a single exit in S occupancy is 29.

Total occupant load is 37 per the OP and exceeds most restrictive requirement.

Two means of egress are required.


----------



## texasbo

Re: Egress through intervening spaces

Brudgers said:



> And of course a warehouse is a warehouse, not a storage room *or a space used for a similar purpose* per 1014.2, 2006 IBC.


Fixed it for you.

Like I said before, if you can get the building official to agree with that, and allow office spaces to exit through warehouses, then you're good to go.


----------



## JBI

Re: Egress through intervening spaces

1008.1 Doors.

Means of egress doors shall meet the requirements of this section. Doors serving a means of egress system shall meet the requirements of this section and Section 1018.2. Doors provided for egress purposes in numbers greater than required by this code shall meet the requirements of this section.

1014.2 Egress through intervening spaces.

Egress through intervening spaces shall comply with this section.

1.   Egress from a room or space shall not pass through adjoining or intervening rooms or areas, except where such adjoining rooms or areas are accessory to the area served, are not a high-hazard occupancy and provide a discernible path of egress travel to an exit.

Exception: Means of egress are not prohibited through adjoining or intervening rooms or spaces in a Group H, S or F occupancy when the adjoining or intervening rooms or spaces are the same or a lesser hazard occupancy group.

2.   Egress shall not pass through kitchens, storage rooms, closets or spaces used for similar purposes.

Exceptions:

1.   Means of egress are not prohibited through a kitchen area serving adjoining rooms constituting part of the same dwelling unit or sleeping unit.

2.   Means of egress are not prohibited through stockrooms in Group M occupancies when all of the following are met:

2.1.   The stock is of the same hazard classification as that found in the main retail area;

2.2.   Not more than 50 percent of the exit access is through the stockroom;

2.3.   The stockroom is not subject to locking from the egress side; and

2.4.   There is a demarcated, minimum 44-inch-wide (1118 mm) aisle defined by full or partial height fixed walls or similar construction that will maintain the required width and lead directly from the retail area to the exit without obstructions.

3.   An exit access shall not pass through a room that can be locked to prevent egress.

4.   Means of egress from dwelling units or sleeping areas shall not lead through other sleeping areas, toilet rooms or bathrooms.

Always nice to include some code in the responses...

Just so we are all clear here, the OP indicates that the 'warehouse occupancy' is part of the 'business occupancy', so any talk of seperate tenancies is out the window. This is a single tenant space in a multi-tenant building (strip mall?).

The 'warehouse' protion is where the business keeps its' stuff, and is therefore 'accessory' to it (the _best_ test of accessory is 'If the business closed, would the warehouse remain open?, the obvious answer in this case is 'no', therefore it is accessory).

Where a door is labeled as an exit it shall meet the requirements for an exit regardless of the number provided, and IMO this door does.

An S-1 and a B are the same 'hazard level', so egress from one to the next is not an issue. I would not consider the S-1 portion a 'storage room' as suggested, as 'storage room is lumped in with 'closet' implying, to me anyway, that it regulates smaller spaces unlikely to have a door to the exterior (many occupancies have 'kitchens' or 'kitchenettes' with no direct egress to the exterior).

Of course, there is always Section 1022...

1022.1 Horizontal exits.

Horizontal exits serving as an exit in a means of egress system shall comply with the requirements of this section. A horizontal exit shall not serve as the only exit from a portion of a building, and where two or more exits are required, not more than one-half of the total number of exits or total exit width shall be horizontal exits.

Exceptions:

1. Horizontal exits are permitted to comprise two-thirds of the required exits from any building or floor area for occupancies in Group I-2.

2. Horizontal exits are permitted to comprise 100 percent of the exits required for occupancies in Group I-3. At least 6 square feet (0.6 m2) of accessible space per occupant shall be provided on each side of the horizontal exit for the total number of people in adjoining compartments.

Every fire compartment for which credit is allowed in connection with a horizontal exit shall not be required to have a stairway or door leading directly outside, provided the adjoining fire compartments have stairways or doors leading directly outside and are so arranged that egress shall not require the occupants to return through the compartment from which egress originates.

The area into which a horizontal exit leads shall be provided with exits adequate to meet the occupant requirements of this chapter, but not including the added occupant capacity imposed by persons entering it through horizontal exits from another area. At least one of its exits shall lead directly to the exterior or to an exit enclosure.

Reading brudgers and t-bo's banter is fun, but you guys would save a lot of time if you just use the code.


----------



## texasbo

Re: Egress through intervening spaces

We now have 2 that say a warehouse is not a similar use to a storage room, would provide a discernible path of egress, and would allow a B to exit through it. Like I said, no problem if the B.O., in this case JD, interprets it that way.


----------



## TimNY

Re: Egress through intervening spaces

Good post.

The section, "Exception: Means of egress are not prohibited through adjoining or intervening rooms or spaces in a Group H, S or F occupancy when the adjoining or intervening rooms or spaces are the same or a lesser hazard occupancy group" does make my head spin a bit.

If we had never had this discussion and I was reviewing the business occupancy, I would have read "spaces in a Group H, S or F occupancy" and disregarded as not applicable since I am reviewing a B.  I do see that the sentence states the intervening space is "in a Group S", and I definitely see where you are coming from, but I wonder as to the intent.  Allow warehouse workers to exit through an office, absolutely.  The other way around, is that what this section intended?

Is it me, or does this exception also remove the "accessory to the area served" requirement?


----------



## texasbo

Re: Egress through intervening spaces



			
				TimNY said:
			
		

> Good post.The section, "Exception: Means of egress are not prohibited through adjoining or intervening rooms or spaces in a Group H, S or F occupancy when the adjoining or intervening rooms or spaces are the same or a lesser hazard occupancy group" does make my head spin a bit.
> 
> If we had never had this discussion and I was reviewing the business occupancy, I would have read "spaces in a Group H, S or F occupancy" and disregarded as not applicable since I am reviewing a B.  I do see that the sentence states the intervening space is "in a Group S", and I definitely see where you are coming from, but I wonder as to the intent.  Allow warehouse workers to exit through an office, absolutely.  The other way around, is that what this section intended?
> 
> Is it me, or does this exception also remove the "accessory to the area served" requirement?


1014.2, Item 1 starts out saying that egress from a room or space cannot pass through an adjoining room, except where the adjoining room is accessory...

Then the exception says that in group H,S, F , there *can* be exits through adjoining rooms or spaces (meaning they don't have to be accessory, as required by the paragraph above). This isn't an H,S or F occupancy, it's a mixed B and S occupancy, and therefore in my opinion, the exception doesn't apply at all.  This will be debated by others.  In this particular case, in my opinion, Item 2 (below) really makes it irrelevant:

1014.2 , Item 2, is a completely separate and more restrictive requirement than Item 1, and in my opinion, the section of 1014.2 that is critical to consider in this particular application.  It says you can't exit through a ...storage room... or space used for similar purposes. The intent here is to make sure that there is a clear and unimpeded egress path. In my opinion, a warehouse is clearly a "space used for similar purposes", and does not afford an equal or less hazardous level of access and protection for those exiting an office space.


----------



## TJacobs

Re: Egress through intervening spaces

OK, I am not in the office today but I think I can clear up some stuff.

I would call this new building an industrial strip mall, small businesses that have an office area in front and a warehouse area in the rear.  Most spaces are >5,000 sq. ft. in area with around 2,000 as B and the rest S-1.  30' tall Type IIB tilt-up and steel bar joist.  So far, the tenants have been single tenants.  This will be a flooring outfit with carpet rolls and flooring of all kinds.  I was told there will be no retail sales here.

Each space is under the occupant load for the need for 2 exits...B use OL is 29 and the S-1 OL is 8.  I did check CP of T yesterday afternoon for each space individually and the longest is 82' in the warehouse.

In the old BOCA days a B use was not considered the same hazard class as S-1.  Now it is.

My personal feeling about exit signs has changed over the years.  When I was a fire inspector I had the "more is better" attitude until I realized there were a lot more codes out there than the fire code.  Now, I realize there is a difference between a required exit and just throwing them over any exterior door, etc.  For example, in Illinois, all exits have to be accessible so that has an impact.

I'm liking the feedback I'm getting.


----------



## texasbo

Re: Egress through intervening spaces

Two things surprise me about this thread. First, I am surprised more members aren't weighing in. Office/warehouse is a very, very common building type. Surely everyone here has encountered this issue at one time or another.

The other thing that surprises me is that there is such a division of opinion. I've been going along fat, dumb and happy, thinking everyone must surely prohibit office areas from exiting through warehouses, and of course from the posts, that isn't the case. And that's just another reason I love this forum; I learn something almost every time I come here.


----------



## brudgers

Re: Egress through intervening spaces



			
				texasbo said:
			
		

> Brudgers said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And of course a warehouse is a warehouse, not a storage room *or a space used for a similar purpose* per 1014.2, 2006 IBC.
Click to expand...

Fixed it for you.

Like I said before, if you can get the building official to agree with that, and allow office spaces to exit through warehouses, then you're good to go.

You should think about "The difference."


----------



## texasbo

Re: Egress through intervening spaces



			
				brudgers said:
			
		

> texasbo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brudgers said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And of course a warehouse is a warehouse, not a storage room *or a space used for a similar purpose* per 1014.2, 2006 IBC.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fixed it for you.
> 
> Like I said before, if you can get the building official to agree with that, and allow office spaces to exit through warehouses, then you're good to go.
Click to expand...

Your position depends on an absurd interpretation of the code.

Edited because I don't think I can delete it.


----------



## JBI

Re: Egress through intervening spaces

Hey, how about those Jets?

texasbo - IMO, the 'storage room' in this particular code section would not have a door to the exterior labeled as an exit door. Rather I think the intent was for a smaller storage room with no direct egress to the exterior. Consider if you will Sam's Club, Costco, etc. They are 'warehouses' with 'mercantile' all in one space, but they still have 'storage rooms' as well...  :roll:

Being from NY I still have trouble with the whole idea of non-seperated uses. We've only had that in our codes since 2003 (our first modified I-codes). Prior to that pretty much everything was seperated, including and especially commercial kitchens from the dining room(s) served. Fast food places threw a major wrench in the works...


----------



## texasbo

Re: Egress through intervening spaces



			
				John Drobysh said:
			
		

> Hey, how about those Jets?texasbo - IMO, the 'storage room' in this particular code section would not have a door to the exterior labeled as an exit door. Rather I think the intent was for a smaller storage room with no direct egress to the exterior. Consider if you will Sam's Club, Costco, etc. They are 'warehouses' with 'mercantile' all in one space, but they still have 'storage rooms' as well...  :roll:
> 
> Being from NY I still have trouble with the whole idea of non-seperated uses. We've only had that in our codes since 2003 (our first modified I-codes). Prior to that pretty much everything was seperated, including and especially commercial kitchens from the dining room(s) served. Fast food places threw a major wrench in the works...


I just don't see it that way JD. I think if the code was just considering "small" rooms, there would be an area provision. If it had no exit door then it wouldn't be under consideration in the first place.

Instead, the requirement is broad and general, even going as far as saying "and spaces used for similar purposes".

In my opinion, the intent of the code is to insure that the level of safety is maintained until you reach the exit. In a Sam's Club, you do not have the level of protection diminished. You're in a whatever, and you stay in that whatever until you exit.

Can you say that the average warehouse operation affords the same level of exit safety as the average 3000 square foot office use? Again, there may be B.O.'s out there that interpret it differently. You and Plans Approver have said you'd be ok with it. I just haven't seen it permitted generally.


----------



## texasbo

Re: Egress through intervening spaces

Brudgers said:



> You should think about "The difference."


Ha, excellent! I was waiting for you to bring that up. Great thread by the way, and agree completely with you.

Anyway, I did consider it.  I will always go with the least restrictive interpretation when I feel comfortable with both. However, in this case, I feel strongly that exit integrity could be seriously compromised when going from an office into the potential maelstrom that is many warehouse operations.

It might come from having the third busiest airport in the world (28th busiest cargo airport) in my back yard. I see a lot of office warehouse uses, and I know what a cluster a warehouse can be. But I also see it in the jurisdictions all around my region, so I don't think I'm crazy. It might be very common in other places; I'd just like some input from others.


----------



## brudgers

Re: Egress through intervening spaces

*1014.2.1* is stating the conditions for large spaces where the significant factor is *occupancy*.

*1014.2.2* is stating the conditions for small spaces where the significant factor is *use* aka "kitchens, storage rooms, closets, or spaces used for similar purposes."

If 1014.2.2 actually prohibited egress through a warehouse then every warehouse office would have to exit directly to the outside whenever the office is accessory to the warehouse (since 1014.2.1 would not apply and 1014.2.2 would prohibit passage through the "storage room").


----------



## Plans Approver

Re: Egress through intervening spaces

Thank you, Jake! While my foot was getting sore from kicking that dead horse, I have one last kick. The CP of T was measured at right angles and not as the crow flies, correct?  Without a storage/working plan of the warehouse, the CP of T is measured at the most restrictive, direct path from the most remote point of the warehouse office to the rear exit door. You can't assume a diagonal, but, "usually" right angles of some configuration "should" be available. In the office space, the CP of T is measured along the normal path from the bowl in the Men's room down hallways around desks to the exit door.  Now, my foot hurts enough to stop on that subject.



			
				brudgers said:
			
		

> Mixed occupancy S and B, unseparated.Limit for a single exit in B occupancy is 49.
> 
> Limit for a single exit in S occupancy is 29.
> 
> Total occupant load is 37 per the OP and exceeds most restrictive requirement.


The most restrictive requirements of unseparated, mixed occupancy (508.3.2.1) are the application of Chapter 9, sprinklers which this building has, and Section 403, high rise which this is not. The occupant load is not a restricting requirement.

I have posted several times that the commentaries and interpretations are not always the best reference.  But, when they make sense, I use them.



			
				TimNY said:
			
		

> Is it me, or does this exception also remove the "accessory to the area served" requirement?


1014.2 Egress through intervening spaces. Egress through intervening spaces shall comply with this section.

1. Egress from a room or space shall not pass through adjoining or intervening rooms or areas, except where such adjoining rooms or areas are accessory to the area served, are not a high-hazard occupancy and provide a discernible path of egress travel to an exit.

The Commentary states: "The *intent of Item 1 is not that the accessory space be limited to the 10 percent area in Section 508.3.1*, but that the spaces be interrelated so that doors between the spaces will not risk being blocked or locked."

If the code language had just used "interrelated", associated", "adjoining", "adjacent", or another word other than accessory, it would be much more clear.

And now for something not so totally different - (apologies to Monty Python).

Let's take a slightly different look at Jake's drawing. Remember the occupancies do not have to be separated, so the door between the office and warehouse can stay or be removed.. If the B occupancy were extended through the warehouse, using a chain link fence to designate the expanded B occupancy, no longer passing through the S-1 area. Would that make anybody more safe? What if the long section of fence was replaced with 10' high racks of carpet? Would that make a difference?







I said I would allow it with a "continuous and unobstructed path of travel. And still would.


----------



## kilitact

Re: Egress through intervening spaces

brudgers wrote:



> 1014.2.1 is stating the conditions for large spaces where the significant factor is occupancy.1014.2.2 is stating the conditions for small spaces where the significant factor is use aka "kitchens, storage rooms, closets, or spaces used for similar purposes."
> 
> If 1014.2.2 actually prohibited egress through a warehouse then every warehouse office would have to exit directly to the outside whenever the office is accessory to the warehouse (since 1014.2.1 would not apply and 1014.2.2 would prohibit passage through the "storage room").


I agree with brudgers correct reading of the building code.

Plans Approver, why a chain link fence, to keep the dogs out  :lol:


----------



## Plans Approver

Re: Egress through intervening spaces



			
				kilitact said:
			
		

> Plans Approver, why a chain link fence, to keep the dogs out  :lol:


To keep the warehouse dogs away from the business bunnies.  

In reality, because it's not a solid wall. Jus' causing trouble.


----------



## JBI

Re: Egress through intervening spaces

Wal-Mart in my prior jurisdiction had as part of their exiting plan a wide 'path' through the back (their 'storage room'?) to a marked 'exit'. At review I had a thought in the back of my head that there was no way they would keep it unobstructed, but the code allowed it. (TimNY, this was under the old 'green book', not the new codes.    )

After they were opened a little while I had occasion to be in the vicinity of the 'exit' in question. The last part of the store before entering the back was the 'lay-away' area. It was in the fall, so Christmas lay-aways were really piling up. I was off-duty at the time, but management knew who I was (mostly because I'm the SOB that made them take the 300 bicycles off the roof joists!). After pointing out the problem, and explaining that I really didn't want to come back the next business day on Town time, they found a few Associates to move the blockage.

In my gut, I knew that area would be a problem and more than just one time. Lacking a code provision to prevent it I had to pass the plans. It's what many Planning Board members (and most municipal attorneys) refer to as an 'enforcement problem'.

I'd like to say we can't anticipate potential problems. Fact is we can. Another fact is that the Codes will never obviate the need for enforcement.

Do I like the path of egress to go through the back? No, never did, never will.

Can I disapprove a plan that shows it (based solely on this particular use of the space)? No, I can't, not with the sections provided here on this thread.


----------



## mtlogcabin

Re: Egress through intervening spaces

This has been an excellent post, stays on topic and some interesting answers.

In general I will have to agree with texasbo that the office should not exit thru the warehouse (S occupancy).

The CPOT requires 2 exits for the building  which it has. The placement of the wall between the B & S occupancies has reduced the CPOT and OL of each space to where only one exit is required from each space

1011.1 Where required.

Exits and exit access doors shall be marked by an approved exit sign.....

Exceptions:

1.	Exit signs are not required in rooms or areas that require only one exit or exit access.

In this case no exit signs are required.

1014.2 1 talks about intervening rooms that are accessory to the area served. The conference room adjacent to the reception area, The bosses office located behind the secretary's office. The exception refers to different occupancy groups. They do not have to be accessory to one another and probably aren't.

Exception 1 in 1014.2 allows H,F & S's to exit thru other intervening spaces that are a lessor hazard

Example an H could exit thru a F or S but an F-2 (Low hazard occupancy) cannot exit thru a F-1(Moderate hazard occupancy) A B occupancy would be less of a hazard than an S therefore the S can exit thru the B  but the B cannot exit thru the S a higher hazard occupancy. So I agree with texasbo and would not allow an exit sign to be placed on the B side of the door leading into the warehouse


----------



## kilitact

Re: Egress through intervening spaces

excellent post JD, I think we all agree we don't like it but our job is to enforce the code(s), not our personal likes or dislikes


----------



## JBI

Re: Egress through intervening spaces

Kil - Exactly...


----------



## texasbo

Re: Egress through intervening spaces

John Drobysh said:



> Can I disapprove a plan that shows it (based solely on this particular use of the space)? No, I can't, not with the sections provided here on this thread.


I love it; and I have no choice but to disapprove it, based on the sections provided in this thread! Just goes to show that the only interpretation that matters in your jurisdiction, is yours...


----------



## brudgers

Re: Egress through intervening spaces



			
				texasbo said:
			
		

> I love it; and I have no choice but to disapprove it, based on the sections provided in this thread! Just goes to show that the only interpretation that matters in your jurisdiction, is yours...


Which just goes to show that the justification for creating the ICC was as much a fiction as I said it was at the time.


----------



## Plans Approver

Re: Egress through intervening spaces



			
				texasbo said:
			
		

> Just goes to show that the only interpretation that matters in your jurisdiction, is yours...


Amen, brother, Amen.


----------

