Appeal 33665

OSSC 1010.1.5 Landings at Doors

"Landings shall have a width not less than the width of the stairway or the door, whichever is greater. Doors in the fully open position shall not reduce a required dimension by more than 7 inches (178 mm). Where a landing serves an occupant load of 50 or more, doors in any position shall not reduce the landing to less than one-half its required width. Landings shall have a length measured in the direction of travel of not less than 44 inches (1118 mm).
Exception: Landing length in the direction of travel in Groups R-3 and U and within individual units of Group R-2 need not exceed 36 inches (914 mm)."

We propose a 'landing depth' of 30 inches inside the door at Bath 004, 006, 008, and a 'landing depth' of 22 inches at Bath 002.

We propose a using a very shallow lav sink to maximize the depth of the 'landing', while still allowing for a full – albeit compact - bathroom (shower, sink, and toilet).

It’s not clear to me that this section applies to doors D002A, D004A, D006A, and D008A for two reasons:

First, OSSC 1010 applies to “Doors in the Means of Egress…”. OSSC Chapter 2 defines ‘Means of Egress’ as “A continuous and unobstructed path of vertical and horizontal egress travel from any occupied portion of a building or structure to a public way…” The IBC Handbook notes in their Definitions of Occupiable Space “…Examples of those spaces that would not be considered normally occupied include storage rooms, mechanical equipment rooms, and toilet rooms. “ Therefore, it seems these bathrooms are not considered Occupiable Space, and not part of the Means of Egress, meaning that OSSC 1010 would not apply to these bathroom doors.

Secondly, the OSSC 1010.1.5 ‘Landings at Doors’ requirement appears to apply to doors only adjacent to stairs (which this door is not). E.g. the section cites “Landings shall have a width not less than the width of the stairway or the door, whichever is greater….” “Whichever is greater” implies that both conditions – the stairway and the door – exist. If this applied to only doors, then the section would read “Landings shall have a width not less than the width of the door”.

If it’s deemed that neither the above points are relevant, please consider that our intent here is for a thoughtfully-designed Fourplex, with amenities that facilitate a compact urban lifestyle. These 1,200sf two-bedroom units have one full bath on the top floor. We want to provide a second full - but compact - bath in the basement to allow for maximal use of the unit and flexibility of the Family Room. To that point, we propose to provide all the Code-required plumbing fixture clearances, but with a slightly shorter ‘Landing’ at the door of 30 inches (22 inches at Bath 002). This adjustment from the cited 36-inch ‘Landing at Door’ doesn’t appear to have any impact of the Life Safety of these units.
Additionally, had these units been designed and permitted as Townhouses (which would be a relatively similar design), there would be no requirement for “Landings at Doors” (as the ORSC has no such requirement), suggesting that this is not an inherently unsafe condition.

OSSC 1208.2 Minimum ceiling heights.

"Occupiable spaces, habitable spaces and corridors shall have a ceiling height of not less than 7 feet 6 inches (2286 mm) above the finished floor. Bathrooms, toilet rooms, kitchens, storage rooms and laundry rooms shall have a ceiling height of not less than 7 feet (2134 mm) above the finished floor.
Exceptions:

1. If any room in a building has a sloped ceiling, the prescribed ceiling height for the room is required in one-half the area thereof. Any portion of the room measuring less than 5 feet (1524 mm) from the finished floor to the ceiling shall not be included in any computation of the minimum area thereof."

We propose a ceiling height of 8’-0 ½” then sloping to a low height of 5’-0” behind the toilet (with 70% of the room area having a ceiling height of 7'-0" or greater).

We propose to extend the Basement Baths (004, 006, 008) to the south under the stairs, with a sloped ceiling over the toilet. 70% of the Baths would have a ceiling height of 7’-0” or more (75% of the Baths would have a ceiling height of 6’-8” or more).

We propose a longer bathroom for usability, as it would allow more open floor area within the bathroom, and to facilitate standard floor-mounted toilets.

Also, OSSC 1208.2, Exception 2, appears to allow a portion of sloped ceilings within spaces below the minimum ceiling height (as it references a 5 foot ceiling height, well below the minimums stated earlier in the section), so long as half the floor area meets the minimum ceiling height (which this design does).

Lastly, ORSC (which would’ve been the required Code had these been constructed as Townhouses instead) allows a head clearance of 6’-4” forward of the toilet (ORSC R305.1), implying that our proposed design is not inherently unsafe.