• Welcome to the new and improved Building Code Forum. We appreciate you being here and hope that you are getting the information that you need concerning all codes of the building trades. This is a free forum to the public due to the generosity of the Sawhorses, Corporate Supporters and Supporters who have upgraded their accounts. If you would like to have improved access to the forum please upgrade to Sawhorse by first logging in then clicking here: Upgrades

1016.2.1(5) intervening spaces through kitchen.

If you look at storage room, in away it better defines why and what is needed to do that.

Means of egress are not prohibited through stockrooms in Group M occupancies where all of the following are met:
  1. 2.1. The stock is of the same hazard classification as that found in the main retail area.
  2. 2.2. Not more than 50 percent of the exit access is through the stockroom.
  3. 2.3. The stockroom is not subject to locking from the egress side.
  4. 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
I’ve seen this exact egress situation resolved by the Fire Cheif requiring 44” floor demarcation using the logic 2.4 posted by cda above.
 
But I would ask for a wall



  1. 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
 
Frank,

In some of the codes, they are written in general terms.

A code cannot be written for everything that will be proposed. That is where the person designing and the building official, have a conversation
Sorry I dropped the ball on this thread, I had to make progress on Electrical system upgrade, and COVID made Restaurant issue being limited to 50 People less of a problem.
There was a conversation with the building official in 2014 and the second means of Egress was approved, and the plans got approval for 68 People occupancy, but a certificate of occupancy was never issued.
I bought the place in 2016, and tried to install Solar Panels in 2017 it took 6 months to complete the review, so I complained, 2 weeks later Code Enforcement raided the building, because the Restaurant owner was BBQ'ing on outside of Means of Egress. A simple thing to fix which led to 20 pages of Code Violations from the Code Enforcement and 6 Pages from the fire Department. 128 Photo's of the interior and exterior of the building.
All trivial stuff and reeks of reprisals, nevertheless those all got fixed immediately, except the certificate of occupancy, the city would not allow the normal simple 'get your certificate of occupancy' paperwork to be used. Instead they forced a re-do of the Restaurant plans and going over every detail, and they refuse to allow the second means of egress, and as a result refused to approve the Restaurant 145 occupancy, or even offer to restore the 68 People. They are not even offering solutions that would enable it. There was one solution they offered which we did, but that became invalid. So I think I'm just getting jerked around, on a minor point. Like folks have mentions 145 people may be wishful thinking for the Restaurant to serve with a Microwave, but he serves shell fish, vegetable drinks, and offers bear and wine, largely cold served food and live entertainment from time to time, so the higher occupancy is desirable to create an atmosphere that will be inviting once COVID era restrictions are considered historic dark ages.
 
I've been wondering the same thing? Is it a sprinklered space? If no open flame or stove or oven then isn't it only a prep area serving a bar?
That's how I was looking at it, not really a full kitchen, with a reasonable cooking appliances. and a hood, for grease vapors.
 
Sorry I dropped the ball on this thread, I had to make progress on Electrical system upgrade, and COVID made Restaurant issue being limited to 50 People less of a problem.
There was a conversation with the building official in 2014 and the second means of Egress was approved, and the plans got approval for 68 People occupancy, but a certificate of occupancy was never issued.
I bought the place in 2016, and tried to install Solar Panels in 2017 it took 6 months to complete the review, so I complained, 2 weeks later Code Enforcement raided the building, because the Restaurant owner was BBQ'ing on outside of Means of Egress. A simple thing to fix which led to 20 pages of Code Violations from the Code Enforcement and 6 Pages from the fire Department. 128 Photo's of the interior and exterior of the building.
All trivial stuff and reeks of reprisals, nevertheless those all got fixed immediately, except the certificate of occupancy, the city would not allow the normal simple 'get your certificate of occupancy' paperwork to be used. Instead they forced a re-do of the Restaurant plans and going over every detail, and they refuse to allow the second means of egress, and as a result refused to approve the Restaurant 145 occupancy, or even offer to restore the 68 People. They are not even offering solutions that would enable it. There was one solution they offered which we did, but that became invalid. So I think I'm just getting jerked around, on a minor point. Like folks have mentions 145 people may be wishful thinking for the Restaurant to serve with a Microwave, but he serves shell fish, vegetable drinks, and offers bear and wine, largely cold served food and live entertainment from time to time, so the higher occupancy is desirable to create an atmosphere that will be inviting once COVID era restrictions are considered historic dark ages.

Why I am not in business.

A little strange, they are messing with you, and do not give you a path to a C of O
 
Why I am not in business.

A little strange, they are messing with you, and do not give you a path to a C of O
Yes it strange, normally City Planners work with you to fix issues, giving you solution they will approve, but in this case none of that. Makes me worry about their competence.
 
Too easy to block rear door with deliveries, appears to be a low end high volume proposed use.
 
Top