• Welcome to The Building Code Forum

    Your premier resource for building code knowledge.

    This forum remains free to the public thanks to the generous support of our Sawhorse Members and Corporate Sponsors. Their contributions help keep this community thriving and accessible.

    Want enhanced access to expert discussions and exclusive features? Learn more about the benefits here.

    Ready to upgrade? Log in and upgrade now.

Egress

Re: Egress

Not compliant!

Glad "we" are able to apply LSC and the clear as mud remoteness provision (as intended). I know folks....... but this is not a ICC specific site :lol:

It’s not just the guy with the gun you have to worry about but a vehicle fire or crash into the window front would block both exits also.

Green:

Could you possibly remove the (2) 4 table tops and expand the Kitchen towards front and rework the bathrooms to provide a rear exit?
 
Re: Egress

It’s not just the guy with the gun you have to worry about but a vehicle fire or crash into the window front would block both exits also.
Click to expand...
So we need to prepare for what ever eventual calamity might take place? Maybe a suggestion that they build underground bunkers would afford the patrons the most protection. A fund should be set up that will take all the monies that go for non-essential items and pay to save lives.

Other than that extreme, do you have a solid code section that would allow a code official to disapprove what is obviously code complaint?
 
Re: Egress

So we need to prepare for what ever eventual calamity might take place? Other than that extreme, do you have a solid code section that would allow a code official to disapprove what is obviously code complaint?
Click to expand...
As I mentioned, glad we can use the LSC ;)

Lets see.........IBC 1015.2.1 gives the baloney diagonal distance stuff so this (plan) may be compliant and since I don’t have the commentary here with me I seem to recall they poorly allude the intent of the LSC's remoteness and since the allowance of this particular design or as defended, will create a situation where these occupants can be trapped (regardless of the sprinklers) or in the case of the gunman and as the LSC puts it “any emergency” like for instance.......the snow load collapse of the roof at or near the front wall........ How's this?

Best Practice Code Reference: NFPA 101, 2006 7.5.1.3.1

Where more than one exit is required from a building or portion thereof, such exits shall be remotely located from each other and shall be arranged and constructed to minimize the possibility that more than one has the potential to be blocked by any one fire or other emergency condition.
Click to expand...
Regarding:

A fund should be set up that will take all the monies that go for non-essential items and pay to save lives.
Click to expand...
I can only aspire to do my best to make sure the citizens in our jurisdiction are protected from potential and real emergencies that exist and hope that professionals that submit designs for our review feel the same and don’t aspire to just get by.
 
Re: Egress

Green: Are you the designer or plans examiner????

If you're the plans examiner, flunk it.

If you're the designer, rearrange the furniture and revise the rope-a-dope area, something like this until the access aisleway is less than 30 feet. Aisle accessway width, if 30 feet maximum, = 12" + (18 x .5) = 21" (1014.4.3.2), minimum aisle 36" or 44" depending on number of occupants using it.
 
Re: Egress

The remoteness separation for exits that you offhand allude to is what we review to. A plans examiner reviews plans to ensure they meet minimum code requirements; we don’t have the luxury of deciding if that is adequate and if not, making unilateral changes to the state adopted codes. I see this as a good thing given human nature and the variety of opinions on what constitutes safe construction practices, this levels the playing field.

I can only aspire to do my best to make sure the citizens in our jurisdiction are protected from potential and real emergencies that exist and hope that professionals that submit designs for our review feel the same and don’t aspire to just get by
Click to expand...
If that is a sincere statement, start a movement to get the fire people to forego all that chrome and donate the monies to a fund that could be used to compensate property owners for all these additional requirements, think of all the live this would save and I’m sure most would jump on board. :lol:

If you're the plans examiner, flunk it.
Click to expand...
Using what code section? Because You said so :?: :roll:
 
Re: Egress

kilitact said:
Using what code section? Because You said so :?: :roll:
Click to expand...
Absolutely . . . . . NOT!

1002 - AISLE. An exit access component that defines and provides a path of egress travel.

AISLE ACCESSWAY. That portion of an exit access that leads to an aisle.

1025.9 Assembly aisles are required. Every occupied portion of any occupancy in Group A that contains seats, tables, displays, similar fixtures or equipment shall be provided with aisles leading to exits or exit access doorways in accordance with this section. Aisle accessways for tables and seating shall comply with Section 1014.4.3.

1014.4.3.3 Table and seating aisle accessway length. The length of travel along the aisle accessway shall not exceed 30 feet from any seat to the point where a person has a choice of two or more paths of egress travel to separate exits.

Other posts had it nailed 30' max. travel until 2 paths of egress travel are available. There is a difference between aisles and aisle accessways and there specific requirements for them. The distance from the farthest seat to the aisle across the front window is greater than 30 feet. The OP needs to meet both the 75' CPoT and the 30' max. distance to an aisle.
 
Re: Egress

The remoteness separation for exits that you offhand allude to is what we review to.
Click to expand...
As a certified reviewer, I do the same and understand the dilemma one may be faced with while having a limited ability to apply an adopted code reference to protect against the “real” hazards posed by this particular exit design scheme. As a code official whom by state legislation with jurisdictional supported ordinances has an ability to apply an adopted code reference that addresses this remoteness hazard; this specific design or modified one through discussion would “not be approved” in accordance with the on-hand code applicable in my discussion points. The fact remains that this exit scheme presents the real opportunity for blockage of both exits by one hazardous event.

I see this as a good thing given human nature and the variety of opinions on what constitutes safe construction practices, this levels the playing field.
Click to expand...
Once again as a code official who has the ability of applying the code that in the “opinion” of the code as referenced and intended does “constitutes safe construction” associated to putting the two required exits on the same exterior wall in the proximity depicted.

Regarding sincerity.......... I am nothing but sincere when assuring our citizens are afforded the luxury of being able to have an option to choose an alternative exit when the other is blocked by an emergency or human nature or human behavior (as historically exhibited in all the Assembly Occupancy case history) that went into developing the code as referenced in my discussion.

Example:



EDIT: Spelling
 
Re: Egress

kilitact said:
Green wrote;
meets 1014.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
from the OP!

from the drawing you posted appears to meet all IBC code requirements.

The op said it complied w/ 1014 - which section?

The drawing I posted was modified by me to show that moving the furniture can make this comply.

Here are the plans side by side. I took the door at the lower right as 3', then plotted that length along the path of aisle accessway travel. It isn't 100% accurate, rather, it's generous. I would ask the DP for a dimensioned layout, but, this is all there is to work with on this forum. The original does not comply as I analyzed it.

Repeating: 1014.4.3.3 Table and seating aisle accessway length. The length of travel along the aisle accessway shall not exceed 30 feet from any seat to the point where a person has a choice of two or more paths of egress travel to separate exits.

No, Green, a space w/ one exit which would be less than 50 occupants would not be SOL - look at 1025.8.
 
Re: Egress

Thanks for all your input. We went back and forth on whether the plan met the minimum code requirements. All the discussion on the board really helped. We'll be contacting the designer today.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top