Exit access

[Sifu]

A2 occupancy, two MOE's required, 2018 IBC 1016.2, #5. Egress shall not pass through kitchens, storage rooms, closets or spaces used for similar purposes.

Revised plans for the MOE, previously had direct MOE out the back of the building through a separate exit access door/discharge, revised plan eliminates that door and sends occupants through the employee locker area which is part of the mechanical/storage space. It could be viewed as sending exit access through a "storage room", or through an employee locker area, which is a storage space I tend to see either as a "similar space" and a likelihood that this area becomes obstructed. WWYD?

PREVIOUS:



REVISED TO:

 

[steveray]

Put a door on the left…I wouldn’t really be concerned about the lockers per se, but the rest of that room will creep…

 

[Sifu]

My first thought as well, but then thought about exiting through a "locker room", which is more of a locker area ( I don't want to call it a "locker room", rather I would want to consider it a room with lockers, which we have previously discussed in another thread.) However, if it is a locker/storage space, it is still a storage space.

In the previous review and discussion, I decided it was not a locker room, rather it was a place to "store" personal belongings. So now they ant to change the MOE to go through the previously decided "storage" space. The STOR/MECH space could easily be partitioned, but doesn't necessarily clear it up.

My concern is that as a back of house path, not usually used and open, and the main opening for the bringing in of supplies, it becomes obstructed, which is the intent of the reason to limit exit access from a storage space.

 

[steveray]

My first thought as well, but then thought about exiting through a "locker room", which is more of a locker area ( I don't want to call it a "locker room", rather I would want to consider it a room with lockers, which we have previously discussed in another thread.) However, if it is a locker/storage space, it is still a storage space.

It’s an enclosed coat rack….

 

[Sifu]

Can we exit through an enclosed coat rack?

 

[steveray]

Can we exit through an enclosed coat rack?

Can we exit through a door?..No…but a doorway

 

[Paul Sweet]

Schools have lockers along exit access corridors. Why can't another occupancy?

I agree there needs to be a door between the exit access and the storage / mechanical room.

 

[Sifu]

I'll cite the code for exit access. If they propose a wall I can consider it and frankly I wouldn't want that setup without a wall, but I'm still not sold on the idea that this isn't a storage room, whether its for employee lunch bags or cartons of booze.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

I'll cite the code for exit access. If they propose a wall I can consider it and frankly I wouldn't want that setup without a wall, but I'm still not sold on the idea that this isn't a storage room, whether its for employee lunch bags or cartons of booze.

Is IS a storage room. Even the vised plan labels it as Storage/Mechanical.

 

[walker.t]

but I'm still not sold on the idea that this isn't a storage room, whether its for employee lunch bags or cartons of booze.

When you say “storage room” are you referring to the the area that would be formed if they added a wall between the exit door and the storage/mechanical area to the left (area shaded in blue, below)?

WWYD?

Create a passage directly to the exit door like this.

 

[Sifu]

As it is in the revised proposal, it is a storage room, if they closed off the left side as steveray proposed so the Stor/mech space is dedicated it may be better, but you are still in a storage room (lockers being storage), still out of sight, still a likely place for supply storage at the back door. The space has no other storage rooms, closets, stock rooms other than a janitors closet so I feel it is very likely that whatever they close off will end up being that space.

Storage room is a little subjective, so I am looking at the intent more than anything. The intent, as I see it, is that an exit path can't traverse an area that is likely to be obstructed by stored items. In this case, the normal everyday use for the space is as a mechanical room, and a place for lockers where there will likely be a chair, duffle bags etc., and since it is the back of house and behind a closed door, and it will likely be where they accept supplies at the back door I have a hard time accepting it as anything other than a place that stored items will likely be kept. It will be out of sight/out of mind. The original design was good, it was a straight path that was intended for and available only to the exit door, If items are stored there they will not be in a separate room, and be unsightly to customers making storage less likely. When they place it behind a door, and traverse a space that has an intended purpose for storage I think it crosses a line. Your second drawing allays that concern by opening it up to full view and makes it less likely anything will be stored in the exit path so I think that works so if they are married to moving the exit path to that door and closing the other that would be the way to do it. The issue with it is that it places the door into an area that doesn't work for their program.

I am going to cite the code, they can figure out how to comply. They can do what they get paid to do, which is comply with code while meeting the program needs. (sometimes they forget the first part, so I can remind them)

 

[steveray]

If the lockers actually get used, it’s kind of less likely to be blocked….I would talk to my FM and see if it was something he was willing to fight…

 

[Sifu]

If the lockers actually get used, it’s kind of less likely to be blocked….I would talk to my FM and see if it was something he was willing to fight…

That makes me smile. In nearly every AHJ for which I do work the FM is largely silent, unless it is about sprinklers and alarms, when pressed they say they defer to the building department. They rarely review (if ever) this stuff in any detail, even more rarely do I hear of them citing anyone.

Related, the C of O should be a defining document, I would think a FM would want to see those an any sort of annual inspection, so they could at least verify the low hanging fruit stuff, you know, technicalities like occupant load, occupancy classification, construction type, fire suppression....I looked one up for a building I reviewed a few years ago because they had applied for additional permits and what they showed as existing should not have been existing. The C of O had the wrong classifications, showed it as non-suppressed, had no occupant load, and N/A for construction type. It was a VB, sprinkled, mixed occupancy B,A2,S building with a defined max occupant load. They did get the address right.

I am not a fire inspector now, but if I was that type of information would be pretty useful. Just sayin'!

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

That makes me smile. In nearly every AHJ for which I do work the FM is largely silent, unless it is about sprinklers and alarms, when pressed they say they defer to the building department. They rarely review (if ever) this stuff in any detail, even more rarely do I hear of them citing anyone.

That has been my experience, for the most part. Our state law requires the fire marshal's office do do a plan review and to sign off before the BO issues a building permit, but too many FMs still default to the days before that law was enacted. They don't want to review plans -- they want to walk into a finished building and then start listing additional exit signs and emergency lights that they went all over the place.