# 1016.2.1(5) intervening spaces through kitchen.



## frank.dimambro (Sep 15, 2020)

I'm facing a Code Enforcement claim that a means of egress goes through a kitchen, I've asked for clarification on that run but I'm not getting it, can anyone give me some thoughts. I would like to attach a image of the plans, and a photo, not clear how that's done on this forum.


----------



## cda (Sep 15, 2020)

No say dining area, cannot exit through the actual kitchen area.

Either be a forum supporting Sawhorse

Which would be nice

Or make the picture a link, post the link

I think you can do like Flickr or drop box or similar also


----------



## cda (Sep 15, 2020)

Not much give,,, If this matches word for word what you have

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


*Exceptions:*


Means of egress are not prohibited through a kitchen area serving adjoining rooms constituting part of the same dwelling unit or sleeping unit.
Means of egress are not prohibited through stockrooms in Group M occupancies where 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.
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.


----------



## cda (Sep 15, 2020)

What kind of business restaurant,? other Kitchen use business??


----------



## cda (Sep 15, 2020)

Welcome,,, did not see this was your first post


----------



## cda (Sep 15, 2020)

So software and exits don’t go together 

Trying to open a business??


----------



## frank.dimambro (Sep 15, 2020)

cda said:


> No say dining area, cannot exit through the actual kitchen area.
> 
> Either be a forum supporting Sawhorse
> 
> ...





cda said:


> Not much give,,, If this matches word for word what you have
> 
> Egress shall not pass through kitchens, storage rooms, closets or spaces used for similar purposes.
> 
> ...


----------



## frank.dimambro (Sep 15, 2020)

Please take look at the Plan in question.


----------



## cda (Sep 15, 2020)

A little more floor plan shot would help.


----------



## cda (Sep 15, 2020)

Appears, you want people to walk thru

The kitchen but not thru the cooking area.

My answer is still no, unless you put walls up, floor to ceiling.


----------



## cda (Sep 15, 2020)

What kind of business 

How many total sq ft??

Is this an already existing business/ cooking set up?


----------



## frank.dimambro (Sep 15, 2020)

Here's the complete floor plan Complete Floor plan. Thank you for taking a look.


----------



## cda (Sep 15, 2020)

Sorry,,

Should have asked fire sprinkler system installed??


----------



## frank.dimambro (Sep 15, 2020)

The Total Sqft is 2200sqft. I have a door at the back and 2 at the front and my tenant wants a 145 people occupancy. The two doors at the front are not far enough apart to allow half the diagonal rule to allow the them to the 2 means of egress that will allow 145 people. The one at the rear is, but Code enforcement is claiming it's going through a kitchen. I'm not seeing how that claim is valid, what does going through a kitchen mean.


----------



## frank.dimambro (Sep 15, 2020)

There's no sprinkler installed.


----------



## cda (Sep 15, 2020)

Simple is move one of the front doors farther apart

Appears you are going thru the kitchen work area,,,, which can get easily blocked


----------



## cda (Sep 15, 2020)

Or add another door up front

I take to each side are neighbors?


----------



## frank.dimambro (Sep 15, 2020)

Picture of the egress may give a clearer idea.


----------



## cda (Sep 15, 2020)

frank.dimambro said:


> Picture of the egress may give a clearer idea.




I could see approving,,,

If you put say a 7 foot high or so wall on the kitchen side, so there is a seperation.

You might submit it with a door in it and see if that flys


----------



## cda (Sep 15, 2020)

Give it a day or two, and you should get more answers.

How far off are the two front doors, from being half the diagonal????


----------



## frank.dimambro (Sep 15, 2020)

Each side of the space is indeed neighbor so side doors is not an option, moving the front door may be a more expensive solution. Putting up a wall across the Kitchen side, and making the enter to the Kitchen from the middle or the fair side, sounds like the simplest solution.


----------



## frank.dimambro (Sep 15, 2020)

I'll need to measure the diagonal and the distance between the front Doors again. The Restaurant is also linked to whether there's cooking in the Kitchen. The Kitchen is defined but the Health Department as heating only. So it's allowed to have a Microwave, and he has a grill that he uses to heat tortillas, that allows no Hood.


----------



## cda (Sep 15, 2020)

frank.dimambro said:


> Each side of the space is indeed neighbor so side doors is not an option, moving the front door may be a more expensive solution. Putting up a wall across the Kitchen side, and making the enter to the Kitchen from the middle or the fair side, sounds like the simplest solution.



yep and like I said, you might put a door in it and see if it flys

Might even try a barn door slider, and see if that flys


----------



## cda (Sep 15, 2020)

Good luck check next few days for other answers also


----------



## frank.dimambro (Sep 15, 2020)

I've been thinking about it a lot. The only obstruction that I see in that space is people coming in and out of the Kitchen space, getting in the way of people exiting in an emergency, but code enforcement are not thinking of scenarios that justify the rule. So putting a wall there and putting in a door to the kitchen through that wall, brings me back to the danger I've considered may justify the the rule. When I think about going through a Kitchen I see if the path is actually through the kitchen were on your left or right there's Kitchen workspace, and you would be bumping into kitchen staff on your way out, or worse the Kitchen appliance could be on fire and going thought that same space puts you into the space of the fire, but there's no clarification of the risk that rule is trying to avoid, so it's difficult to engineer a risk free solution, other than to air on the side of over-caution and make sure the means of egress is no where near the kitchen. I also worry that putting a full wall there could also trap people in the kitchen, and disrupt there access to the Egress. It would be nice if the intent of the rule was better explained.


----------



## frank.dimambro (Sep 15, 2020)

cda said:


> Good luck check next few days for other answers also


Thank you for your help, I have a few ideas now, I still like as much input as possible.


----------



## cda (Sep 15, 2020)

frank.dimambro said:


> I've been thinking about it a lot. The only obstruction that I see in that space is people coming in and out of the Kitchen space, getting in the way of people exiting in an emergency, but code enforcement are not thinking of scenarios that justify the rule. So putting a wall there and putting in a door to the kitchen through that wall, brings me back to the danger I've considered may justify the the rule. When I think about going through a Kitchen I see if the path is actually through the kitchen were on your left or right there's Kitchen workspace, and you would be bumping into kitchen staff on your way out, or worse the Kitchen appliance could be on fire and going thought that same space puts you into the space of the fire, but there's no clarification of the risk that rule is trying to avoid, so it's difficult to engineer a risk free solution, other than to air on the side of over-caution and make sure the means of egress is no where near the kitchen. I also worry that putting a full wall there could also trap people in the kitchen, and disrupt there access to the Egress. It would be nice if the intent of the rule was better explained.





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:

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.
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


----------



## cda (Sep 15, 2020)

To me no problem putting up a wall with or without a door

kitchen staff will get out, there are small kitchens out there, with only one way out.


----------



## cda (Sep 15, 2020)

So is this a bar also, and if so more bar than restaurant ???

Just wonder how he will feed 150 people with a microwave and tortilla warmer


----------



## steveray (Sep 16, 2020)

You are not getting your 60" clear at the water closet in the mens room, pullside clearance looks tight too...I could see the pass through the "kitchen" thing either way, but then I would also have to consider that the mens room opens directly to the "kitchen"....

403.3.2 Prohibited toilet room location. Toilet
rooms shall not open directly into a room used for the
preparation of food for service to the public.


----------



## cda (Sep 16, 2020)

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


----------



## mtlogcabin (Sep 16, 2020)

I would not have an issue with the existing exits. If this is existing why the issue with "Code Enforcement" and what agency is the "code enforcement"?


----------



## classicT (Sep 16, 2020)

steveray said:


> You are not getting your 60" clear at the water closet in the mens room, pullside clearance looks tight too...I could see the pass through the "kitchen" thing either way, but then I would also have to consider that the mens room opens directly to the "kitchen"....
> 
> 403.3.2 Prohibited toilet room location. Toilet
> rooms shall not open directly into a room used for the
> preparation of food for service to the public.


Steveray... I've been watching this thread and decided to bite my tongue and stay out because I had the same thoughts.

The MOE passing through the end of the kitchen seems a bit minor in comparison to a few other apparent items.



mtlogcabin said:


> I would not have an issue with the existing exits. If this is existing why the issue with "Code Enforcement" and what agency is the "code enforcement"?


An I fully agree with mtlogcabin, and would like to know if this is a building department official, fire marshal, or code enforcement. If this is a hill that they are standing on, why look the other way at some of the other items that are apparent? Doesn't make sense.


----------



## cda (Sep 16, 2020)

Well I know can’t go on future maybes 

But can see And have seen storage, shelfs, prep cart, etc slowly creeping in The exit width.

There is a reason for the requirements for exiting thru storeroom and I see similar requirements should be applied here

Still would like to know why front doors are in violation


----------



## mtlogcabin (Sep 16, 2020)

I would view this as a hallway between the food prep area and the dish 
washing area



			https://i.ibb.co/68tMypb/IMG-1263.jpg


----------



## ADAguy (Sep 16, 2020)

Ouch, raise the wall to create a corridor to the exit.


----------



## frank.dimambro (Sep 18, 2020)

cda said:


> So is this a bar also, and if so more bar than restaurant ???
> 
> Just wonder how he will feed 150 people with a microwave and tortilla warmer


It's a Seafood Restaurant, mostly oysters, shell fish, cold shrimp, Soft drinks, Beer & Wine. He would have Karaoke nights, and sometimes live bands, so I have the same doubt, but he does want an occupancy more than 50. The Story is a sad long one, he opened his place in 2014 got an Architect to do the plans delegating all that work to him. The plans went to the Fire Dept and the City, the City Final'd the plans without approval from the Fire Department. I buy the building I want to install Solar panels, I complian because between the Fire Department and City it takes 6 month to get permit approval. No sooner do I get permit approval the place gets raided and as the owner I get slapped with 20 pages of Violations from the City and 6 pages from the Fire Department. Suspicious???? All trivial fixable stuff which got fixed in a month, with more complex items taking about 6 months. City was cool they would clear violations as they got fixed, Fire Department would not remove items as they got fixed, and in some cases would re-purpose the same violation elsewhere. The one item on the exception was the Certificate of Occupancy. It was not updated because the plans went through without detecting a change of use. Of course I think that's not really the business owner fault, he let the city know exactly what he was doing, and that should have been caught in 2014, but they don't care. There's a City process which is easy to follow to address that, but that's being withheld as an option to fix this. So we were forced to re-do plans, and items like the exit through the kitchen which got approved in 2014 with no issue, becomes a massive issue now, and a storage room that's at the back which has no documented history is called out as un-permitted work, it was caught in another City Code Violation check but got closed, and was not called out in the new issue. So I have those 2 items that I put down in plans and said okay here's the as-built what's needed to make it compliant, I can iterate the plan to address concerns, and I get no response, with details of how to be compliant, it's strange. Thank you for your thoughts.


----------



## frank.dimambro (Sep 18, 2020)

cda said:


> So software and exits don’t go together
> 
> Trying to open a business??


----------



## frank.dimambro (Sep 18, 2020)

Finding that out the hard way, but certainly interesting.


----------



## frank.dimambro (Sep 18, 2020)

cda said:


> yep and like I said, you might put a door in it and see if it flys
> 
> Might even try a barn door slider, and see if that flys


I'm open to anything really, given I did new plans I want then reviewed and items fixed but options beyond the Pony Wall already shown are not being given, things like the Location of the Toilet was not even called out, only 2 issue, the rear Exit and the un-permitted storage room.


----------



## ADAguy (Sep 18, 2020)

cda said:


> So is this a bar also, and if so more bar than restaurant ???
> 
> Just wonder how he will feed 150 people with a microwave and tortilla warmer



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?


----------



## frank.dimambro (Sep 18, 2020)

mtlogcabin said:


> I would view this as a hallway between the food prep area and the dish
> washing area
> 
> 
> ...


That's how I was looking at it, because the wording of 'going through a kitchen', being applied in this case needs to be explained, because putting up a wall there, or a wall with a door, has the effect of attempting to please, but I'm not convinced enhances exit from the building. All the dish washing is done in the kitchen the room on the other side is the utility room for Mops and some drinks storage.


----------



## frank.dimambro (Sep 18, 2020)

ADAguy said:


> 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?


It's certainly not an industrial kitchen, and a prep area serving a bar is a good description, but since it has a sink in it and you prepare food to serve customers I thought it being called a kitchen was a reasonable name.


----------



## cda (Sep 18, 2020)

frank.dimambro said:


> That's how I was looking at it, because the wording of 'going through a kitchen', being applied in this case needs to be explained, because putting up a wall there, or a wall with a door, has the effect of attempting to please, but I'm not convinced enhances exit from the building. All the dish washing is done in the kitchen the room on the other side is the utility room for Mops and some drinks storage.




As in the storage room provision, it keeps STUFF from wondering into the exit path/width. 


So once again, is this more of a bar ?? With  finger foods or what??

Does help in making a decision,,,, But that decision will in the end, be what the locals say,

You can always go thru the appeals process.


----------



## frank.dimambro (Sep 18, 2020)

cda said:


> As in the storage room provision, it keeps STUFF from wondering into the exit path/width.
> 
> 
> So once again, is this more of a bar ?? With  finger foods or what??
> ...


I'm thinking Seafood/Salid bar.


----------



## my250r11 (Sep 18, 2020)

It matters what use you give it. I fill it is strange to have to cross a hall or corridor to wash dishes. Adding walls to enclose the area is about the only option I see with out adding another door or moving the existing one.

This appears to be an A2 over 100 occupants which would require sprinklers.


----------



## frank.dimambro (Sep 18, 2020)

my250r11 said:


> It matters what use you give it. I fill it is strange to have to cross a hall or corridor to wash dishes. Adding walls to enclose the area is about the only option I see with out adding another door or moving the existing one.
> 
> This appears to be an A2 over 100 occupants which would require sprinklers.


There's no cross hall to wash dishes, that is the utility room, which gets used for storage and cleaning mops and stuff, I was thinking that's what's making them think that the Egress was through the kitchen.

Chapter 11 The existing construction rules

1103.5 Sprinkler systems. An automatic sprinkler system shall be provided in existing buildings in accordance with Sections 1103.5.1 through 1103.5.4.
1103.5.1 Group A-2. An automatic sprinkler system shall be installed in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1 through- out existing buildings or portions thereof used as Group A-2 occupancies with an occupant load of 300 or more.
1103.5.2 Group I-2. In Group I-2, an automatic sprinkler system shall be provided in accordance with Section 1105.8.

That makes it sound like for an existing building you're allows 300 occupants without a sprinkler system. Taken from the 2016 Fire Code.


----------



## cda (Sep 18, 2020)

In the end you have to make the locals happy.

To me the easiest, is find out if they will accept a wall, and minimum height?


----------



## frank.dimambro (Sep 21, 2020)

Trying to work with them, not a friendly bunch.


----------



## sergoodo (Oct 2, 2020)

cda said:


> 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:
> 
> ...


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.


----------



## cda (Oct 2, 2020)

But I would ask for a wall




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.dimambro (Jan 17, 2021)

cda said:


> 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.


----------



## frank.dimambro (Jan 17, 2021)

ADAguy said:


> 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.


----------



## cda (Jan 17, 2021)

frank.dimambro said:


> 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


----------



## frank.dimambro (Jan 17, 2021)

cda said:


> 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.


----------



## ADAguy (Jan 23, 2021)

Too easy to block rear door with deliveries, appears to be a low end high volume proposed use.


----------



## ADAguy (Jan 25, 2021)

What more do you want to here? cda is spot on, either add a door or a wall.


----------

