# Is a Brewery used for a "similar purpose" as a kitchen?



## ChrisEllis (Mar 15, 2015)

I just had a building plan disapproved because a means of egress passes by the brewing area of a brewpub. This is the reason given:



> The brewery area as proposed : shows it will have cooking like a kitchen, it has a cooler like a refrigerator in a kitchen, a storage area for food products like a pantry in a kitchen, dish cleanup area like in a kitchen and also a mechanical room that you have to pass by to egress.


While I am a bit confused because there is no "dish cleanup area" in the designated brewing space, the statement uses Chapter 10, Section 1014.2 of the IBC as it's reasoning:



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


Is it reasonable for them to say that a brewery is used for a "similar purpose" as a kitchen?

This is my opinion to the contrary:

The 2012 International Building Code offers two classifications for a Commercial kitchen:

*303.3 Assembly Group A-2*. Assembly uses intended for food and/or drink consumption including, but not limited to:

•	Restaurants, cafeterias, and similar dining facilities (including associated commercial kitchens)

*306.2 Moderate-hazard Factory Industrial, Group F-1*. Factory industrial uses which are not classified as Factory Industrial F-2 Low Hazard shall be classified as F-1 Moderate Hazard and shall include, but not be limited to, the following:

•	Food processing and commercial kitchens not associated with restaurants, cafeterias, and similar dining facilities.

However, a brewery falls very explicitly under the category of F-2:

*306.3 Low-hazard factory industrial, Group F-2*. Factory industrial uses that involve the fabrication or manufacturing of noncombustible materials which during finishing, packing or processing do not involve a significant fire hazard shall be classified as F-2 occupancies and shall include, but not be limited to, the following:

•	Beverages: up to and including 16-percent alcohol content

This brewery is not used for similar purposes as a moderate-hazard food processing factory, as we see per 306.3 that it is low hazard by definition.


A brewery achieves a lower hazard rating because the brewing environment lacks the combustible grease vapors and residues of a commercial kitchen.

The brewing process also avoids the open flames, intense radiant heat, or otherwise focused heat of gas and electrical kitchen appliances because an insulated steam jacketed kettle is used to heat the materials, while the steam boiler itself is relegated to a fire-rated mechanical room.

Materials are a water/grain slurry or sugar solution heated to between 145°F and 215°F, which is the boiling point of strong wort (sugar solution). Combustion is clearly not a likelihood.

A brewery uses stationary vessels for production, and then transfers fluids through a closed circuit of hoses. This is unlike a commercial kitchen which uses movable vessels and dangerous utensils such as sharp knives.

Finally, but perhaps most obviously, a kitchen prepares "food." Food is a different category as "beverage," thus the need for the clarifying phrase “food and beverage.” 

I value any input that members more experienced with the nuance of this code may be able to share.

Thanks


----------



## cda (Mar 15, 2015)

Welcome....

Which state are you in??  Sometimes helps when answering a question.


----------



## cda (Mar 15, 2015)

Thought you had a separation question.

Are they requiring separation between the brewing and other occupancy??

I think I would agree to the point of exiting through a more hazardous area. No matter what you call the occupancy


----------



## ChrisEllis (Mar 15, 2015)

cda said:
			
		

> Welcome....


Thanks for the welcome! This site looks to be an incredible resource. I hope I don't send too many people's eyes rolling with the slew of new-to-the-biz questions that I have.

-Chris


----------



## cda (Mar 15, 2015)

"""""The concern in Item 4 is that kitchens, storage rooms and similar spaces may be subject to locking or blockage of the exit access path. This is not a general provision for all Group S occupancies; therefore, it is not the intent of this provision to address the situation of egress for offices through an associated warehouse space. Item 4, Exception 1, does not apply this same prohibition to areas within dwelling or sleeping units. However, for other spaces, for example, a means of egress should not be through the working portions of a commercial kitchen behind a restaurant or the stock storage area of a storage room behind a mercantile occupancy.""""

http://publicecodes.cyberregs.com/icod/ibc/2009f2cc/icod_ibc_2009f2cc_10_sec014.htm?bu2=undefined


----------



## cda (Mar 15, 2015)

ChrisEllis said:
			
		

> Thanks for the welcome! This site looks to be an incredible resource. I hope I don't send too many people's eyes rolling with the slew of new-to-the-biz questions that I have.-Chris


Us old code people get lost in the black and white.

Monday should bring more replies.

We would enjoy your support::

http://www.thebuildingcodeforum.com/forum/payments.php

http://www.thebuildingcodeforum.com/forum/website-discussion/9677-difference-between-sawhorse-registered-member.html

Cheap consultation fee!!!


----------



## ChrisEllis (Mar 15, 2015)

cda said:
			
		

> Which state are you in??  Sometimes helps when answering a question.


I'm in Cedar Rapids, IA. The applicable codes used locally are IBC ad IFC.



			
				cda said:
			
		

> Are they requiring separation between the brewing and other occupancy??


I am separating the assembly area A-2 from the brewing F-2 for safety, though there is no separation required in a sprinkled building.



			
				cda said:
			
		

> I think I would agree to the point of exiting through a more hazardous area. No matter what you call the occupancy


Fair enough. However Chapter 10, TABLE 1012.4 of the International Existing Building Codes defines F-2 as the lowest hazard area.

My question to you would be, why is it more hazardous? Nothing involved in the brewing process will impede the path of egress. And from a fire safety standpoint, I have non-combustible liquids in stainless steel tanks. What is the fire hazard?


----------



## cda (Mar 15, 2015)

I am not saying there is a fire hazard and there does not have to be a fire hazard.

Even exiting through a Subway sandwich shop prep area is a hazard.

Are you able to post a floor plan???


----------



## ChrisEllis (Mar 15, 2015)

I have attached the full plan, plus a break out with the actual brewery layout overlay.My ultimate goal is, of course, a safe and compliant environment. However, a walled in corridor through the middle of the back room makes things more difficult and the work more dangerous for the people that will actually be spending time in the brewing area.Complicating everything is the fact that this building has a preliminary determination to be a contributing building within a potential historic district. I'm trying to please the State Historic Preservation Board as well as the building services group. And as a century old auto garage, SHPO would like to see the back as open as I can get it. A walled corridor would be ugly and obtrusive and may affect the historic tax credits I am eligible for.I know there is some leniency for historic buildings, but I haven't gotten deep enough into the code to parse all that out yet. That was going to be one of my next questions: "Is a _preliminary _determination of a contributing building within a _potential _historic district enough?"Thanks!(and cheap consultation indeed! I plan to contribute)

View attachment 1151


View attachment 1152


036-14 CD 4 Plan A.2.pdf

View attachment 1152


036-14 CD 4 Plan A.2.pdf

/monthly_2015_03/572953d5dd3cb_036-14CD4PlanA.jpg.265ad84c29647b88da705f70714833eb.jpg


----------



## cda (Mar 15, 2015)

That one is a little hard to accept.

The other thing to me is the cased openings people exiting my wonder through

I take it there are buildings connected on each side?


----------



## ICE (Mar 15, 2015)

Brent makes the claim that beer is food.  That would mean that a brewing area is a beer kitchen.  The reality is that one wall would separate the "kitchen" from a corridor.  10 to 12 feet of wall shouldn't be that big of a deal to the SHPO.  Put a bunch of glass in the wall.


----------



## Francis Vineyard (Mar 15, 2015)

ChrisEllis do they view the vats as cooking appliances?

If so I don't see how without a fuel.

And does your locality or state require permits and food processing facilities be reviewed by the health dept.?

If not then that may change their minds.

Hope this helps.

ps and welcome to the forum


----------



## MASSDRIVER (Mar 15, 2015)

ChrisEllis said:
			
		

> My ultimate goal is, of course, a safe and compliant environment.


Here we go again with remedial education;

The ultimate goal is to get the effing beer brewed so we can drink it.

Actually the _*Ultimate*_ goal is to get wasted and tell lies about how good we are, but i'll give a little and say it is to brew beer. I don't give a single shlt if you can do it safe, just get it done.

RELAX ICE, I'm not inferring they HAVE to brew it unsafely...if they can get it done, and not waste a bunch of time, and do it safely, then yay for them. Otherwise, whatev.

And beer IS food, unlike wine which something women drink to get get drunk but still maintain a "standard".

Brent.


----------



## cda (Mar 15, 2015)

ICE said:
			
		

> Brent makes the claim that beer is food.  That would mean that a brewing area is a beer kitchen.  The reality is that one wall would separate the "kitchen" from a corridor.  10 to 12 feet of wall shouldn't be that big of a deal to the SHPO.  Put a bunch of glass in the wall.


I think the ahj is looking at the complete path from the front to the back exit door. And does not like it. Me either passing through to many areas


----------



## north star (Mar 15, 2015)

*= [ : ] : [ : ] =*



ChrisEllis,

Welcome to The Building Codes Forum !   

In looking at your floor plan, ...I too would be leaning towards

identifying your "proposed" Exit Path through a Kitchen type

similar area also.

*REASONS:* *(1)* there is a Pizza Oven towards the front area,

*(2)* there is an area that will be used for washing dishes, *(3)*

there are cased openings that "could" cause occupants to

wander in to during an emergency, *(4)* as is common in most

food \ beverage \ alcohol serving establishments, ...things

DO get piled up in the wrong areas,  ...stock \ kitchen

equipment \ furnishings DO end up not being where they

should be, ...*(5)* what if there is sewer line stoppage and a

plumber is using that rear entrance to enter & exit with

their equipment, and on and on and on.

IMO, ...too much potential for a blockage in the current

floor plan Exit path............And Lord help you all if someone

like Brent gets all liquored up and goes stumbling thru the

back area trying to find the P__ss-a-torium.........Yep, it's

gunna be ugly !

Re-design  &  re-submit.

*= [ : ] : [ : ] =*


----------



## ICE (Mar 15, 2015)

I don't see too many areas... It's a short trip to the corridor right past the pizza oven....wait a minute there's a pizza oven....that's not in a kitchen? With a grease hood?


----------



## JBI (Mar 15, 2015)

A quick Bing search for 'brewery fires and explosions' led to well over 24 million hits.

A others have pointed out the bigger concern is that the exit would likely get blocked by stuff.

While a pizza oven doesn't necessarily need a Type I hood (no appreciable grease laden vapor), they are nonetheless 'cooking' equipment.


----------



## cda (Mar 15, 2015)

And the vessels are defiantly cooking the good stuff.


----------



## Frank (Mar 15, 2015)

To the other side is a storage room

THat said Virginia has an amendment to allow one exit through these areas


----------



## cda (Mar 16, 2015)

Frank said:
			
		

> To the other side is a storage roomTHat said Virginia has an amendment to allow one exit through these areas


In any occupancy ??

Or just M?


----------



## ChrisEllis (Mar 16, 2015)

Thanks, everybody, for your perspective. It's definitely helping me see this as a more comprehensive issue than I had thought.To some of the points raised about the actual kitchen area that is reflected, this drawing does not show the present kitchen configuration. The present kitchen has a deck pizza oven (rather than the wood fire) and a range... and, yes, a Type 1 hood. I am not sure why this was not updated for the drawings that were submitted.I had not been looking at the kitchen and the brewing area as the same space. As you can see from the brewery overly, there is not direct access to the brewery area from the kitchen's dishwashing area because the brewing equipment blocks that opening. And, in fact, I was going to use that gap to put an icemaker and dough mixer. Would a wall (or half wall so that a historic beam will remain visible) separating those areas mitigate any issues? See the updated brewery overlay attached.The primary workflow hurdle that I am trying to overcome is easy access back and forth between the brewery side and the overhead door side. A big cart full of spent grain after a brew (~600 lbs) will be difficult to move through multiple doors to get to the overhead door. My favorite option is to just flip the brewery over to the other side of the back area. Then it can all be walled in without the workflow impediments. Unfortunately, it is also going to be the most expensive option, as the floor has already be cut for sanitary plumbing for the original layout. And mechanical and electrical plans have already been drawn. There'd be a bit of starting at square one.One thing that I have found very odd so far in this process is how many people that have reviewed my plan have told me, "Well, since this isn't a sprinkled building, blah blah blah" without actually telling me that I need to sprinkle the building. This is odd for two reasons. First, while there may be some gray area open for judgement calls elsewhere in the Code, it seems pretty darned black and white to me that sprinkling is necessary for my use and occupancy load.  Second, _I am sprinkling the building_. The Building Plan Review on the first page states this clearly and presents a number of determination based on the fact that it will be sprinkled. I don't know how this keeps getting overlooked. Oi.

View attachment 1153


View attachment 1153


/monthly_2015_03/572953d5e28cc_036-14CD4PlanA.jpg.a0df4e9f8623a3157ac26f463dcc03fe.jpg


----------



## ChrisEllis (Mar 16, 2015)

Frank said:
			
		

> To the other side is a storage roomTHat said Virginia has an amendment to allow one exit through these areas


While the rear portion was labeled "storage," for practical purposes it is just a receiving area from the overhead alley access door. There may be a pallet or two waiting to get unloaded at any given time, but it will not be a stockroom or storage room in any real sense. Would simply re-labeling that space mitigate any of the present issues?


----------



## Francis Vineyard (Mar 16, 2015)

cda said:
			
		

> In any occupancy ??Or just M?


This exception was in the BOCA; Virgnia kept it when the I-codes where adoted.

*1014.2 Egress through intervening spaces. *

Egress through intervening spaces shall comply with this section.

1. Egress from a room or space shall not pass through adjoining or intervening rooms or areas, except where such adjoining rooms or areas and the area served are accessory to one or the other, are not a Group H occupancy and provide a discernible path of egress travel to an _exit_.

*Exception: *_Means of egress _are not prohibited through adjoining or intervening rooms or spaces in a Group H, S or F occupancy when the adjoining or intervening rooms or spaces are the same or a lesser hazard occupancy group.

2. An _exit access _shall not pass through a room that can be locked to prevent egress.

3. _Means of egress _from dwelling units or sleeping areas shall not lead through other sleeping areas, toilet rooms or bathrooms.

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

*Exceptions:*

1. _Means of egress_ are not prohibited through a kitchen area serving adjoining rooms constituting part of the same _dwelling unit_ or _sleeping unit._

2. _Means of egress _are not prohibited through stockrooms in Group M occupancies when 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; and

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.

3. A maximum of one exit access is permitted to pass through kitchens, store rooms, closets or spaces used for similar purposes provided such a space is not the only means of exit access.


----------



## cda (Mar 16, 2015)

ChrisEllis said:
			
		

> Thanks, everybody, for your perspective. It's definitely helping me see this as a more comprehensive issue than I had thought.To some of the points raised about the actual kitchen area that is reflected, this drawing does not show the present kitchen configuration. The present kitchen has a deck pizza oven (rather than the wood fire) and a range... and, yes, a Type 1 hood. I am not sure why this was not updated for the drawings that were submitted.
> 
> I had not been looking at the kitchen and the brewing area as the same space. As you can see from the brewery overly, there is not direct access to the brewery area from the kitchen's dishwashing area because the brewing equipment blocks that opening. And, in fact, I was going to use that gap to put an icemaker and dough mixer. Would a wall (or half wall so that a historic beam will remain visible) separating those areas mitigate any issues? See the updated brewery overlay attached.
> 
> ...


I saw I the op that the space would have sprinkler protection, that in away is a non issue.

I am not to worried about placement of the pizza oven. I go to three places the wood fired pizza oven is part of the dining area.

Just the totality of the exit path, I have a problem with.


----------



## cda (Mar 16, 2015)

ChrisEllis said:
			
		

> While the rear portion was labeled "storage," for practical purposes it is just a receiving area from the overhead alley access door. There may be a pallet or two waiting to get unloaded at any given time, but it will not be a stockroom or storage room in any real sense. Would simply re-labeling that space mitigate any of the present issues?


I think about the only way I would allow it is some barrier between the brewery and area labeled storage and the exit path. It would not have to be full height walls.


----------



## ChrisEllis (Mar 16, 2015)

cda said:
			
		

> I think about the only way I would allow it is some barrier between the brewery and area labeled storage and the exit path. It would not have to be full height walls.


So partial height walls along that path. How about some double swinging half doors to maintain my path from there brewery to the "storage" area? Would a curb along that path be too little?

And do you see a problem with the cooler door swinging into the path of egress as it does?

Any particular issues with the mechanical room you have to pass by to egress?


----------



## cda (Mar 16, 2015)

So partial height walls along that path. How about some double swinging half doors to maintain my path from there brewery to the "storage" area? Would a curb along that path be too little?

I think the doors would be good, not sure where you might be intending to put them. I think a curb

And do you see a problem with the cooler door swinging into the path of egress as it does?

A little. Appears the walk way is five feet. Not sure how wide the cooler door is?? If it swings more than half of the exit, a little problem.

Any particular issues with the mechanical room you have to pass by to egress?

Not me, you might give the Ahj a rated door with a closing device, if they bring it up.

The other problem area with swing is the personnel door leading from the brewery, right by the stairs going to the rear exit?? Just wonder why it is even there?

To me it is the totality of what you are walking through and a some what unclear path with chances to wonder.


----------



## north star (Mar 16, 2015)

*~ ~ $ ~ ~*



ChrisEllis,

I will also chime in with what ***cda*** has stated, ...it's the

"totality of what will be attempted to be navigated" in an

emergency that is troubling for me.......The sprinkling of the

building would not lessen that issue..........Add to the

navigation issue would be the [ potential ] intoxication

level of some of the patrons.

What is total calculated Occupant Load for the space ?

Are the total number of plumbing fixtures in each Restroom

absolutely necessary ?..............IMO, ..that one Walk In

Cooler Area next to the Bar would be the location for

another Egress Door........Can you remove 1 - 4 person table

& 1 - 1 person seat in front of the Bar, ...move the Bar

Area forward and install an Exit Door between the Bar

Area and the Walk In Cooler ?

While I was looking at your floor plan, I noticed that

there is a "removable door to access the Gas Meter" inside

the building [ at the front corner ] , ...is that typical ?

Also, ...in your dish cleansing area w \ a Dishwasher,

...will there be an adequately sized Grease Interceptor

installed  [ somewhere ] to capture the F.O.G. wastes

[*  <---- that's the plumber coming out in me*  ]

FWIW, ...kudos to the Building Dept. for raising their

concerns also,  and catching the "problematic"  Exit thru

the Rear Area.

If I had input, I would vote for installing the 2nd MOE

to another location up front somewhere.

Also, ...no disrespect intended on this one, but the

"amount of costs" is not my concern........My primary

concern is the safety of the occupants........If it takes

moving the various spaces and utilities and other around

to accommodate and facilitate a more safe environment,

then that is what it is........Again, ...no disrespect intended

to you, AND* "thank you"* for coming to this Forum

with your questions & plans.........This is what we do here !



*~ ~ $ ~ ~*


----------



## steveray (Mar 16, 2015)

There is no "passes near" in the code, only "passes through"....If the egress can be maintained by floor striping or worst case 1/2 walls, I think I would be good. Although I would have to see the rest of the building...


----------



## mtlogcabin (Mar 16, 2015)

036-14 CD 4 Plan A.2.pdf (208.4 KB, 17 views)

Clink on the link and you can see the whole building

I would be okay with it if there are some 1/2 demising walls or maybe chain barriers along with a well lit and identified egress signage path through the area.

The brewery area is not a kitchen for the preparation of food.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Mar 16, 2015)

> Fair enough. However Chapter 10, TABLE 1012.4 of the International Existing Building Codes defines F-2 as the lowest hazard area.


If this is an existing building then the IEBC is what you should be using.

The IEBC does not address intervening space unless it is a higher hazard category which then sends you to Chapter 10 of the IBC

912.4.1 Means of egress for change to higher hazard category.

When a change of occupancy classification is made to a higher hazard category (lower number) as shown in Table 912.4, the means of egress shall comply with the requirements of Chapter 10 of the International Building Code .

I believe under the IEBC you are fine with your design


----------



## ChrisEllis (Mar 16, 2015)

north star said:
			
		

> What is total calculated Occupant Load for the space ?


209



			
				north star said:
			
		

> IMO, ..that one Walk In Cooler Area next to the Bar would be the location for another Egress Door........


Unfortunately, my building abuts buildings on both sides.



			
				north star said:
			
		

> While I was looking at your floor plan, I noticed thatthere is a "removable door to access the Gas Meter" inside
> 
> the building [ at the front corner ] , ...is that typical ?


Not generally typical, but my building is 105 years old. All of the buildings on my block have their gas meters inside. I have contacted the local gas company about moving it outside, but it seems that since all of the buildings on my block end at the front property line, they aren't interested in dealing with encroachment... and there is no gas supply available from the rear of the building.



			
				north star said:
			
		

> Also, ...in your dish cleansing area w \ a Dishwasher,...will there be an adequately sized Grease Interceptor
> 
> installed  [ somewhere ] to capture the F.O.G. wastes


Yes, a grease trap is planned.



			
				north star said:
			
		

> Also, ...no disrespect intended on this one, but the"amount of costs" is not my concern........My primary
> 
> concern is the safety of the occupants........


Absolutely no disrespect taken. I am extremely appreciative of your input. Safety is my utmost concern as well. Given that everything is over budget so far, I just want to find a way to ensure occupant safety without _wasteful _spending.


----------



## cda (Mar 16, 2015)

209 ol??? Seems high

Are you going by sq ft or tables and chairs??

Ol does not matter because 2nd exit is required,

Sounds like a set down with the ahj is best. Take all your options and see which one flys!!!!


----------



## ChrisEllis (Mar 16, 2015)

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> If this is an existing building then the IEBC is what you should be using.The IEBC does not address intervening space unless it is a higher hazard category which then sends you to Chapter 10 of the IBC
> 
> 912.4.1 Means of egress for change to higher hazard category.
> 
> ...


This was my original argument to the city. They didn't go for it, and there's only so much head-butting I want to do when their safety concerns are valid---if not to the letter of the code.

When I purchased the building there was a non-sprinkled walled corridor from the assembly area to the rear exit. I argued that the non-sprinkled corridor, as an accessory to an A-2 occupancy, was a higher hazard than a sprinkled F-2 room per IEBC Chapter 10, Table 1012.4. I do, however, concede that while technically a lesser hazard area, there are additional hazards that are presented.


----------



## cda (Mar 16, 2015)

Just thinking out loud

I have a hypothetical restaurant that seats 300 and for whatever reason I have a F-2 attached to it and I want to run one exit through it??? Hum lets see what a F-2 can be

SECTION 306 FACTORY GROUP F

306.1 Factory Industrial Group F. Factory Industrial Group F occupancy includes, among others, the use of a building or structure, or a portion thereof, for assembling, disassembling, fabricating, finishing, manufacturing, packaging, repair or processing operations that are not classified as a Group H hazardous or Group S storage occupancy.

306.3 Factory Industrial F-2 Low-hazard Occupancy. Factory industrial uses that involve the fabrication or manufacturing of noncombustible materials which during finishing, packing or processing do not involve a significant fire hazard shall be classified as F-2 occupancies and shall include, but not be limited to, the following:

Beverages: up to and including 16-percent alcohol content

Brick and masonry

Ceramic products

Foundries

Glass products

Gypsum

Ice

Metal products (fabrication and assembly)


----------



## mtlogcabin (Mar 16, 2015)

cda said:
			
		

> Just thinking out loudI have a hypothetical restaurant that seats 300 and for whatever reason I have a F-2 attached to it and I want to run one exit through it??? Hum lets see what a F-2 can be
> 
> SECTION 306 FACTORY GROUP F
> 
> 306.1 Factory Industrial Group F. Factory Industrial Group F occupancy includes, among others, the use of a building or structure, or a portion thereof, for assembling, disassembling, fabricating, finishing, manufacturing, packaging, repair or processing operations that are not classified as a Group H hazardous or Group S storage occupancy.


306.3 Factory Industrial F-2 Low-hazard Occupancy. Factory industrial uses that involve the fabrication or manufacturing of noncombustible materials which during finishing, packing or processing do not involve a significant fire hazard shall be classified as F-2 occupancies and shall include, but not be limited to, the following: 

Beverages: up to and including 16-percent alcohol content  This would be a micro brewery which could be accessory to a bar or eating establish. I agree it would be best not to go through the F-2 but Ii don not see a prohibition in the IBC or IEBC

Brick and masonry 

Ceramic products 

Foundries 

Glass products 

Gypsum 

Ice 

Metal products (fabrication and assembly)


----------



## cda (Mar 16, 2015)

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> 306.3 Factory Industrial F-2 Low-hazard Occupancy. Factory industrial uses that involve the fabrication or manufacturing of noncombustible materials which during finishing, packing or processing do not involve a significant fire hazard shall be classified as F-2 occupancies and shall include, but not be limited to, the following: Beverages: up to and including 16-percent alcohol content  This would be a micro brewery which could be accessory to a bar or eating establish. I agree it would be best not to go through the F-2 but Ii don not see a prohibition in the IBC or IEBC
> 
> Brick and masonry
> 
> ...


I agree to a point of how the exit path is designated through an area.


----------



## ChrisEllis (Mar 16, 2015)

I am attaching a rough version of a new layout. This flips the brewing area to the other side and provides a fully walled in corridor to the exit. I don't have AutoCAD, so I've been using Photoshop to do my tweaking. I apologize for the hack-job. Not all of the doors are necessarily in the best place or with the appropriate swing, but they're close. And there will be some sort of door at the entrance to keep wanderers from getting into trouble out of sight. I think I may put that in the hands of the ahj to tell me where he thinks it best.How does this look to everyone? Am I on the right track?And thanks again to everyone for your input.

View attachment 1154


View attachment 1154


/monthly_2015_03/new_layout.jpg.60ea62f41c89dc5f979ea5a0d5e1a4bf.jpg


----------



## cda (Mar 16, 2015)

I can live with that!!!!


----------



## north star (Mar 16, 2015)

*~ + ~ + ~*

ChrisEllis,

Thanks for your input, and your patience with us.

The revised layout is much improved........As has been

recommended, ...schedule a meeting with the AHJ,

and let them provide you some guidance........Suggest

that you hold the revised floor plan until you have

had some discussion with them........If they are still

concerned about the "proposed" Egress path passing

thru the rear, ...ask for guidance [ i.e. - get a feel

of what they are wanting  ].

Having buildings on both sides sure doesn't leave

you many options.

Lots of emergency lighting, ...exit signs and

maybe even some floor striping might sway

them, ...in your faintsee "new" & improved

floor plan.   :mrgreen:

*~ + ~ + ~ *


----------



## Msradell (Mar 16, 2015)

Looking 8t your plans something else came to mind especially since we don't know where you are located.  What is the AHJ going to say about the steps going to the rear entrance/exit in regards to accessibility issues?  Most areas only require one exit to be handicapped accessible but some areas have different requirements, it's obviously something it needs to be considered especially with the gas meter located near the front of house.


----------



## Frank (Mar 16, 2015)

With self closing rated doors and 1 hr corridor would definitely meet unammended IBC


----------



## cda (Mar 16, 2015)

Frank said:
			
		

> With self closing rated doors and 1 hr corridor would definitely meet unammended IBC


Building is sprinkled


----------



## ChrisEllis (Mar 17, 2015)

Msradell said:
			
		

> Looking 8t your plans something else came to mind especially since we don't know where you are located.  What is the AHJ going to say about the steps going to the rear entrance/exit in regards to accessibility issues?  Most areas only require one exit to be handicapped accessible but some areas have different requirements, it's obviously something it needs to be considered especially with the gas meter located near the front of house.


This has been a concern of mine as well. My architect checked with the city's head plans examiner, and then again when I got a bit itchy about it. He was told by the plans examiner that it was not necessary. Nonetheless, fingers remained crossed.


----------



## cda (Mar 17, 2015)

Ok remember to send us a grand opening notice!!

I like to collect glasses from different breweries


----------



## ChrisEllis (Mar 17, 2015)

cda said:
			
		

> Ok remember to send us a grand opening notice!!I like to collect glasses from different breweries


You've got yourself a deal!


----------



## steveray (Mar 17, 2015)

Our code has no provisions for accessible egress in existing buildings


----------



## mtlogcabin (Mar 17, 2015)

1007.1 Accessible means of egress required.

Accessible means of egress shall comply with this section. Accessible spaces shall be provided with not less than one accessible means of egress . Where more than one means of egress are required by Section 1015.1 or 1021.1 from any accessible space, each accessible portion of the space shall be served by not less than two accessible means of egress .

Exceptions:

1.	Accessible means of egress are not required in alterations to existing buildings


----------



## Msradell (Mar 17, 2015)

steveray said:
			
		

> Our code has no provisions for accessible egress in existing buildings





			
				mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> 1007.1 Accessible means of egress required.Accessible means of egress shall comply with this section. Accessible spaces shall be provided with not less than one accessible means of egress . Where more than one means of egress are required by Section 1015.1 or 1021.1 from any accessible space, each accessible portion of the space shall be served by not less than two accessible means of egress .
> 
> Exceptions:
> 
> 1.	Accessible means of egress are not required in alterations to existing buildings


It all depends on what code revisions in your local area is under and what local alterations to the codes have been made.  However if you look at the federal ADA regulations and not strictly the building codes existing buildings have to spend up to 20% of the cost of any revisions making accessibility improvements.  I'm guessing that the total cost of renovation for this building is going to be huge so that would give you an awful lot of money that would be required to be spent for accessibility issues.  Disregarding code issues for a minute, I certainly don't like the fact that the only accessible exit is so close to the gas meter and the street.  A car into the gas meter could cause a major problem for exit from the building.

In addition while section 1007.1 allows an exception chapter 34 doesn't for a change of use of the building which is obviously is.

3411.4.2 Complete change of occupancy.

 Where an entire building undergoes a change of occupancy, it shall comply with Section 3411.4.1 and shall have all of the following accessible  features:

1. At least one accessible building entrance.

2. At least one accessible route from an accessible building entrance to primary function areas.

3. Signage complying with Section 1110.

4. Accessible parking, where parking is being provided.

5. At least one accessible passenger loading zone, when loading zones are provided.

6. At least one accessible route connecting accessible parking and accessible passenger loading zones to an accessible entrance.

 Where it is technically infeasible to comply with the new construction standards for any of these requirements for a change of group or occupancy, the above items shall conform to the requirements to the maximum extent technically feasible.

Exception: The accessible features listed in Items 1 through 6 are not required for an accessible route to Type B units.


----------



## steveray (Mar 18, 2015)

The accessible entrance by default typically becomes the accessible exit....


----------



## mtlogcabin (Mar 18, 2015)

The 20% rule is written throughout the I-Codes

Accessible entrance and accessible egress are two separate and distinct code requirements

Read the section you quoted. No where is an accessible egress required in addition to the accessible entrance  which as steveray pointed out is an accessible egress by default

in other words an existing building may require two exits however both are not required to be accessible


----------



## JPohling (Mar 18, 2015)

Chris,

There has been lots of conversation regarding the exiting issues that you have.  These issues can be solved in a manner that will allow the brewing process to be much more efficient.  Your first layout is far better from a brewing perspective.  The last layout is great from an exiting perspective.  We have over 100 breweries in our county and see this all the time.  The typical solution would be to use movable barriers to define the exit path.  That way during actual brewing activities the barriers are removed and brewing can take place using the entire area.  This is much more conducive to brewing, keg washing/filling and cleaning.  Where you have noted "paint stripes to define exit path"  would be the location to provide barriers.  I have seen any number of solutions to this. From pallets that have been manipulated to become fences to custom metal structures that also double as drink rails.   Only during actual brewing is there any consideration that you are exiting thru an area that is similar to a kitchen.  Typically your just waiting around for fermentation and you have vessels of beer sitting there and there is no concern regarding exiting.  This allows your customers to see the brewhouse and vessels unobstructed by walls.  Tours of these areas are much easier.

couple other observations.  I am guessing a 10 bbl system.  first plan allows for grain storage near the mill, auger run is longer but no worries. I would move mill closer to the fermentor to free up more grain storage and reduce auger run unless you are anticipating a future vessel there.  There is plenty of space below the brewhouse for water filtration.  I do not see a cold or hot liquor tank?  combi vessel on brewhouse?  Make sure that keg washer is on wheels as your grain out path looks very tight.  I would check with your brewer if he is set on a steam brewhouse, a direct fired brewhouse will save lots of room for the boiler.   Good luck!  do not let the exiting drive this.

The one thing I do not understand are the stairs up to exit, but an adjacent rollup door?  is the rollup door at dock height?


----------



## cda (Mar 18, 2015)

JPohling said:
			
		

> Chris,There has been lots of conversation regarding the exiting issues that you have.  These issues can be solved in a manner that will allow the brewing process to be much more efficient.  Your first layout is far better from a brewing perspective.  The last layout is great from an exiting perspective.  We have over 100 breweries in our county and see this all the time.  The typical solution would be to use movable barriers to define the exit path.  That way during actual brewing activities the barriers are removed and brewing can take place using the entire area.  This is much more conducive to brewing, keg washing/filling and cleaning.  Where you have noted "paint stripes to define exit path"  would be the location to provide barriers.  I have seen any number of solutions to this. From pallets that have been manipulated to become fences to custom metal structures that also double as drink rails.   Only during actual brewing is there any consideration that you are exiting thru an area that is similar to a kitchen.  Typically your just waiting around for fermentation and you have vessels of beer sitting there and there is no concern regarding exiting.  This allows your customers to see the brewhouse and vessels unobstructed by walls.  Tours of these areas are much easier.
> 
> couple other observations.  I am guessing a 10 bbl system.  first plan allows for grain storage near the mill, auger run is longer but no worries. I would move mill closer to the fermentor to free up more grain storage and reduce auger run unless you are anticipating a future vessel there.  There is plenty of space below the brewhouse for water filtration.  I do not see a cold or hot liquor tank?  combi vessel on brewhouse?  Make sure that keg washer is on wheels as your grain out path looks very tight.  I would check with your brewer if he is set on a steam brewhouse, a direct fired brewhouse will save lots of room for the boiler.   Good luck!  do not let the exiting drive this.
> 
> The one thing I do not understand are the stairs up to exit, but an adjacent rollup door?  is the rollup door at dock height?


I agree somewhat and disagree somewhat

There could be blcoakge of the exit way at any time, even during non brewing times.

I was also thinkning maybe the sliding barn doors, but no guarranty they would be closed?


----------



## JPohling (Mar 18, 2015)

That's really more of a housekeeping issue.  Just because you create a corridor does not mean it will not become cluttered with items that would impede exiting, we see that all the time.  The critical issue is you do not want to hamstring the brewing process by building permanent barriers that are not needed.  Typically brewing is done during off hours of the tasting room.  A brewery of this size may brew 2-3 times per week tops.  that's 8-12 hours.  The rest of the time the exit is defined by barriers and is free to access the second exit required by the tasting room.


----------



## ChrisEllis (Mar 18, 2015)

JPohling said:
			
		

> couple other observations.  I am guessing a 10 bbl system.  first plan allows for grain storage near the mill, auger run is longer but no worries. I would move mill closer to the fermentor to free up more grain storage and reduce auger run unless you are anticipating a future vessel there.  There is plenty of space below the brewhouse for water filtration.  I do not see a cold or hot liquor tank?  combi vessel on brewhouse?  Make sure that keg washer is on wheels as your grain out path looks very tight.  I would check with your brewer if he is set on a steam brewhouse, a direct fired brewhouse will save lots of room for the boiler.   Good luck!  do not let the exiting drive this.


7 bbl, actually. It is a Combi-system so the HLT is under the mash/lauter vessel. No dedicated CLT, however there will be an inline glycol heat exchanger chiller to help out with water temperatures during hot months.  I prefer steam over direct fire so that kettle, MLT, and HLT can all be heated from the same source, and I won't need to worry about additional fire rated walls other than the mechanical room.

The auger run is actually a bigger issue with the updated layout because it is too short! I would need an upgraded auger system to make the steep run.



			
				JPohling said:
			
		

> The one thing I do not understand are the stairs up to exit, but an adjacent rollup door?  is the rollup door at dock height?


Yeah, there is about an 8' foot long ramp heading up the 18 or so inches to alley height. It takes up about the space of the door when it is overhead, space that wouldn't be used anyway, so the only challenge is pushing spent grain up that fairly steep grade.

I personally like the idea of movable dividers. But after looking at the new layout for a while, I kinda dig it. Everything (but the cooler) is on the same side as the overhead door, and I think that will save a lot of frustration in the long run. I am going to put in some windows along the corridor so people can gawk. But I don't expect to give a great deal of tours.


----------



## JPohling (Mar 18, 2015)

Chris,  I would suggest looking at a chain and disc grain delivery system in that case rather than an auger.  I have really embraced them.  I agree steam is the way to go for consistency.  Cheers


----------



## cda (Mar 18, 2015)

JPohling said:
			
		

> That's really more of a housekeeping issue.  Just because you create a corridor does not mean it will not become cluttered with items that would impede exiting, we see that all the time.  The critical issue is you do not want to hamstring the brewing process by building permanent barriers that are not needed.  Typically brewing is done during off hours of the tasting room.  A brewery of this size may brew 2-3 times per week tops.  that's 8-12 hours.  The rest of the time the exit is defined by barriers and is free to access the second exit required by the tasting room.


"""The critical issue is you do not want to hamstring the brewing process by building permanent barriers that are not needed. """

You got that right. I don't want to mess up my invite to the first tapping!


----------



## cda (Mar 18, 2015)

JPohling said:
			
		

> That's really more of a housekeeping issue.  Just because you create a corridor does not mean it will not become cluttered with items that would impede exiting, we see that all the time.  The critical issue is you do not want to hamstring the brewing process by building permanent barriers that are not needed.  Typically brewing is done during off hours of the tasting room.  A brewery of this size may brew 2-3 times per week tops.  that's 8-12 hours.  The rest of the time the exit is defined by barriers and is free to access the second exit required by the tasting room.


"""The critical issue is you do not want to hamstring the brewing process by building permanent barriers that are not needed. """

You got that right. I don't want to mess up my invite to the first tapping!


----------



## Frank (Mar 18, 2015)

cda said:
			
		

> Building is sprinkled


Then can have cased openings in unrated walls


----------

