Appeal 33692

Appeal Summary

Status: DECISION RENDERED

Appeal ID: 33692

Submission Date: 2/12/25 3:13 PM

Hearing Date: 2/19/25

Case #: B-006

Appeal Type: Building

Project Type: commercial

Building/Business Name: Grassa Downtown

Appeal Involves: Alteration of an existing structure

Proposed use: A-2 Assembly- Restaurant

Project Address: 1205 SW Washington

Appellant Name: JOHN WEIL

LUR or Permit Application #: Permit

Stories: 24 Occupancy: R-2, B, M, A-2, S-2 Construction Type: 1-A

Fire Sprinklers: Yes - throughout

Plans Examiner/Inspector: Renay Radtke Butts

Plan Submitted Option: pdf   [File 1]

Payment Option: electronic

Appeal Information Sheet

Appeal item 1

Code Section

1007.1.1, 1007.1.1.1

Requires

1007.1.1, exception 2

  1. Where a building is equipped throughout with an automatic sprinkler system in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1 or 903.3.1.2, the separation distance shall be not less than one-third of the length of the maximum overall diagonal dimension of the area served.

1007.1.1.1
The separation distance required in Section 1007.1.1 shall be measured in accordance with the following:

  1. The separation distance to exit or exit access doorways shall be measured to any point along the width of the doorway.
  2. The separation distance to exit access stairways shall be measured to the closest riser.
Code Modification or Alternate Requested

Allow existing exterior storefront doors from tenant space (one with a 4 riser stair) to satisfy requirement of 2 means of egress. The doors themselves meet the 1/3rd distance required, except for a 4 riser stair up to one of the doors which, measured to the closest riser, reduces the separation distance to less than 1/3rd the overall measurement.

Proposed Design

The 2 existing exterior doors are separated by more than 1/3rd the overall diagonal measurement of the area served, however one of the doors has 4 risers that, per 1007.1.1.1, exception 2, when measured to the closest riser, is less than 1/3rd the diagonal.

This appeal is proposing to allow the condition described above to meet the requirement for 2 exits from the space, based on the availability of 2 additional nonconforming exits.
Alternate exit A is via a direct path through an open kitchen. While this is not allowed (per section 1016.2.5), the Kitchen is open to the Dining Area and the exit sign and door are visible – and with a direct path, it is likely people will use that exit in an emergency situation. An additional exit sign can be added for greater visibility if needed.

Alternate exit B is through a non-separated adjacent space (Bar / Beer O’Clock) which is under the same lease and ownership. While this space operates on separate hours from the Dining Room and Kitchen, there are no barriers preventing circulation between spaces (no doors). This will allow occupants to exit from the main Dining Room in an emergency situation. An additional exit sign would be added.

Reason for alternative

This alternate is proposed in order to create two non separated spaces within the overall tenant space. This is desired to allow removal of some existing walls that, while previously added to the space, and permitted as to look like the addition of a vestibule, were never built as a fully enclosed vestibule, and with the now proposed removal of these walls to again create a single Dining Room, a vestibule is not desired.. With the acceptance of this appeal, the Dining Room and Kitchen use will be less than 3,000 sf and meet the vestibule requirement exception of the Energy Code (ASHRAE 90.1 section 5.4.3.3).

An alternate approach to this situation would be to appeal the vestibule requirement and have the Bar Area, Dining Room and Kitchen as all one space with 4 conforming exits, plus the kitchen exit

Appeal Decision

Exclude mid-level exit access stair from distance calculation: Granted provided exit signage at Exit B is installed and maintained.

"The Administrative Appeal Board finds that the information submitted by the appellant demonstrates that the approved modifications or alternate methods are consistent with the intent of the code; do not lessen the health, safety, accessibility, life, fire safety or structural requirements; and that special conditions unique to this project make strict application of those code sections impractical.