Appeal 33742
Appeal Summary
Status: Decision rendered
Appeal ID: 33742
Submission Date: 3/26/25 11:54 PM
Hearing Date: 4/2/25
Case #: B-003
Appeal Type: Building
Project Type: commercial
Building/Business Name: Central City Concern
Appeal Involves: Alteration of an existing structure,occ Change from A-2, B to B
Proposed use: Office
Project Address: 610 NW Davis St
Appellant Name: Elijah Elder
LUR or Permit Application #: Permit 25-011398-000-00-CO
Stories: 3 Occupancy: B, A-2, R-2 Construction Type: III B
Fire Sprinklers: Yes - 1st - Fully Sprinklered; 2nd & 3rd - Early Warning
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 Two Exits or Exit Access Doorways |
|---|---|
| Requires | 2 or more required Exits in a non-sprinklered building must be separated by 1/2 the length of the longest diagonal dimension of the area served. |
| Code Modification or Alternate Requested | Allow shorter distance between required exits. |
| Proposed Design | This is an existing 1st Floor tenant space with a (mostly) existing mezzanine. The space is being changed from primarily a restaurant use with some office to use completely as an office. The two exits are part of an old wood storefront system that seems to be original to the early 20th century building. Each exit opens directly onto the sidewalk. The tenant space and the rest of the 1st floor is fully sprinkled. The top two floors have sprinklers in corridors with an early warning detection system. |
| Reason for alternative | The current separation distance between the exits from the space is 28'-9"; since the building is not sprinkled the required distance between two exits is 38'-4.5" (if it were fully sprinkled it would be ? or 25’-7”). As the entire space has less than 35 occupants in a B occupancy the only reason that two exits are required is to allow for a maximum common path of travel of 100’ from the mezzanine. The ground floor space that is being exited through is completely sprinkled (as is the first floor and basement). The areas of the buildings that are not sprinkled do not exit through this space or share exits with it. The exits open directly onto a public way; this is visible through the doors and the storefront. |
Appeal item 2
| Code Section | 1004.2.2 Adjacent Levels for Mezzanines |
|---|---|
| Requires | Occupant load of mezzanines must be added to occupant load of space on adjacent level. |
| Code Modification or Alternate Requested | Allow 100’ common path of travel from mezzanine |
| Proposed Design | The existing mezzanine has a common path of travel of 99’-3” from the farthest point of the mezzanine to a point where there is a choice of two exits (if approved by the first part of this appeal). |
| Reason for alternative | Since per 1004.2.2 occupants of the mezzanine must be added to the occupants of the space the mezzanine exits through the overall occupancy of the space with one exit is 35. Per table 1006.2.1 this means that the limit on common path of travel is 75’ in a B occupancy in an unsprinkled building. To allow the mezzanine to be served by one exit (and not be required to provide another stair) we propose to allow the limit for a B occupancy for a space with less than 30 occupant for the mezzanine to allow for a 100’ maximum common path of travel. The mezzanine served will have 5 total occupants. It will exit directly to the public way through both exits. Even though the building is not fully sprinkled the mezzanine and space that is being exited through is fully sprinkled. |
Appeal Decision
Item 1: Separation of exits: Granted as proposed.
Item 2: Common path of egress travel distance and exit access travel distance from second level: Granted as proposed.
Note: Designation of second level as mezzanine or story to be determined during plan review.
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.