Appeal 34787

Table 705.8

Windows are not allowed in exterior walls within 3’ of the property line.

To show that fire sprinkler heads placed at each wall opening will contain the threat of fire traveling to and/or from adjoining property.

At the second floor of this building there are six existing windows in a masonry exterior wall located at the west property line, and two existing windows in a masonry exterior wall located at the north property line. Windows are of vinyl construction installed in wood blocking in brick wall openings that are original to the 1912 building. Four of the windows are in a meeting hall, two are adjacent to a proposed new exit corridor and stair, and two are in an office (see notes on EXTERIOR VIEWS). The bottoms of the west windows are approximately 5’ above the roof of the adjoining building and the bottoms of the north windows are approximately 8’ above the adjoining building. It is proposed to provide a dedicated sprinkler head centered above each window, between 1’ and 2’ from the wall. The attached letter from a fire protection engineer supports this design.

The window openings have existed for over 100 years adjacent to adjoining property under separate ownership. The southernmost two windows have always served office space. The middle two windows in the north wall once served offices and later a storage room. The original use of the north half of the second floor was as the meeting room of a Lodge per drawings of the period. This space was later used as a church and then converted a retail furniture showroom.

The current tenant wishes to use the large northern space as a reception hall with a maximum of 120 occupants, though an assembly space with two exits could potentially accommodate up to 300 occupants. Tenant proposes to add a second stair and make other improvements to bring the building substantially into conformance with current codes. The windows currently serving a storage room will now be in an exit corridor and stair. The fire protection engineer states that the addition of the dedicated sprinkler heads will contain the threat of fire traveling to and/or from adjoining property. The design will provide equivalent fire and life safety.

505.2

Seven foot minimum ceiling height at mezzanines.

To be granted legal occupancy for two portions of an existing mezzanine in a mixed use building. One side has headroom of 6’-11” and the other side has headroom of 6’-6”.

The mezzanine is existing and apparently original to the 1912 construction of the building. It currently opens into a retail shop. It is proposed to divide the current retail space and mezzanines into two tenant spaces. The eastern mezzanine with 6’-11” headroom will remain open to a retail shop. The western mezzanine will open to a proposed assembly space. The original access to the mezzanines has been removed, and so a building permit in 2004 required that there be no occupancy of the mezzanine due to inadequate access, currently through a small door off of a stairway. This door will be removed and infilled with wall.

Fire sprinkler lines approximately 5’-6” above the mezzanine floor prevent access to much of the current mezzanine (see attached plans). It is proposed to provide new stairs to each half of the mezzanine and occupy just the small portions of the mezzanine that have unobstructed headroom of 6’-6” and 6’-11”. The eastern mezzanine will be served by a new spiral stair and the western mezzanine will be served by a new wood framed stair meeting current code. Engineering calcs show that the mezzanine can support the office floor load. Only two occupants will occupy each side of the mezzanine. The mezzanine area to be occupied in the eastern tenant space is 11.4% of the floor area of the room in which it is located. The mezzanine area to be occupied in the western tenant space is 15.2% of the floor area of the room in which it is located. It is proposed that a sign be attached to the top riser of the stair leading to the western mezzanine which states “Caution – Limited Headroom of 6’-6” Ahead”. The sprinkler pipes adjacent to the usable area will be covered with yellow or orange foam padding (see Item 2 note on Mezzanine Plan A0.04).

The mezzanine had been in continuous use for many years an accessory area to a retail store. Proposed retail and banquet tenants would like to use the mezzanine spaces for offices accessory to their primary uses. Appellant believes that the 6’-11” ceiling height of the eastern mezzanine poses no significant safety concern, being just 1” short of legal ceiling height, and requests that this be granted as-is. The sign proposed above for the western mezzanine will offer sufficient notice for those persons taller than 6’-5”. There will only two occupants in each mezzanine, and the mezzanines will be accessed only by staff (not the public), who will be familiar with the headroom. The design therefore will provide equivalent fire and life safety.

1007.1.1, Exception 2

When two exits are required, in a sprinklered building, they shall be placed a distance apart equal to not less than 1/3 of the length of the maximum overall dimension of the area served.

To show that the proposed design meets the requirement. If not, Appellant requests interpretation that the proposed design meets the intent or is otherwise approvable.

The existing second floor of the building is served by just one exit stairway. The proposed design adds a second stair serving the meeting hall to meet the requirement for of two exits. It is separated from the existing stair by a distance of 31’-1” which exceeds 1/3 of the longest diagonal dimension of the assembly use (87’-11” x .33 = 29’-4”). The existing stair will continue to service the office use occupying the remainder of the second floor (see Item 3 note on Second Floor Plan A0.04).

This building is currently under permit review (25-005062-CO). The Life Safety plans examiner believes that the exit separation should be 1/3 of the overall dimension of the second floor of the building. Appellant pointed out that Exception 2 specifically states “area served”, not “building or area served”, and that the remainder of the second floor (office use) is not required to have two exits and should therefore not be included in the measurement. Appellant hereby asks the Appeals Board to make a determination as to which separation distance applies. If the Board agrees with John’s interpretation then Appellant requests that the proposed exit separation be granted, as it meets the intent of the code or is otherwise approvable. Appellant believes that the design will provide equivalent fire and life safety.

3405.6.1

Stair rise and run shall meet current code when a change of occupancy occurs.

The existing exit stair does not meet current code riser and tread dimensions but has been in use for over 100 years and should be allowed to remain for the new reception hall use.

The existing exit stair has 7.5” risers and 9.5” treads and will serve office use at the second floor as well the proposed reception hall. The reception hall will have a new, second exit stair that meets current code. It is proposed to retain the existing stair in its present configuration, with the addition of handrails that meet current code (see Item 4 notes on First and Second Floor Plans A0.03 and A0.04).

Replacing the stair with a new one meeting current requirements would be essentially impossible, requiring structural work to reframe the second floor that would be disproportionate to the benefit, and would be economically infeasible. The stair has been serving both assembly and retail uses for over 100 years. 3405.3.1, Exception 1, states that “an existing stairway shall not be made to comply with the requirements of Section 1011 where the existing space and construction do not allow a reduction in pitch or slope”. Appellant believes that this code section applies in this case.

1011.6

A stair landing depth of 48”.

The existing stair landing does not meet current depth but has been is use for over 100 years and should be allowed to remain for the new reception hall use.

The existing stair landing has a depth of 36”. It will serve office use at the second floor as well the proposed reception hall. The reception hall will have a new, second exit stair that meets current code. It is proposed to retain the landing in its current configuration (see Item 5 note on First Floor Plan A0.03).

Replacing the stair landing with a new one meeting current requirements would be essentially impossible due to lack of space. It is conceivable that the landing could be raised and a new stair added perpendicular to the landing. The stair would then land in retail space at the ground floor and a new building entry would be required. This work would be disproportionate to the benefit, and would be economically infeasible. The stair landing has been serving both assembly and retail uses for over 100 years. 3405.3.1, Exception 1, states that “an existing stairway shall not be made to comply with the requirements of Section 1011 where the existing space and construction do not allow a reduction in pitch or slope”. Appellant believes that this code section applies in this case.

1010.1.5

A door landing length of 44”.

The existing door landing does not meet current depth but has been is use for over 100 years and should be allowed to remain for the new reception hall use.

The existing door landing has a length of 36”. It will serve office use at the second floor as well the proposed reception hall. The reception hall will have a new, second exit stair that meets current code. It is proposed to retain the landing in its current configuration.

Replacing the door landing with a new one meeting current requirements would be essentially impossible due to lack of space. It is conceivable that the landing could be raised and a new stair added perpendicular to the landing. The stair would then land in retail space at the ground floor and a new building entry would be required. This work would be disproportionate to the benefit, and would be economically infeasible. The door landing has been serving both assembly and retail uses for over 100 years. 3405.3.1, Exception 1, states that “an existing stairway shall not be made to comply with the requirements of Section 1011 where the existing space and construction do not allow a reduction in pitch or slope”. Appellant believes that this code section applies in this case.

1010.1.4

A landing on each side of a door at the same elevation.

The existing door landing does not meet this requirement as it has a 7” riser at the door, but it has been is use for over 100 years and should be allowed to remain for the new reception hall use.

The existing door landing (sidewalk) at the exterior entry to the stair to the second floor is 6” below the interior landing. The stair will serve office use at the second floor as well the proposed reception hall. The reception hall will have a new, second exit stair that meets current code. It is proposed to retain the landing in its current configuration (see Item 7 note on First Floor Plan A0.03).

Lowering the interior landing to be the same elevation as the sidewalk to meet current requirements would be essentially impossible due to lack of space. Lowering the landing would reduce its depth to 2’-1”, decreasing a landing depth that is already less than current code requires. The only foreseeable option would be to eliminate this entry and reconfigure the stair as noted in Item 6. This work would be disproportionate to the benefit, and would be economically infeasible. The existing door has been serving both assembly and retail uses for over 100 years. 3405.3.1, Exception 1, states that “an existing stairway shall not be made to comply with the requirements of Section 1011 where the existing space and construction do not allow a reduction in pitch or slope”. Appellant believes that this code section applies in this case.

705.11.1

A 30” minimum height fire rated parapet on exterior walls that are required to be fire resistance rated.

To retain the existing parapet which varies from 22” to 29” high (see Item 8 notes on EXTERIOR VIEWS).

The west and north exterior walls are of masonry construction that meets the one hour rated requirement for zero lot line walls in Type VB construction. The existing masonry parapets are 22” to 29” high. Appellant requests to continue to use the existing parapets without extending them up to 30” height.

The existing parapet is approximately 19’ above the adjoining building to the north and approximately 16’ above the adjoining building to the west. As noted in Item 1 of this Appeal, the bottoms of the west windows are approximately 5’ above the roof of the adjoining building and the bottoms of the north windows are approximately 8’ above the adjoining building. Therefore the subject building and adjoining buildings are protected from each other by masonry walls that exceed the 30” parapet requirement.

The adjoining buildings are owned by PCC and have been recently constructed or renovated. There are no cooking facility or hazardous materials storage in these buildings. It is unlikely that taller buildings will be built in the future. Additionally, the proposed reception hall use is very similar to the original 1912 lodge use, and the office use below the southern 25’ of the west parapet is unchanged throughout the history of the building. As noted above, the proposed reception hall will have a maximum of 120 occupants, though an assembly space with two exits could potentially accommodate up to 300 occupants, and historically the space was occupied by a lodge and a church with only one exit. Appellant believes that the existing parapet provides sufficient fire and life safety.

1010.1.1

Doors shall provide a clear opening width of 32”.

To retain the existing pair of 30” wide doors.

To retain the existing pair of 30” wide doors (see Item 9 note on First Floor Plan A0.03).

This main entry to the second floor of the building has been served by a pair of 30” wide doors for over 100 years. When both doors are open 90 degrees they provide a clear opening width of 55”. The doors have been serving assembly, office and retail uses for over 100 years. Continuing to use them in their current configuration does not reduce fire and life safety.

1010.1.1

Doors shall provide a clear opening width of 32”.

To retain the existing pair of 30” wide doors.

To retain the existing pair of 30” wide doors (see Item 10 note on First Floor Plan A0.03).

This secondary entry to the first floor of the building has been served by a pair of 30” wide doors for over 40 years. When both doors are open 90 degrees they provide a clear opening width of 55”. The doors have been serving retail uses for over 40 years. Continuing to use them in their current configuration does not reduce fire and life safety.