Appeal 34803

505.2

7' 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” (7'-0") and the other side has headroom of 6’-6” (6'-7").

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).

"Reconsideration text"
The original Appeal item is here separated into two separate Appeal items for each side of the mezzanine. At the west mezzanine, which has a 6’-7” ceiling height, new walls will be constructed to limit mezzanine area to the 195 sf area that is unobstructed by sprinkler pipes. Each partition will have a 30"x40" access panel for maintenance of plants and displays only at the remaining catwalk portion of the mezzanine. We will further add a sign at the top of the stairs that says low head height. This space will be used only by staff who are familiar with the head height restriction (see clouded notes on Mezzanine Plan A0.04).

The mezzanine had been in continuous use for many years as 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.

"Reconsideration text"
The remeasured ceiling height is 6'-7". This mezzanine will be used only by the master tenant of the building as an office for his reception/banquet business. It will be occupied only by persons who are familiar with the lower headroom. There will be no public access.
If this proposed design is not approved, Appellant respectfully requests that the Appeals Board offer guidance as to an acceptable alternative.

505.2

7' 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” (7'-0") and the other side has headroom of 6’-6” (6'-7").

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).

"Reconsideration text"
The original Appeal item is here separated into two separate Appeal items for each side of the mezzanine. The east mezzanine has a full 7'-0” ceiling. The lowest part of the sprinkler pipes are at 6'-4". ALTERNATIVE #1 - It is proposed to use only 233 sq/ft of the mezzanine as office space, partially obstructed by sprinkler pipes, to be used by staff only. Bright reflective foam padding will cover the sprinkler pipes. The additional catwalk surrounding the storefront will be used for display and plant maintenance only, and will be separated from the occupied portion of the mezzanine by a full height wall with a 30"x40" access panel. It is proposed that a sign be attached to the top riser of the stair leading to this mezzanine which states “Caution – Limited Headroom of 6’-4” Ahead” (see clouded notes on Mezzanine Plan A0.04). ALTERNATIVE #2 - If Alternative #1 is not granted, Appellant requests consideration of this second alternative, which is to have full height walls with access panels, limiting access to the 114 sf area that is unobstructed by sprinkler pipes (see clouded notes on Mezzanine Plan A0.04).

The mezzanine had been in continuous use for many years as 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.

"Reconsideration text"
The remeasured ceiling height is 7'-0". This mezzanine will be used only by the long term florist tenant of the building as an office for their business. This space will be only used by staff who are familiar with the head height restriction. There will be no public access.

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.

"Reconsideration text"
Measured from bottom stair riser to the inside face of closed doors, the landing is 42" long.

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.

"Reconsideration text"
The current 42" landing length is just 2" less than the code requirement (5%). Reconstructing the stair to turn 90 degrees and connect with the ground floor corridor would require reducing the already small ground floor retail space by 40% to 190 sf which is too small to lease. The economic impact is not only the construction but the long term loss of rent. Appellant believes that the reconstruction is not proportional to the 5% of landing length. Additionally, the lack of landing length is compensated for by the 6’ width of the landing, allowing multiple people to exit at once. This doorway and landing will serve as the second means of egress for the second floor reception hall. The primary access and egress will be via the new stair at the north side of the building and will meet current egress code requirements. The calculated number of occupants for the reception hall is 120 people which is far below the 499 occupants allowed to exit a second story building with two sets of egress stairs. If this proposed design is not approved, Appellant respectfully requests that the Appeals Board offer guidance as to an acceptable alternative.

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 6” 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).

"Reconsideration text"
It is proposed to add a concrete step outside the entry doors, 6" high x 12" deep x 66" wide, with a 2" wide painted yellow strip at the leading edge (see clouded 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.

"Reconsideration text"
Reconstructing the stair to turn 90 degrees and connect with the ground floor corridor would require reducing the already small ground floor retail space by 40% to 190 sf which is too small to lease. The economic impact is not only the construction but the long term loss of rent. Appellant believes that the reconstruction is not proportional to the benefit. This doorway and landing will serve as the second means of egress for the second floor reception hall. The primary access and egress will be via the new stair at the north side of the building and will meet current egress code requirements. The calculated number of occupants for the reception hall is 120 people which is far below the 499 occupants allowed to exit a second story building with two sets of egress stairs. If this proposed design is not approved, Appellant respectfully requests that the Appeals Board offer guidance as to an acceptable alternative.