Appeal 8303

1004.8 Outdoor Area, 1021 Exit from Stories, Table 1021.2 Stories with One Exit

1004.8 Outdoor Areas
“Yards, patios, courts and similar outdoor areas accessible to and usable by the building occupants shall be provided with means of egress as required by this chapter. The occupant load of such outdoor areas shall be assigned by the building official in accordance with the anticipated use.”

1021 Exits from Stories
For the purpose of this chapter, occupied roofs shall be provided with exits as required for stories.

Table 1021.2 Stories with One Exit
Requires a second exit for “Stories” above the third floor.

The proposed design would include an occupied roof over the third floor for use of up to 49 occupants (residents and/or restaurant patrons), with one exterior exit stair in conjunction with Maximum Occupant Load Signage and limiting the usable area of the roof.

The proposed design includes an occupiable rooftop area that is only 735sf (15sf per occupant x 49 occupants) and the travel distance required to reach the exterior exit stair from the most remote point is only 30’-4”.

The proposal includes installing an NFPA 13 sprinkler system in the upper floors of the building (in lieu of Type 13R).

The proposed design includes providing Type V-A construction throughout (in lieu of Type V-B), if deemed necessary by the appeal board.

See attached Appeal Exhibit 1.

Reason for Alternate:
The alternate is required because it seems excessive to provide 2 stairs to the roof, when a second stair is not required for any of the other uses or stories in the building, and the site and footprint of the building is very small.

Equivalent Safety:
Code would allow a much bigger building with an occupied roof with an occupant load of up to 500 people, over the third floor as a Type V-B (non-rated) building with NFPA 13 sprinklers on the first floor and NFPA 13R sprinklers on the upper 2 floors IF a second exit was provided from the occupied roof.

In lieu of providing a 2nd exit from the roof, we are proposing the following 3 alternate methods:
limit the occupied roof area to an occupant load of 49
upgrade the sprinkler system to NFPA 13 on the upper 2 floors
upgrade the construction type to Type V-A (fire-rated) construction throughout the building (if deemed necessary by the appeal board)

1026.4 Side Yards, Ch. 2 Definition of Court

1026.4 Side yards states: “The open areas adjoining exterior exit ramps or stairways shall be either yards, courts or public ways; the remaining sides are permitted to be enclosed by exterior walls of the building.”

Chapter 2 Definitions states: “Court. An open uncovered space, unobstructed from the ground to the sky, bounded on three or more sides by exterior building walls or other enclosing devices.

The proposed building is equipped throughout with an automatic sprinkler system per NFPA 13 and has an exterior stair that empties to a egress court that is 44” or greater in width from face of building to property line (or 5’-0” +/- to neighbor’s building) prior to entering the public way. The building overhangs a limited portion of the egress court over 10’-0” above grade. The egress court is open from the ground to the sky for an initial distance of 7’-4” and a width of 5’-0” +/- and then for a distance beyond of 11’-4” and a width of 2’-4” +/-.

See attached Appeal Exhibit 2

2006 IBC code commentary section 1023.4 (page 10-122), corresponding to 2010 OSSC 1026.4 states “This section simply specifies the type of areas that the exterior opening of the exterior ramp or stair is to adjoin. These open spaces will enable the smoke to dissipate from the exterior ramp or stairway so it will be usable as a required exit. See Section 1023.3 for a discussion of the opening requirements.”

The proposed open space (7-4"’ L x 5’ W) adjoining the exterior stairway enables smoke to dissipate and complies with OSSC 1026.4.

2006 IBC code commentary definition of a court (page 2-4) states “Though not specifically identified in the definition, the provisions in the code for courts are only applicable to those areas created by the arrangement of the exterior walls and used to provide natural light or ventilation.”

Based on the above, for a court to be considered obstructed by code, natural lighting or ventilation would need to be blocked. The proposed design is unobstructed from ground to the sky and blocks neither natural lighting nor ventilation, complying with the code definition of a Court.

The appeal is to confirm that the proposed egress court complies with section 1026.4 and the Chapter 2 definition of a court and therefore the building overhang is allowed.

705.8.2, 706.6.1

705.8.2 Protected openings states: “Where openings are required to be protected, fire doors and fire shutters shall comply with Section 715.4 and fire window assemblies shall comply with Section 715.5.

Exception: Opening protectives are not required where the building is equipped throughout with an automatic sprinkler system in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1 and the exterior openings are protected by a water curtain using automatic sprinklers approved for that use.”

705.8.6.1 Vertical exposure for buildings on the same lot states "For buildings on the same lot, opening protectives having a fire protection rating of not less than 3/4 hour shall be provided in every opening that is less than 15 feet vertically above the roof of an adjacent building or structure based on assuming an imaginary line between them. The opening protectives are required where the distance between the buildings or structures is less than 15 feet."

The proposed building is equipped throughout with an NFPA 13 automatic sprinkler system and has non-rated, operable windows protected by a water curtain where fire-rated windows would otherwise be required.

The proposed design has (2) non-rated, operable windows (marked #3 and #4, on exhibit 3B) that are located within the 15 feet zone above the adjacent existing building roof that are protected by a water curtain.

Proposed windows #3, 4, and 5 (exhibit 3B) amount to less than 10% openings in that west facade at the third story. Windows in the proposed west elevation are 25' +/- from the actual western property line which is in turn another 25' to the center of the public right-of-way to the west (total 50 +/- from opening to center of R-O-W).

The proposed design utilizes the 705.8.2 exception. See Appeal Exhibits 3a & 3b.

The alternate is required to maintain the consistency & quality of the design. Fire windows would not match the majority of the windows in the proposed design due to a difference in the color of the glass (“yellow” tinted) and the material and color of the window frame (steel). The majority of the windows will be non-steel material and will have clear glass. The proposal otherwise helps eliminate large windowless exterior walls and brings natural light into the proposed units.

Furthermore, from a life safety and fire protection perspective, there is no difference between two buildings that are on the same lot or on separate lots.

The appeal is to confirm that protecting the non-rated, operable windows by water curtain complies with the 705.8.2 exception and that fire windows are therefore not required.