Appeal 9910

505.1;1009.5;1009.2;1012.6

505.1 General.
. . . The clear height above and below the mezzanine floor construction shall not be less than 7 feet (2134 mm).

1009.5 Stairway landings.
There shall be a floor or landing at the top and bottom of each stairway. The width of landings shall not be less than the width of stairways they serve. Every landing shall have a minimum dimension measured in the direction of travel equal to the width of the stairway.

1009.2 Headroom.
Stairways shall have a minimum head room clearance of 80 inches (2032 mm) measured vertically from a line connecting the edge of the nosings. Such headroom shall be continuous above the stairway to the point where the line intersects the landing below, one tread depth beyond the bottom riser. The minimum clearance shall be maintained the full width of the stairway and landing.
1012.6 Handrail extensions.

. . . Where handrails are not continuous between flights, the handrails shall extend horizontally at least 12 inches (305 mm) beyond the top riser and continue to slope for the depth of one tread beyond the bottom riser. . . .

(Please see Partial Building Section, Mezzanine Floor Plan & Stair ES-4 Section)

The second floor framing extends over the existing mezzanine located between the first and second floors. The partial height mezzanine that remains will be used exclusively for mechanical equipment and will not be accessible by the general public or staff. Bottom of joist is approximately 5'-5" clear above finish floor (6’-5” B.O. Deck) over the entire mezzanine.

Option 1: The existing stair is non-compliant for headroom clearance at the top (3) risers, one side of the landing is non-compliant for depth, and the door is non-compliant for height. This allows controlled access at the top of the stair. All existing handrails remain.

Option 2: The existing stair is non-compliant for handrail extensions, minimum headroom clearance at the top (3) risers and landing (at the bottom riser). The existing handrails will remain but terminate at the foot of the stair. We will locate a door at the foot of the existing stair; the door will be compliant for size @ 3’-0”w x 6’-8”h but the landing and handrail @ the foot of the stair will be non-compliant. The existing bottom tread/riser of the stair lies directly under the edge of the existing mezzanine beam. In order to maintain the edge of that mezzanine (since the ceiling rises to over 15’-0” at that edge), the face of the door would abut the face of the existing bottom riser when closed which does not allow for a landing inside the stairway. However, locating the door in this position allows for the compliant 42” landing in the direction of egress when the door is opened mitigating the potential hazard of passing through a door at the top of the stair. The compliant door height allows one to stand upright while descending the stair without having to ‘bend’ through a door first and then navigate down stairs in the direction of egress.

Option 3: The existing stair is non-compliant for headroom clearance at the top (3) risers, and the door is non-compliant for height. However, it provides compliant landings at both sides of the door. All existing handrails remain.”

The alternative is required because the existing mezzanine is not currently ADA accessible. By extending the second floor over the mezzanine, the issue is mitigated by providing the same amount of square footage that is fully accessible. The mezzanine area left from the alterations is in a prime location for mechanical equipment. This space will be accessed through a locked door and proceeding up the existing stair—it will be used by maintenance personnel that are familiar with the layout and egress component. Locating the mechanical equipment in the mezzanine reduces the equipment required on the roof and contributes to the efficiency of the HVAC distribution system. The mechanical mezzanine will not be open to the general public or staff and will be accessed for maintenance only on a periodic basis.

705.11; 7-5.11.1

705.11.Parapets
Parapets shall be provided on exterior walls of building.

705.11.1 Parapet construction.
Parapets shall have the same fire-resistance rating as that required for the supporting wall, and on any side adjacent to a roof surface, shall have noncombustible faces for the uppermost 18 inches (457 mm), including counterflashing and coping materials.The height of the parapet shall not be less than 30 inches (762 mm) above the point where the roof surface and the wall intersect. Where the roof slopes toward a parapet at a slope greater than two units vertical in 12 units horizontal (16.7-percent slope), the parapet shall extend to the same height as any portion of the roof within a fire separation distance where protection of wall openings is required, but in no case shall the height be less than 30 inches (762 mm).

ITEM 2 – Firewall and Parapet at Property Line
Appeal Decision: “Denied. Proposal does not provide equivalent fire and life safety. Appellant may contact David Jones . . . for more information.” In the Life Safety Checksheet, David indicated that this would likely be an Appeal item and actually should have been dealt with during the change of occupancy for Phase I and had not been caught. In a phone conversation subsequent to this Appeal Decision he stated that what the Appeal Board would like to see a Maintenance Agreement recorded between the Witherspoon and Spalding Building Owners—that this issue is really a property line/shared responsibility issue that must be addressed. We have responded accordingly.

(Please see Second Floor Plan, Partial Building Section & Detail 4)
We propose that portions of the deteriorating roofing above the first floor spaces between gridline F & G be removed and replaced as along with all rotted framing, but the use of the adjacent building for partial structural support will remain the same. In order to assure mutual responsibility for the shared structural and roofing conditions and Code compliance in the future, a Maintenance Agreement between the owners of the building will be recorded with Multnomah County prior to Occupancy. The Spalding Building property management company is working with the owners and their legal counsel to work through the Agreement—however, due to ownership complications, it will take time to obtain signatures. Since this is the case and the construction schedule is extremely tight due to financing requirements, David Jones with BDS recommends that the owner of the Witherspoon Building obtain a letter in the interim from the Spalding Building indicating that they are in agreement in concept with the proposed Agreement—showing the Appeal Board that the process is moving forward and in turn, granting the appeal so construction can commence. (Please see attached letter from the property management company for the Spalding Building.)

The existing one story roof framing over the rooms on the first floor between gridlines 'F' & 'G' appears to be partially supported by the adjacent building with a ledger (detail 4) at the property line. There is no parapet at the property line since it abuts the existing multi-story masonry building.

With the Maintenance Agreement in place, both owners are held responsible for shared building elements. Both the Witherspoon and the adjacent building along gridline ‘G’ are masonry, with a minimum fire-resistance rating of at least 1 hour (per IBC Table 720.1(2) 1-1.2). With the Agreement in place, any potential compromise threatening the integrity of either building along the property line will be avoided. The proposed upgrade to the existing roof assembly benefits the building in its replacement of deteriorating structural members, mitigation of water penetration, and addition of insulation.