Loading...
31B-253 33 Elm Prelim Mtg 2017 322 King Street West, Third Floor, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5V 1J2 telephone 416.977.5104 www.kpmb.com page 1 of 4 Meeting Summary Date 03 November 2017 Project Smith College Alumnae House Place Smith College, Facilities Management Project No. 1706 Alumnae House Renovation, Code Compliance Meeting Attendees Organization Lou Hausbrouck, Building Commissioner [LH] City of Northampton, Building Department Duane Nichols, Fire Chief [DN] City of Northampton, Fire Rescue Gary Hartwell, Project Manager [GH] Smith College, Facilities Management Phil Sherman, Code Consultant [PS] Phil Sherman P.E. Ken Wieber Jr., Principal [KW] AltieriSeborWieber David Poloway, Project Architect [DP] KPMB Architects Notes by: Chris Couse, Principal [CC] KPMB Architects Distribute to: All Present The following is intended to be an accurate recording of the discussions of the meeting. It is the responsibility of those present to identify any inaccuracy or omissions. These corrections should be noted to the recorder within seven (7) days of the issuance of these minutes. If no comments are provided in writing within this time frame, the minutes will be considered as accepted as recorded. Action by: 00 Introduction 01 02 - CC introduced the project and described the general scope of renovations and architectural approach. Key interventions include construction of new egress stairs within the envelope of the building as well as new accessibility features including an elevator while respecting the heritage and exterior and retaining principal original interior public spaces. CC noted that the construction type is interpreted as IIIB. - CC noted that Alumnae House is within the Elm Street Historic District and is identified as a Principal heritage structure within the District guidelines. The building is also on the state Inventory of Historic Places and is within the Historic Downtown District boundary (National Register of Historic Places). The historic provisions in the IEBC apply to Alumnae House. As an historic property, the renovation project is not required to meet the US DOE Building Energy Code. INFO INFO Meeting Summary – Code Compliance Meeting 03 November 2017 page 2 of 4 01 Change of Use 01 - PS noted that the scheme involves a minor change of use at the Lower Level (grade level at rear) where the existing kitchen at this level is being removed and offices are proposed. It was noted the area of this space is significantly less than 10% of the total area of the existing building and that this would meet one of the considerations for a minor variance to ignore this as a change requiring a formal application. It was further noted that the existing building is a mix of A and B occupancies and the propose will remain so. Finally, it was noted that the replacement of the existing Lower Level kitchen by office space represents a reduction in the hazard load in the building. LH felt that the proposed minor occupancy change did not require formal resolution. INFO 02 Building Height 01 02 - PS noted that the building is interpreted as a three storey structure because of the proximity of the average grade elevation to the First Floor (entrance level of Elm Street). This means that the floor level below (designated as ‘Lower Level’ for the project) is a Basement. Although the Lower Level (Basement) is at grade at the rear of the building, the mechanical room below this level is technically a sub-basement. However, this space represents a minor component of the overall building area (~800 SF versus a total GFA of 30,000 SF) and has a low occupancy. In addition, a new egress stair to grade is being added as part of the project. Given the low occupancy of the mechanical room, LH felt that a single compliant exit stair from this area could be acceptable under an alternative compliance scenario. The addition of the proposed compliant exit stair permits the removal of the existing non-compliant stair down to this level from the Lower Level. INFO INFO 03 Egress 01 02 - PS noted that stairs 1 and 8 from the Lower Level to the First Floor are required to be fire separated because of the egress path from Stair 7 that crosses the First Floor. In the case of Stair 1, the separation is at the Lower Level; in the case of the latter stair, the separation is at the First Floor. It was noted that this should be acceptable based on the heritage status of the existing building. - PS noted that egress to the exterior from Stair No. 7 is through the First Floor public area with a somewhat compromised line- of-sight relationship between the door from the stair and the door to grade (main entrance door). It was suggested that the line-of-sight relationship should be to the inner vestibule door and that prominent egress signage be provided to highlight the destination for those egressing through the First Floor from this stair. A compliance alternative submission will be required to support this strategy. INFO KPMB Meeting Summary – Code Compliance Meeting 03 November 2017 page 3 of 4 04 Accessibility 01 02 03 - It was noted that the accessibility requirements of both the ADA and 521 CMR must be met unless a variance is obtained. Variances to 521 CMR based on heritage issues require an application to the State. - It was noted that accessible egress requirements do not apply to existing buildings even with full 521 CMR upgrades. - It was noted by CC that the requirement for barrier-free WCs has been addressed by providing unisex toilet rooms at three levels. This strategy is permitted by right under 521 CMR. LH noted that the current Plumbing Code contains specific requirements for unisex toilet rooms. INFO INFO INFO 05 Principal Entrance / Address for First Responders 01 - DN enquired where the principal entrance of the building is considered to be. It was noted that this would logically be the existing main entrance from Elm Street which corresponds with the building’s address: 33 Elm Street. It was noted that Fire Alarm System annunciator panel should be located just inside this entrance (ideally on the west wall of the entrance vestibule). INFO 06 Fire Department Connection 01 - KW advised that the FDC connection had not yet been established. KW noted that the incoming water line from Elm Street enters the Lower Level under the Conference Hall wing of the building and that it would be advantageous for the FDC connection to be close to this area. It was proposed that the connection be located on the east wall of the Conference Hall where it would be visible from the main entrance. INFO 07 Basement Mechanical Room Air Intake Location 01 - KW noted that, as currently proposed, the location of the air intake for the air handlers at this level will be from a new areaway located adjacent to three former window openings that are being enlarged vertically to accommodate new intake louvers. The north-most of these louvers is within 7’ of the south wall of the existing single-storey Stoddard Hall ‘Link’ structure. This proximity appears to contravene 2015 IMC section 401.4.1 (intakes to be not less than 10’ from other buildings on same lot). It was suggested that the Link be divided such that the west part becomes a separate interstitial fire compartment not contiguous with either Stoddard Hall or Alumnae House. The south wall would also needs to be renovated to create a rated fire separation from the exterior to address the exposure issue. A compliance alternative pertaining to this condition will be submitted by the consultants. KPMB Meeting Summary – Code Compliance Meeting 03 November 2017 page 4 of 4 08 Elm Street Historic District Commission 01 - A review by the Commission will be required. LH advised that the most expeditious way to arrange this in advance of submitting a building permit application would be to submit an application for a zoning interpretation ($30 fee) which will produce the required referral. Variances related to Elm Street District exceptions need to be presented along with the description of the proposed project. Presentation materials illustrating the existing condition of the building versus the proposed alterations will be needed. A determination of ‘Non- applicability’ to validate changes to the building would be a suitable strategy. LH can provide examples of recent proposals to illustrate successful approaches. KPMB SMITH COLL. END OF MEETING MINUTES