Appeal 33412
Appeal Summary
Status: Decision Rendered
Appeal ID: 33412
Submission Date: 7/31/24 3:21 PM
Hearing Date: 8/7/24
Case #: B-004
Appeal Type: Building
Project Type: commercial
Building/Business Name: SPARIUM LLC
Appeal Involves: Correction of a violation
Proposed use: R-3 Transient Lodging
Project Address: 2018 SE 6th Avenue
Appellant Name: Bryce Allison
LUR or Permit Application #: Permit 24-007647-CO
Stories: 2 Occupancy: R-3 Construction Type: V-B
Fire Sprinklers: Yes - NFPA 13D throughout
Plans Examiner/Inspector: Renay Butts
Plan Submitted Option: pdf [File 1] [File 2] [File 3]
Payment Option: electronic
Appeal Information Sheet
Appeal item 1
| Code Section | OSSC Section 1010.1.1 Size of Doors (Doors, Gates and Turnstiles)  | 
|---|---|
| Requires | APPEAL #1 / 3 The required capacity of each door opening shall be sufficient for the occupant load thereof and shall provide a minimum clear opening width of 32 inches (813 mm). The clear opening width of doorways with swinging doors shall be measured between the face of the door and the stop, with the door open 90 degrees (1.57 rad). Where this section requires a minimum clear opening width of 32 inches (813 mm) and a door opening includes two door leaves without a mullion, one leaf shall provide a minimum clear opening width of 32 inches (813 mm). In Group I-2, doors serving as means of egress doors where used for the movement of beds shall provide a minimum clear opening width of 41 ½” inches (1054 mm). The minimum clear opening height of doors shall be not less than 80 inches (2032 mm).  | 
| Code Modification or Alternate Requested | The appeal request is to permit the historic dwelling unit entry door to remain at the existing width of 29.5 inches clear measured between the face of the door and the stop with the door open 90 degrees, instead of meeting the minimum clear opening width of 32 inches per Section 1010.1.1.  | 
| Proposed Design | The width of the historic dwelling unit entry door is proposed to remain as existing.  | 
| Reason for alternative | Increasing the width of the historic dwelling unit entry door and transom window above, is a significant additional expense. Widening the door would require removal of both interior and exterior finishes including historic trim profiles, demo, new structural framing members, new door/frame and transom window, etc., etc. The current owner is committed to doing their part to make the building safer but unfortunately providing a fully code compliant door opening width is prohibitively expensive and will potentially damage the historic fabric of the building.  | 
Appeal item 2
| Code Section | OSSC Section 1011.2 Width and Capacity (Stairways) Exception 1.  | 
|---|---|
| Requires | APPEAL #2 / 3 The required capacity of stairways shall be determined as specified in Section 1005.1, but the minimum width shall be not less than 44 inches (1118 mm). See Section 1009.3 for accessible means of egress stairways. Exception 1:  | 
| Code Modification or Alternate Requested | The appeal request is to permit the historic interior stairway to remain at the existing width of 34 inches, instead of meeting the required width of not less than 36 inches per Section 1011.2 Exception 1.  | 
| Proposed Design | The width of the historic stairway is proposed to remain as existing, a new handrail will be added on one side of the stair. Both the lower and upper runs of the stairway, and all but 2 of 14 total treads, meet the required width of not less than 36 inches.  | 
| Reason for alternative | Due to the layout of the existing historic building, increasing the stair width is technically infeasible. Widening the stairway would require an extensive remodel to the entry/hall, adjacent ground floor bedroom, upper floor hallway, upper floor bedrooms, etc., etc. The current owner is committed to doing their part to make the historic building safer but unfortunately providing a fully code compliant stairway is prohibitively expensive and will potentially damage the historic fabric of the building. If maintaining the existing stairway width is not possible, then the upper floors would be rendered unusable and the structure would need to be converted to an industrial, retail or office use based on current IG-1 zoning, since the property has permanently lost nonconforming rights to Household Living and cannot be converted back to a multi-family home. (Refer to attached existing historic stairway plans & section diagrams)  | 
Appeal item 3
| Code Section | OSSC Section 1015.3 Height. Exception 1.  | 
|---|---|
| Requires | APPEAL #3 / 3 Required guards shall be not less than 42 inches (1067 mm) high, measured vertically as follows: 
 Exception 1:  | 
| Code Modification or Alternate Requested | The appeal request is to permit the historic interior stairway guardrail to remain at the existing height of 28 inches, instead of meeting the required height of not less than 36 inches per Section 1015.3 Height. Exception 1.  | 
| Proposed Design | The height of the historic interior stairway guardrail is proposed to remain as existing, a new handrail will be added on one side of the stair.  | 
| Reason for alternative | Increasing the height of the historic interior stairway guardrail, is a significant additional expense. The current owner is committed to doing their part to make the historic building safer but unfortunately providing a fully code compliant stairway guardrail is prohibitively expensive and will potentially damage the historic fabric of the building. (Refer to attached existing historic stairway plans & section diagrams)  | 
Appeal Decision
"1)  Reduction in egress door clear width to 29.5"": Granted as proposed.
2)  Reduction in stair clear width to 34"": Granted as proposed.
3)  Reduction in guardrail height to 28"":  Granted as proposed."
"The Administrative Appeal Board finds that the information submitted by the appellant demonstrates that the approved modifications or alternate methods are consistent with the intent of the code; do not lessen health, safety, accessibility, life, fire safety or structural requirements; and that special conditions unique to this project make strict application of those code sections impractical.
Pursuant to City Code Chapter 24.10, you may appeal this decision to the Building Code Board of Appeal within 90 calendar days of the date this decision is published. For information on the appeals process, go to www.portlandoregon.gov/bds/appealsinfo, call (503) 823-6251 or come to the Development Services Center."