Appeal 33604

OSSC 302.1

302.1 General. The provisions of this chapter shall control the classification of all buildings and structures as to occupancy and use. Different classifications of occupancy and use represent varying levels of hazard and risk to building occupants and adjacent properties.

To establish most recent permitted (1983-115366-CO) occupancies as M, with B, S-1 & F-1 as indicated.

Previous Uses within building: Since the mid-1990s until recently, this building has housed a screen printing business - DC Custom Silk Screening. However, the most recent Building Permit (1983-115366-CO) establishes the building’s use as a piano store. This permit’s scope of work (which showed a B-2 Occupancy) was to infill a portion of the south-facing exterior windows with reinforced CMU block. Apparently only a wall Infill detail was required by the city for this permit, as no floor plan resulted from my BDS records request. So to understand how the building was used at this time, I was able to interview the current property seller, who owned the screen printing business and who was an employee of the piano store (Interstate Pianos) prior to her building and business ownership. Interstate Pianos was strictly a dealer / service provider for player pianos only – so mostly a business to business entity – selling to restaurants, places of amusement, etc. The attached “Existing Floor Plan – Interstate Piano” indicates the uses within the building at that time. The attached photos and “Photo Locations Plan” support the seller’s claims – especially considering the unfinished, rough nature of the back-of-house portion (west half) of building. Also the fact that this permit was to infill the windows on the west end of the south exterior elevation (facing N. Shaver St.) further supports the uses as demonstrated on the plan.

The reason for this appeal is to establish the aforementioned occupancies and occupant loads – as indicate on the “Existing Floor Plan – Interstate Piano” attached. This will then support Appeal #2, which follows.

OSSC 3405.6.1

3405.6.1 Compliance A change of occupancy shall not be made in any building unless that building is made to comply with the new construction requirements of this code for the use or occupancy. Changes of occupancy in a building or portion thereof shall be such that the existing building is not less compliant with the provisions of this code than the existing building or structure was prior to the change. Subject to the approval of the building official, changes of occupancy shall be permitted without complying with all of the requirements of this code for the new occupancy, provided that the new occupancy is not more hazardous, based on life and fire risk, than the existing occupancy.

To allow the proposed Change of Occupancy - without complying with all of the requirements of this code for the new occupancy.

The proposed design is to NOT alter the following (3) existing conditions:

1. The Existing Floor Surface Condition: See photo #7 & plans. The floor slope is approx. 7-1/2” (seven and ½ inches) vertical and approx. 7’-6” horizontal, making a slope of one unit vertical in 12 units horizontal. By today’s code (OSSC 1003.5), where the slope is greater than of one unit vertical in 20 units horizontal, ramps compiling with Section 1012 shall be used.
2. The 2-HR West Wall Parapet Condition: The TOP of the west wall parapet (located at the top of the 2-hour wall at the West property line) is horizontal (level). The roof slopes down to the north, so at the South end, the roof surface is 12” below the top of the parapet and at the North end, the roof surface is 18” below the top of the parapet. By today’s code (OSSC 705.11.1) the parapet is to be at least 30” above roof surface.
3. The window in 2-HR West Wall: There is a 56” wide x 41” tall, steel-framed, divided, window with wire glass in this wall (on West Wall of Storage 117 – see plan). The window is very similar to the window seen in Photo #8 (north wall of Storage 118). By today’s code (OSSC Table 705.8), widows, unprotected or protected, are not permitted.

This appeal is necessary to show that the proposed occupancy is NOT more hazardous (based on life and fire risk) than the existing occupancy; for the following reasons:

1. The proposed occupancy (Rose City Plumbing - occupancy load: 26) has an occupant load equal to or less than the existing occupancy (Interstate Piano - occupant load: 29) - see attached plans.
2. Title 24.85, table 24-85-A shows that a “B” occupancy and an “M” occupancy have the same relative hazard classification, as dose an “F-1” occupancy and an “S-1” occupancy.

Therefore, the (3) existing conditions outlined in the section above should not have to be modified to current code.