Appeal 34898
Appeal Summary
Status: DECISION RENDERED
Appeal ID: 34898
Submission Date: 7/16/25 12:05 PM
Hearing Date: 7/23/25
Case #: B-2
Appeal Type: Building
Project Type: commercial
Building/Business Name: American Property Management
Appeal Involves: Alteration of an existing structure
Proposed use: Gates
Project Address: 1020 SW Taylor St
Appellant Name: Ricky Granquist
LUR or Permit Application #: Permit 25-019210-CO
Stories: 8 Occupancy: B Construction Type: I-A
Fire Sprinklers: Yes - Yes
Plans Examiner/Inspector: David Bartley
Plan Submitted Option: pdf [File 1] [File 2]
Payment Option: electronic
Appeal Information Sheet
Appeal item 1
| Code Section | 1010.1.1 |
|---|---|
| Requires | Double doors/gates are required to have at least one leaf that is 32” width. Several of these gates are too small to comply with this requirement. |
| Code Modification or Alternate Requested | An exception to double doors/gates being required to have at least one leaf that is 32” width |
| Proposed Design | In swinging commercial ornamental iron double security gates 7' tall will be locked with drop rods in the open position while each storefront space is occupied. |
| Reason for alternative | The security gates are proposed to improve the safety of the space by closing off the alcoves to the public, while keeping visibility on the sidewalk. Our proposed design addresses building and occupant security concerns and will prevent unauthorized access and occupation of the alcove. The design allows for the gates to be locked/pinned in the open position with drop rods up against the building on either side of the entry way to achieve minimal loss in space. Lastly, the deadbolt will be master keyed which the buildings knox box for the fire department has access to. |
Appeal item 2
| Code Section | 1010.1.4, 1011.6 |
|---|---|
| Requires | A landing is required at each stair and door. The location of gates 4 & 6 does not allow for the required landing. An appeal is required to have the gate in this position. |
| Code Modification or Alternate Requested | An exception to the requirement of a landing being required at each stair and door. |
| Proposed Design | The landing leading to the storefront doors 4 & 6 will be exactly what it was when the building was built. Gates will be pinned in the open position while each storefront is occupied. |
| Reason for alternative | The building was built in 1926 per Portland Maps and the design of the building at these 2 storefronts didn't allow for landings on both sides of the step with the building built on the property line, the 2nd landing would be the sidewalk which is in the right-of-way. The security gates are proposed to improve the safety of the space by closing off the alcoves to the public, while keeping visibility on the sidewalk. Our proposed design addresses building and occupant security concerns and will prevent unauthorized access and occupation of the alcove. The design allows for the gates to be locked/pinned in the open position with drop rods up against the building on either side of the entry way to achieve minimal loss in space. Lastly, the deadbolt will be master keyed which the buildings knox box for the fire department has access to. |
Appeal item 3
| Code Section | 1010.1.7 |
|---|---|
| Requires | When two doors/gates are in a series, enough space is required between them to have 48 inches clear beyond the swing of one door (if they swing into the space between them). Clearance between each of the gates and adjacent door is too little. |
| Code Modification or Alternate Requested | An exception to the distance required between doors in a series to allow for the installation of a security gate as proposed. |
| Proposed Design | An out-swinging security gate is proposed at the east exit passageway alcove along SW 11th Ave. The existing depth of the alcove does not allow for the space required between two doors. The gate will be located as close to the property line as existing conditions allow in order to achieve the maximum distance between the existing door and the new gate. The gate will remain closed, but will have panic hardware and allow for egress at all times for the egress side. |
| Reason for alternative | The security gates are proposed to improve the safety of the space by closing off the alcoves to the public, while keeping visibility on the sidewalk. The proposed design addresses building and occupant security concerns and will prevent unauthorized access and occupation of the alcove. The existing conditions at the east & west exit alcove is constrained by the existing egress door and the front facade of the building. The proposed gate will have no other impact on the existing conditions. The proposed panic hardware will ensure that the doors remain safe for occupants exiting. There are also alternate routes that will provide egress out of the building. See attached the building floor plans to help. Reference similar appeal 33560, 33517, and 13017. |
Appeal Decision
"Item 1: Reduction of gate widths less than 32"" wide: Granted for all gates except Gate 6 provided the gates in the fully open and locked position do not reduce the access and egress width to less than the clear width at the door opening and the gates are openable from the inside without the use of a key or special knowledge or effort during periods that the space is occupied.
Hold for more information on Gate 6. Update detail 6/2 on Sheet 4 to demonstrate the location of the gates in the fully open and locked position.
Item 2: Reduced exterior landing at doors 4 and 6: Granted as proposed.
Item 3: Reduction of clearance at doors/gates in a series less than 48"": Granted as proposed for all gates except for Gate 3 and Gate 11. For Gates 3 and 11: Denied. Proposal does not provide equivalent fire safety."
Appellant may contact David Bartley (503-865-6529) with questions.
"For the item granted, 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, how to file a reconsideration, and appealing to the Building Code Board of Appeal, go to https://www.portland.gov/ppd/file-appeal/appeal-process or email PPDAppeals@portlandoregon.gov.
"