Appeal 7117

OSSC 2007 1013

Guardrails required to be 42" high at open sided walking surfaces that are more than 30" above the grade below.

See attached photos of Porch guardrail (wall). The intent is to leave the
guardrail as is. The guardrail (wall) is 17" thick, 23" high at the lowest point and 36" high at the highest point.

The new owner, Preston Roth, is also the manager and owner of the B office occupancy that will relocate to this building. Neither the public nor clients come to the offices of Home Instead for any purpose. Mr. Roth will have 6 FTEs, including himself, located at this office. The employees will be very familiar with the building conditions.

The building is a 1916 Craftsman Style bungalow of considerable historic integrity. Mr. Roth wishes to retain the historic elements of the main facade. The Sandy Boulevard corridor represents an excellent time capsule of architectural styles and land use changes over a hundred year period. This Craftsman Bungalow contrasts nicely with the modern multi story mixed use condominium project just two blocks west, and there are numerous examples of other styles and other functions in between. Preserving the integrity of this structure has merit. The 17" thickness of the guardrail (wall) adds extra safety to its intended function, even though it is deficient in height. The adjacent earth grade is 36" below, only 6" greater than the maximum unprotected grade allowed.

Mr. Roth readily admits that the specific conditions of building use and ownership are of primary consideration in this appeal. As owner and tenant he maintains valuable oversight and control of the premises and activities. He recognizes that a change in tenancy and/or use, as well as a change in ownership of his property will require this Appeal and Change of Occupancy to be revisited.

(West Exterior Wall) OSSC 2007 704.8, 704.5 Table 720.1(2)#16, 704.2

Table 704.8 Maximum Area of Exterior Wall Openings - (Unprotected greater than 5', less than 10') 10% of wall area allowed. 704.5 Fire Resistance ratings. - "....fire-resistance rating of exterior walls with a fire separation distance of greater than 5' shall be rated for exposure to fire from the inside." 1 Hr Rating required as a result of the location adjacent to west property line, occupancy use and construction type. 704.2 Projections - Overhang projection allowed up to 31-4" of the property line according to Plan Reviewer, Jerry Englehardt.

See attached drawings for location of building, overhang, and building on adjacent property line. Appellant proposes no changes to the existing structure, but adds a heat detector under the eaves (over one unprotected opening). The heat detector will be tied to a recently installed alarm system that will provide advance warning protection from a potential fire and notification. The system is monitored 24 hours per day. The detector will detect a 135°F heat source and a rate of rise of 15°F in 60 seconds within 20' of the wall/opening. The existing exterior west wall consists of 4 1/4" exposed ship lap wood siding on wood sheathing over 2 x 4 studs, 16" oc. with gypsum plaster on wood lath at the interior. FLEx Guide UBC/1/#1 Page 15, Item g. states: " a wood stud wall assembly with gypsum or lime plaster on hand split or sawn wooden lath obtains a one-half (1/2) hour fire-resistive rating." The west wall consists of 17% of the wall area as unprotected openings.

The building is a 1916 Craftsman Style house of considerable historic integrity. The new owner, Preston Roth, is also the manager and owner of the B office occupancy that will relocate to this building. Mr. Roth's business, Home Instead, assigns home care providers to serve clients in the client's home. Neither the public nor clients come to the offices of Home Instead for any purpose. Mr. Roth will have 6 FTEs, including himself, located at this office. Although a B office occupancy is assigned by the City of Portland Title 24.85 and FLEx Guide - UBC/1/#1 (Fire and Life-Safety Guide for Existing Buildings) as a higher hazard classification (3) than the previous residential use (1), in fact the hazard will be equal to or less than the residential use, because of the limited occupant load and the owner/manager on the premises. If this conclusion that the proposed specific use is not a higher hazard, then it seems reasonable on the basis of the two above code sections not to require compliance to the current code.

Additionally, the attached drawings demonstrate the limited fire exposure to the adjacent property. The open triangular piece of property to the northwest of the wall in question can't be built upon for all practical purposes, without tearing down the existing structure and rebuilding. (See photos). Thus, in this area, the effect of the adjacent property line (5'-3 1/2" from the building) is not as relevant as the fact of the open space beyond it. The attic dormer is also an additional two more feet away from the property line than the first floor, thus a total of 7'-3" to the property line.

It is only in the area of the southwest 11' of the existing building that the one unprotected opening, fire rating of the wall, and extent of the overhang have an impact.

The interior of the west wall retains all the historic mouldings, trim, coved ceilings, etc. of the original structure. Any change would entail substantial expense and detract from the historic integrity.

The proposed Heat Detector under the eaves will provide adequate alarm in the event of a fire, mitigating the eaves proximity to the adjacent property line and the percent of openings in the exterior wall.

Mr. Roth readily admits that the specific conditions of building use and ownership are of primary consideration in this appeal. As owner and tenant he maintains valuable oversight and control of the premises. He recognizes that a change in tenancy and/or use, as well as a change in ownership of his property, or change in activity on the adjacent west property will require this Appeal and Change of Occupancy to be revisited.

OSSC 2007 1009

Stair width: 36" (for occupant load under consideration). Stair riser: 7" maximum. Stair tread 11".

See previously attached Main Floor, Basement & Attic Plans). There are two interior stairs (ST-A & ST-B) and two exterior stairs (ST-EX2 & ST-EX3 ) that do not comply with Section 1009. Two other exterior stairs (ST-EX1 & ST-EX4 ) do comply.

Exterior Stair (ST-EX2 ) will be vacated with a planter box built at the top two steps outside Door #2. Door #2 will be secured in place as non functional with a rail across the opening, preventing it from being opened. A sign will appear above Doors #2 & 3 stating: 'THIS IS NOT AN EXIT'. (Note: Door #1 and Stair (ST-EX1) serve as the exit system).

Interior Stairs (ST-A & ST-B) will remain as is except for the addition of handrails on one side at the Attic stair and handrail and guardrail at the Basement stair. Stair (ST-A) currently has 7 1/4" risers, 9" treads, 2'8" width. Stair (ST-B) currently has 7" risers, 9 1/4" treads, 2'8" width. A sign will be placed at the foot of the Basement Stair stating: 'THIS IS NOT AN EXIT'. (Code compliant Basement exiting is provided by an existing exterior stair (ST_EX4) directly to grade.

Exterior Stair (ST-EX3) will remain as is except for the addition of handrail and guardrail on one side. A sign stating 'THIS IS NOT AN EXIT' will be placed above Door #4. Stair (ST-EX3) currently has 7 1/4" risers, 9" treads, 3'4" width.

The new owner, Preston Roth, is also the manager and owner of the B office occupancy that will relocate to this building. Neither the public nor clients come to the offices of Home Instead for any purpose. Mr. Roth will have 6 FTEs, including himself, located at this office. The employees will be very familiar with the building conditions.

Mr. Roth intends to have two individuals located in the upstairs attic office, thus an extremely minimal occupant load using the Attic Stair. He will control internal access to the Basement by a locked door and be the sole user of the Basement Stair. Contractors providing service for the Water Heater, HVAC, telephone and alarm equipment will use the existing exterior stair on the south side of the building (ST-EX4).

Section 3403.4 pertains to existing interior stairs not requiring compliance. Both of these interior stairs are defined by walls, doorways, and structural bearing elements. Extending the run of the Attic Stair impacts the headroom clearance of the stair below. It would be extremely impractical to attempt to bring the stairs into compliance for rise, run, and width. Considering the controlled and limited use for these stairs, modification should not be required.

Similarly, the Exterior Stair at (ST-EX3) will be seldom used. The bottom tread and riser of this stair is cast in place concrete, an extension of part of the basement wall. It would be difficult to redesign this stair run to comply without considerable concrete demolition.

Mr. Roth readily admits that the specific conditions of building use and ownership are of primary consideration in this appeal. As owner and tenant he maintains valuable oversight and control of the premises. He recognizes that a change in tenancy and/or use, as well as a change in ownership of his property will require this Appeal and Change of Occupancy to be revisited.

OSSC 2007 1008.1.4

Door threshold is to be limited to 0.5".

The main entrance/exit door #1 has an extended threshold from 2 x wood, typical of most exterior thresholds of Craftsman Style houses of the early 20th century. Thus the threshold is 1 1/2" above the original adjacent porch deck on the exterior. The interior floor finishes flush with the top of the threshold. The door swings in, not over the threshold. The intention is to leave the threshold in place and not alter the porch deck, but place graphic, color and tactile warnings at the threshold. The threshold will be painted a strong contrasting color and will have permanent lettering on it stating: 'WATCH YOUR STEP'. A permanently adhered 3' x 3'-6" brightly colored vinyl sheet with raised bumps will be place on the porch deck adjacent to the door. On the inside, at the bottom edge of the door, the same contrasting lettering, 'WATCH YOUR STEP' will be placed. This same situation exists at the door #4 which is proposed to have minimal use. Nevertheless the same graphic, color and tactile warnings will be placed at that threshold. Additionally, this door is posted with 'THIS IS NOT AN EXIT'.

The new owner, Preston Roth, is also the manager and owner of the B office occupancy that will relocate to this building. Neither the public nor clients come to the offices of Home Instead for any purpose. Mr. Roth will have 6 FTEs, including himself, located at this office. The employees will be very familiar with the building conditions.

It is impractical to raise the porch floor to the threshold height and conflicts with historic integrity of the structure. The proposed graphic, color and tactile warnings should be more than adequate for those employees entering and leaving the building.

Mr. Roth readily admits that the specific conditions of building use and ownership are of primary consideration in this appeal. As owner and tenant he maintains valuable oversight and control of the premises. He recognizes that a change in tenancy and/or use, as well as a change in ownership of his property will require this Appeal and Change of Occupancy to be revisited.

City of Portland Title 24.85

".... a building undergoing a change of occupancy to a higher relative hazard classification must be upgraded for seismic loading." Structural Checksheet by Eric Thomas indicates the following items must be addressed: anchoring the foundation for lateral loads, removing or bracing existing chimneys, and bracing/strapping the gas water heater.

The Appellant proposes to brace the existing chimneys and brace the existing gas water heater. The Appellant wishes to leave the foundation anchoring as is.

The building is a 1916 Craftsman Style house of considerable historic integrity. The new owner, Preston Roth, is also the manager and owner of the B office occupancy that will relocate to this building. Mr. Roth's business, Home Instead, assigns home care providers to serve clients in the client's home. Neither the public nor clients come to the offices of Home Instead for any purpose. Mr. Roth will have 6 FTEs, including himself, located at this office. Although a B occupancy is assigned by the City of Portland Title 24.85 and FLEx Guide - UBC/11#1 (Fire and Life-Safety Guide for Existing Buildings) as a higher hazard classification (3) than the previous residential use (1), in fact the hazard will be equal to or less than the residential use, because of the limited occupant load and the presence of the building owner and office owner/manager on the premises. If this conclusion that the proposed specific use is not a higher hazard, then it seems reasonable on the basis of the two above code sections not to require compliance to the current code.

Retrofitting foundation anchors will be prohibitively costly as about half of the basement has furred perimeter gwb walls and plaster and/or gypsum wallboard ceilings.

Mr. Roth readily admits that the conditions of building use and ownership are of primary consideration in this appeal. As owner and tenant he maintains valuable oversight and control of the premises. He recognizes that a change in tenancy and/or use, as well as a change in ownership of his property will require this Appeal and Change of Occupancy to be revisited.